Court Opinion

ID: 9750562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:07:21.656551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:12.704911
License: Public Domain

TERRIE LIVINGSTON, Chief Justice,
dissenting opinion on rehearing.
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s opinion and judgment. I believe the majority has incorrectly interpreted- Texas Family Code section 157.162(d). Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.162(d) (Vernon Supp.2010). Subsection (d) of section 157.162 provides,
The court may not find a respondent in contempt of court for failure to pay child support if the respondent appears at the hearing with a copy of the payment record or other evidence satisfactory to the court showing that the respondent is current in the payment of child support as ordered by the court.
Id. That subsection is applicable to any matter relating to a contempt motion filed on or after the effective date of the 2007 version of section 157.162, which was June 15, 2007. Act of May 23, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 1189, § 1, 2007 Tex. Gen. Laws 4054, 4054. The 2009 version of subsection (d) reads identically to the prior version. There is no change to subsection (d) in the 2009 version of section 157.162; however, the legislature did add a new subsection, subsection (e), in the 2009 version. Act of May 28, 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., ch. 767, § 15, 2009 Tex. Gen. Laws 1938, 1944. The majority uses the new 2009 subsection (e) to assist in its interpretation of subsection (d); this it should not do.
According to the legislative history, subsection (e) was added and effective June 19, 2009 and applies “only to a motion for enforcement that is filed on or after the effective date of [the] Act. A motion for enforcement filed before the effective date of [the] Act is governed by the law in effect immediately before that date, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.” Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.162(e) historical note (Vernon Supp. 2010) [Act of May 28, 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., ch 767, § 44, 2009 Tex. Gen. Laws 1938, 1949]. Furthermore, subsection (e), which clarifies that petitioners may still recover costs even if the contemnor cures the allegations of contempt, allows the movant to recover costs of court and reasonable attorney fees. Id. § 157.162(e). Subsection (e), in my opinion, has virtually nothing to do with subsection (d), which is really the subsection at issue in this case.
Thus, since both versions of subsection (d) are the same, the result should be no different. The addition of subsection (e) later -should not affect subsection (d). Therefore, I respectfully disagree with the majority opinion because of its interpretation of the phrase “showing that the respondent is current in the payment of child support as ordered by the court.” Id. § 157.162(d); see Maj. Op. at 394-95,
“A violation of a court’s order is an issue of contempt.” In re Acceptance Ins. Co., 33 S.W.3d 443, 449 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2000, orig. proceeding) (citing Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tex.1979) (orig. proceeding)). The purpose of criminal contempt is to punish for a contempt violation of a court order. Ex parte *400Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Tex.1995) (orig. proceeding). Only if the order is void is the applicant entitled to relief. In re Coppock, 277 S.W.3d 417, 418 (Tex.2009) (orig. proceeding). We are to presume the order is valid. In re Luebe, No. 01-09-00908-CV, 2010 WL 1546961, at *2 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 2, 2010, orig. proceeding). Moreover, the “purpose of punitive-contempt confinement is to punish for disobedience for some completed act, which affronted the dignity of the court.” Id. at *2. In interpreting a statute, we are to preserve its validity and consider the object to be attained as well as the common law and consequences of a particular construction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 811.021, .023 (Vernon 2005). Thus, interpreting this provision to absolve the contemnor of responsibility for contempt just by curing a past due child support payment on or before the hearing date is nonsensical. See Maj. Op. at 397-98. Thus, I believe the only reasonable interpretation is that the contemnor must be current in all child support payments at the time of the hearing on the motion for enforcement, or he foregoes this statutorily-created “free pass” to avoid criminal contempt for the past-due violations alleged in the motion to enforce. Otherwise, any and all contemnors would simply be able to cure the past allegations of contempt and always avoid the punishment of contempt. This is not punishing the con-temnor for further future unnoticed allegations of contempt; it simply means the contemnor is no longer qualified for the section 157.162(d) method of purging his past criminal contempt. In this case, the majority’s interpretation precludes the trial court from enforcing its own orders for payment of child support at a time when the contemnor was in arrearages of nearly $30,000.00.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority decision and would deny the relator’s requested relief.