in the Interest of J.W. and J.W. ( 2022 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-21-00220-CV
__________________
IN THE INTEREST OF J.W. AND J.W.
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 18-07-09683-CV
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se appellant A.W. (“Father”) challenges the trial court’s judgment holding
him in contempt for violating an Order in Suit to Modify Parent-Child Relationship,
committing him to county jail, suspending the imposition of his jail commitment,
ordering him to pay K.W. (“Mother”) child support and medical support, and
granting Mother a judgment for arrearages. We dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
Since Father did not file a reporter’s record, our discussion of the background
is solely based on the clerk’s record. See Cisneros v. Cisneros, No. 14-14-00616-
1
CV, 2015 WL 1143125, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 12, 2015, no
pet.) (mem. op.) (noting in absence of reporter’s record, background facts were based
on clerk’s record alone). In February 2021, Mother filed a Motion for Enforcement
of Child Support and Visitation Order against Father, alleging contempt based on
the failure to disclose a residential address and the denial of possession and failure
to pay $600.00 in monthly child support and $230.00 in monthly health insurance as
required by the May 2020 Order in Suit to Modify Parent-Child Relationship (“May
2020 Order”). Mother attached the May 2020 Order, the Office of Attorney General
Texas Child Support Disbursement Unit Payment Record showing Father had not
paid child support in accordance with the May 2020 Order, the Office of Attorney
General Texas Child Support Division Arrears Record showing that Father’s total
arrearage was $8,416.20, and a Visitation Journal documenting the specific days and
times Father did not allow her to see the children. Mother requested confirmation of
all arrearages and rendition of a judgment plus interest on arrearages, attorney’s fees,
and costs. She further requested that the trial court order income withholding and
hold Father in contempt and to jail and fine him for each listed violation and for each
additional failure to comply with the trial court’s May 2020 Order or place Father
on community supervision.
In June 2021, Father filed a Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, requesting a stay
of Mother’s enforcement case because the May 2020 Order was being reviewed on
2
appeal.1 Father argued that the enforcement case was brought to damage his name
and standing with the court and that none of Mother’s alleged complaints show a
violation of the May 2020 Order or rise to the level of contempt. The trial court
issued an Order Holding Respondent in Contempt and For Commitment to County
Jail, finding that Father was guilty of violating the May 2020 Order because he failed
to comply with the possession order and failed to pay child support and medical
support. The trial court found Father guilty of a separate act of contempt of court for
nine specified violations, assessed his punishment at thirty days in county jail for
each separate violation, and ordered that each period of confinement shall run
concurrently, but the trial court suspended the imposition of his jail commitment for
sixty days if Father complied with certain conditions.
The trial court ordered Father to pay monthly child support and medical
support and confirmed that Father was $10,534.06 in arrears. The trial court granted
Mother a judgment against Father in the amount of $10,534.06 with interest and
ordered any employer of Father to withhold income for child support and court
ordered attorney’s fees. Father filed a Motion for an Appeal, arguing the judgment
of contempt should be vacated because it violates his constitutional right of due
1Father appealed the trial court’s Order in Suit to Modify Parent-Child
Relationship and this Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment on April 22, 2021.
See Interest of J.W., No. 09-20-00204-CV, 2021 WL 1567332, at *1, 3 (Tex. App.—
Beaumont Apr. 22, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.).
3
process under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Father also argued
that evidence was admitted in violation of the Texas procedures of discovery and the
ruling was disproportionate to the charges.
ANALYSIS
In Father’s pro se brief on appeal he argues the trial court’s judgment holding
him in contempt violates the Texas rule for civil and criminal procedures and his
constitutional rights of due process, fairness, and equal protection of the law. Father
complains the trial court denied his motion for continuance pending an appeal and
his motion to stay and that the trial court’s judgment on arrears is inaccurate because
it is based on an Arkansas Order that did not order child support. Father also
complains the trial court lacked jurisdiction.
Courts of appeal generally do not have jurisdiction to review contempt orders
through direct appeal. See Cline v. Cline, 557 S.W.3d 810, 812 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 2018, no pet.); In the Interest of A.C.J., 146 S.W.3d 323, 326 (Tex. App.—
Beaumont 2004, no pet.). This is true even when the contempt order is appealed
along with a judgment that is appealable, such as a confirmation of child support
arrearages. In re Roisman, 651 S.W.3d 419, 433, 440 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2022, no pet.). The only available means for review from a contempt order is
via a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a petition for writ of mandamus. In re
Long, 984 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding); Cadle Co. v. Lobingier,
4
50 S.W.3d 662, 671 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied). Because this is a
direct appeal for an order of commitment for contempt, we do not have jurisdiction.
See Cline, 557 S.W.3d at 812; In the Interest of A.C.J., 146 S.W.3d at 326; Interest
of S.R., No. 09-18-00033-CV, 2019 WL 1561777, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr.
11, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
_________________________
W. SCOTT GOLEMON
Chief Justice
Submitted on October 19, 2022
Opinion Delivered November 17, 2022
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
5