In Re Max Paul Kozinn v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 6, 2024
• Docket: 03-23-00748-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00748-CV

In re Max Paul Kozinn

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

I concur in part and dissent in part from the Court’s opinion in this original

proceeding. I dissent from the part of the opinion conditionally granting the mandamus petition

and directing the trial court to strike from the order Violation 5 and Violation 6, along with the

$1,000 in fines associated with those two contempt findings. I do not agree that the trial court’s

order to “complete an age-appropriate four-hour online parenting class” is too ambiguous to be

enforceable by contempt. By adding “age-appropriate” to describe the type of “parenting class”

the parties were ordered to take, the court specified exactly what type of class it wanted the parents

to take—one that would teach them child-rearing skills geared towards their child’s age and

developmental phase. As one available online course explains on its website,

Being a parent is complicated, and learning how to interact and understand children at different ages isn’t easy either. With our 4 Hour Age Appropriate/Age Specific Parenting Courses, you can make parenting easier and more effective by interacting with your child on a level they can understand at their particular age.

See https://parentclassonline.com/age-appropriate-parenting-class.php (last visited May 20, 2024).

A co-parenting class, on the other hand, focuses on teaching parents how to cooperatively parent their children after the parents’ separation or divorce. See, e.g.,

https://www.traviscountytx.gov/dro/parenting-class (last visited May 20, 2024) (describing Travis

County Cooperative Parenting Program offering series of six co-parenting classes). I would

conclude that by ordering the parties to take an “age-appropriate” parenting class, the trial court

made its order sufficiently specific and unambiguous and therefore enforceable by contempt. See,

e.g., Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (explaining that

order must be “reasonably specific” to be enforceable by contempt).

I concur in the remainder of the Court’s opinion.

__________________________________________ Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly

Filed: June 6, 2024