in the Interest of A. J. R., a Child, 13-15-00545-CV

Adan Acuna, the biological father, filed a bill of review seeking to set aside a prior judgment in the child’s case.
On October 27, 2015, the trial court granted Acuna’s bill of review and ordered the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) to include Acuna as the biological father and give him process.
The child-appellant, A.J.R., attempted to appeal the October 27 order to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals.
The appellate clerk notified the parties that the October 27 order appeared nonfinal and warned the appeal could be dismissed.
Appellant moved to abate the appeal and asked the court to allow a trial-court clarification hearing regarding finality of the order.
The appellate court concluded the order granting the bill of review did not dispose of the merits and was interlocutory, so it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial-court order granting a bill of review is a final, appealable judgment	Appellant (A.J.R.) sought abatement and clarification; implicitly urged the appeal proceed after clarification	Respondents argued the order merely granted a bill of review and did not resolve merits, so it is interlocutory and not appealable	The court held the order is interlocutory and nonfinal; appellate jurisdiction lacking; motion to abate denied and appeal dismissed

In re Parker, 117 S.W.3d 484 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (discusses limits on trial court setting aside judgments after plenary jurisdiction expires)
Ross v. Nat'l Ctr. for the Emp't of the Disabled, 197 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. 2006) (bill of review elements and requirements)
Kiefer v. Touris, 197 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2006) (a bill-of-review order that does not resolve merits is interlocutory)
Tesoro Petroleum v. Smith, 796 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1990) (order granting bill of review and setting aside judgment is interlocutory when it directs further proceedings)