The Texas Court of Appeals recently dismissed appeals filed by Christopher Matthew Vickers against Lena Cherie Chaisson-Munoz regarding protective orders related to their minor child. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals due to the nature of the protective orders and ongoing legal proceedings. This decision impacts the parents and their child, as it affects how custody and protective matters will be handled in the future.
The case, Christopher Matthew Vickers v. Lena Cherie Chaisson-Munoz, was filed under docket number 13-26-00223-CV. The dispute centers around allegations of family violence and child abuse, with Munoz seeking protective orders against Vickers. The court's ruling underscores the complexities involved in family law cases, particularly those involving protective orders and custody arrangements.
Vickers and Munoz are the parents of a four-year-old child, referred to as C.D.V. in court documents. They had previously agreed to share custody of the child but faced serious allegations. Munoz filed an application for a protective order against Vickers in December 2025, claiming that he had committed family violence and that their child had sustained injuries while in his care. In January 2026, Munoz filed a second application for a protective order, alleging that a friend of Vickers had sexually abused their child.
In January 2026, a hearing was held regarding the protective orders, and the trial court issued a protective order on January 24, 2026. A corrected protective order was signed on February 12, 2026, which included details about the ongoing custody arrangements and the protective orders. The court noted that the protective orders were part of a larger case involving the modification of the parent-child relationship.
The Texas Court of Appeals, consisting of Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Silva and Cron, reviewed the appeals filed by Vickers. The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals because the protective orders were not final judgments. In its opinion, the court stated, "The protective order at issue is an interlocutory order which is not appealable." This ruling is based on the Texas Family Code, which specifies that protective orders related to parent-child relationships cannot be appealed until a final order regarding child support or custody is issued.
The court emphasized that the protective orders and the petition to modify the parent-child relationship were intertwined, meaning they should be treated as part of the same legal proceeding. Because the protective orders were part of ongoing litigation, the court ruled that it could not accept the appeals. The court also dismissed Vickers' motions for expedited decisions as moot.
This ruling has significant implications for Vickers, Munoz, and their child. It highlights the legal complexities surrounding protective orders in family law cases, particularly when child custody is involved. The court's decision reinforces the idea that protective orders issued in the context of ongoing custody disputes are generally not subject to immediate appeal.
Moving forward, Vickers and Munoz will need to continue navigating the legal system regarding their custody arrangements and the protective orders. The court's dismissal of the appeals means that the trial court's orders will remain in effect while the underlying issues are resolved. This situation may lead to further hearings and legal actions as both parties seek to establish a stable environment for their child.
As for the possibility of an appeal, the court's ruling indicates that Vickers cannot appeal the protective orders until a final judgment is made regarding the custody and support of their child. This means that the legal battle is far from over, and both parents will need to prepare for ongoing proceedings in the trial court.