in Re: Carol Gaylene Osmond, Relator ( 2005 )

NO. 07-03-0470-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
JANUARY 24, 2005
______________________________
IN RE CAROL GAYLENE OSMOND, RELATOR
_______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, relator Carol Gaylene Osmond challenges
an order of contempt and her restraint pursuant thereto. We deny relief.
This original proceeding arises from a dispute over whether William and Lynn Luster,
paternal grandparents, or Carol and Larry Osmond, maternal grandparents, will have
possession of Christyn Shanae Luster (the child). The child has been involved in, or the
subject of, three different suits affecting the parent child relationship (SAPCR) in the 100th
District Court of Carson County (“the Texas court”). She has also been the subject of two
proceedings in Oklahoma: one filed by the Osmonds in the District Court of McIntosh
County, Oklahoma (“the Oklahoma court”), wherein the Osmonds sought to be named
guardians for the child and sought an emergency order naming them temporary custodians
of the child, and a separate proceeding in the Oklahoma court in which the Lusters sought
registration of the Texas court’s orders granting them custody of the child.
In initiating their Oklahoma suit via verified pleadings, the Osmonds (1) asserted that
the child was then, and had been for several months, living with them, and (2) disclosed
that they knew proceedings were pending in Texas by which the Lusters were seeking
custody of the child.1 The Oklahoma court initially granted emergency custody to the
Osmonds, but subsequently determined that Texas had jurisdiction over the child and
dissolved its prior orders. In the separate proceeding wherein the Osmonds and the child’s
parents were named, and appeared, as parties, the Oklahoma court directed registration
of Texas child custody orders as orders of the Oklahoma court, recognized the Lusters as
custodians of the child and authorized all law enforcement personnel to aid the Lusters in
securing possession of the child.
On August 14, 2003, after the Oklahoma court registered the Texas custody orders,
relator Carol Osmond traveled to Gray County, Texas, to attend a hearing in an SAPCR
involving two other grandchildren of the Osmonds, and in which the Osmonds had
intervened seeking managing conservatorship.2 While in Texas, Carol was arrested
pursuant to a writ of commitment based on an order of the Texas court holding her in
contempt for failing to produce the child as ordered. The Texas court held a hearing at
1
Both Texas and Oklahoma have adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction
and Enforcement Act. See TEX . FAM . CODE ANN . § 152 (Vernon 2002); Title 43 O.S.
Section 551-101 et seq.
2
The Lusters are not biologically related to the children involved in the Gray County
suit.
-2-
which Carol and her counsel appeared. The court set bond for Carol and continued the
case to allow her to produce the child. Carol made bond. When she subsequently
appeared before the Texas court without the child, another order was entered finding her
in contempt. Specifically referencing the court’s powers set out in article 11 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the order directed her commitment to the Carson County Jail until
such time as the child was produced.
Carol filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with this court. We granted
temporary relief directing that she be released from confinement upon posting bond.
Upon full consideration of relator’s briefs, the issues presented, the law and the
record presented, we deny relief. We vacate our previous order granting temporary relief
and directing that relator be released from the Carson County jail upon posting bond.
Relator Carol Osmond is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Carson County,
to be held by him in accordance with the order of the Judge of the 100th District Court of
Carson County which was signed on October 7, 2003, subject to further orders of the 100th
District Court. See TEX . R. APP . P. 52.8.
Per Curiam
-3-