Court Opinion

ID: 9682486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:11:53.113037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:39.650480
License: Public Domain

WHITHAM, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In’ my view, the trial court correctly dismissed the father’s application for writ of habeas corpus for want of jurisdiction. In holding to the contrary, the majority ignores the holding in Ex parte Boniface, 650 S.W.2d 776, 778 (Tex.1983), that “after the jurisdiction of the appellate court has attached, the proceedings for enforcement must be instituted in that court rather than in the trial court.” To my mind, the application for habeas corpus in the trial court in the present case constitutes “proceedings for enforcement” within the meaning of that holding in Boniface. Contrary to the majority, I do not believe that Boniface’s ref*78erence to “proceedings for enforcement is limited to the facts of that case only.
Consequently, the proper procedure in cases such as the present case is as dictated by Boniface. I read Boniface to allow this court jurisdiction to enforce trial courts’ child custody and visitation orders when the judgment is on appeal through original application for writ of habeas corpus filed in this court. If the application requires proof, we must then comply with Boniface and:
[Rjefer the matter of hearing evidence and taking testimony to the district court. The lower court will then forward the transcript of evidence to the court of appeals. This is ordinarily the preferable procedure. In this instance, the appellate court retains jurisdiction of the [application] though the factual inquiry is conducted in the trial court.
Boniface, 650 S.W.2d at 778.
Such an original application was presented to this court and denied. I would set aside that denial and follow Boniface. I read Boniface as did the trial court. Consequently, I would deny the writ of mandamus.