Court Opinion

ID: 9378707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-13 09:06:19.58877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:41.573927
License: Public Domain

In the
             Court of Appeals
     Second Appellate District of Texas
              at Fort Worth
          ___________________________
               No. 02-23-00019-CV
          ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF J.R.-H. AND A.R.-H., CHILDREN

       On Appeal from the 362nd District Court
               Denton County, Texas
           Trial Court No. 15-08449-211

        Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.
          Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      On January 18, 2023, Appellant R.R. filed a notice of appeal from the trial

court’s May 27, 2021 “Order Holding Respondent [R.R.] in Contempt, Granting

Judgment, and for Commitment to County Jail.” We informed R.R. by letter that we

were concerned that we did not have jurisdiction over this appeal because contempt

orders generally are not appealable. See In re Janson, 614 S.W.3d 724, 727 (Tex. 2020)

(orig. proceeding); Cadle Co. v. Lobingier, 50 S.W.3d 662, 671 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth

2001, pets. denied) (en banc op. on reh’g). We stated that unless R.R. or any party

desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the

appeal, the appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.           R.R. filed two

responses, but they do not show grounds for continuing the appeal.

      We have previously summarized the law on the appealability of contempt

orders as follows:

      “Decisions in contempt proceedings cannot be reviewed on appeal
      because contempt orders are not appealable, even when appealed along
      with a judgment that is appealable.” In re Off[.] of [Att’y] Gen. of Tex., 215
      S.W.3d 913, 915 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, orig. proceeding)
      (quoting Cadle Co. . . . , 50 S.W.3d [at] 671 . . . ); see Tex. Animal Health
      Comm’n v. Nunley, 647 S.W.2d 951, 952 (Tex. 1983). Contempt orders
      involving confinement may be reviewed by writ of habeas corpus;
      contempt orders that do not involve confinement may be reviewed only
      through mandamus. Off[.] of [Att’y] Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d at 916; see
      Tracy v. Tracy, 219 S.W.3d 527, 530 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.).
      And a contempt order does not become appealable because it contains
      an attorney’s-fees award as a sanction. Inner City Mgmt., Inc. v. City of
      Dallas, No. 05-05-01618-CV, 2006 WL 242350, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas
      Feb. 2, 2006, no pet[.]) [(per curiam)] (mem. op.).

                                            2
Iconic Motion Sports, LLC v. Grijalva, No. 02-17-00103-CV, 2017 WL 2471099, at *1

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 8, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).

       Because R.R. attempts to appeal from a contempt order and because contempt

proceedings cannot be reviewed on appeal, we dismiss this appeal for lack of

jurisdiction.1 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

                                                       Per Curiam

Delivered: March 9, 2023

       Additionally, although our jurisdiction letters did not mention the tardiness of
       1

R.R.’s notice of appeal—which was filed more than a year and a half after the
contempt order was signed—that provides another basis for dismissing this appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1 (establishing deadline for notice of
appeal).

                                             3