1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-18-00033-CV

____________________

IN THE INTEREST OF S.R., K.R., B.R., AND T.R.

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 10-08-08833

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

In four issues on appeal, B.P., the mother of S.R., K.R., B.R., and T.R., 

challenges the trial court’s judgment holding her in contempt for violating an order 

in a suit to modify the parent-child relationship, committing her to county jail, and 

ordering her to pay $5000 in attorney’s fees. We dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.

D.R. filed a motion for enforcement of possession or access and rights and 

duties regarding his children, S.R., K.R., B.R., and T.R. In his motion, D.R. 
2

alleged that B.P. had failed to comply with the order in a suit to modify the parentchild relationship by committing twenty-three violations of the terms of possession 

and access and one violation of rights and duties regarding the children. D.R. 

requested that B.P. be held in contempt, jailed, fined for each alleged violation, and 

ordered to pay attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs. 

After conducting a hearing on D.R.’s motion to enforce, the trial court found

B.P. had violated four separate provisions of the order, found that B.P. had the 

ability to comply with each term she violated, and found that B.P. willfully and 

intentionally failed to comply. The trial court found B.P. in contempt for each 

separate violation, entered an order of commitment confining B.P. to the 

Montgomery County jail for a period of four days for each violation, and ordered 

B.P. to pay D.R.’s attorney $5000 for attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs. B.P. 

filed a notice of appeal.

B.P.’s four issues complain exclusively of the contempt order. Her first issue 

questions whether this Court has jurisdiction over a criminal contempt order that 

B.P. contends left her without a remedy because her short jail term made a writ of 

habeas corpus moot and a writ of mandamus impractical. In issues two and three, 

B.P. complains that the trial court erred by holding her in contempt because the 

order included special provisions concerning periods of possession for S.R. which 
3

did not list the details of compliance in clear, specific, and unambiguous terms, and 

because D.R. failed to comply with the order’s special provision requiring him to 

give thirty days’ written notice prior to exercising S.R.’s periods of possession. In 

issue four, B.P. complains that the written portion of the trial court’s contempt 

order regarding the payment of attorney’s fees is not enforceable because it does 

not comport with the trial court’s oral rendition.

Courts of appeals generally do not have jurisdiction to review contempt 

orders through direct appeal. See Norman v. Norman, 692 S.W.2d 655, 655 (Tex. 

1985); In the Interest of A.C.J., 146 S.W.3d 323, 326 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 

2004, no pet.). The only available means of 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, 50 

S.W.3d 662, 671 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied). Because this is a 

direct appeal from an order of commitment for contempt, we do not have 

jurisdiction. See Norman, 692 S.W.2d at 655; In the Interest of A.C.J., 146 S.W.3d 

at 326. Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

______________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

 Chief Justice
4

Submitted on February 13, 2019

Opinion Delivered April 11, 2019

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.