BRADSHAW!,] and orders that the mother, SHERAH JUAREZ[] shall maintain sole and exclusive possession of this child pending further orders by the Court. The [father, DAVID BRADSHAW!,] shall be allowed to maintain reasonable phone access to the child while this matter is pending. The hearing for the enforcement of the order for custody is not a readjudication of custody. Black v. Onion, 694 S.W.2d 52, 55 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1985, orig. proceeding). Therefore, a temporary order should not be a final adjudication of custody. In re Lau, 89 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, orig. proceeding). Here, there is no date specified for the termination of Juarez’s custody of C.S.B. or a date set for another hearing on the matter. Therefore, this order is not “temporary.” See id. (<HOLDING>); Grimes v. Flores, 717 S.W.2d 949, 952
holding that temporary order amounted to order modifying custody of children because language changed custody for an indefinite period holding that the uccja applied to a california child custody order granting temporary custody of two children to their father holding that temporary order completely transferred custody without setting further hearing writ action was fully terminated and final adjudication of custody was affected holding order awarding father temporary partial custody prior to custody hearing was not final and appealable under rule 341 holding that the lower court should have entered a final order on custody