in the Interest of A. N. T., a Child

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of A. N. T., a Child

DecidedJune 30, 2010

Docket12-09-00222-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in the Interest of A. N. T., a Child (in the Interest of A. N. T., a Child) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

in the Interest of A. N. T., a Child, (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

NO. 12-09-00222-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF § APPEAL FROM THE

A.N.T. AND H.M.L., § COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2

MINOR CHILDREN § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pansy Leavings appeals the trial court’s orders finding her in contempt for failing to pay child support for A.N.T. and H.M.L., her children. In six issues, Leavings argues that the trial court’s contempt orders should be reversed. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

Contempt Orders

Leavings seeks a direct appeal of contempt orders regarding her two children. She raises no issues related to any matters other than the contempt orders. A contempt order is reviewable only by a petition for writ of habeas corpus (if the person in contempt is confined) or a petition for writ of mandamus (if no confinement is involved). Cadle Co. v. Lobingier, 50 S.W.3d 662, 671 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied) (citing In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding)). We have no jurisdiction to review contempt orders by direct appeal. Tex. Animal Health Comm’n v. Nunley, 647 S.W.2d 951, 952 (Tex. 1983); Ex parte Cardwell, 416 S.W.2d 382, 384 (Tex. 1967) (orig. proceeding); Wagner v. Warnasch, 156 Tex. 334, 339, 295 S.W.2d 890, 893 (1956).

Disposition

Because we have no jurisdiction to review contempt orders by direct appeal, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Brian Hoyle

Justice

Opinion delivered June 30, 2010.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NO. 12-09-00222-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF § APPEAL FROM THE

A.N.T. AND H.M.L., § COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2

MINOR CHILDREN § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pansy Leavings appeals the trial court’s orders finding her in contempt for failing to pay child support for A.N.T. and H.M.L., her children. In six issues, Leavings argues that the trial court’s contempt orders should be reversed. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

Contempt Orders

Leavings seeks a direct appeal of contempt orders regarding her two children. She raises no issues related to any matters other than the contempt orders. A contempt order is reviewable only by a petition for writ of habeas corpus (if the person in contempt is confined) or a petition for writ of mandamus (if no confinement is involved). Cadle Co. v. Lobingier, 50 S.W.3d 662, 671 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied) (citing In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding)). We have no jurisdiction to review contempt orders by direct appeal. Tex. Animal Health Comm’n v. Nunley, 647 S.W.2d 951, 952 (Tex. 1983); Ex parte Cardwell, 416 S.W.2d 382, 384 (Tex. 1967) (orig. proceeding); Wagner v. Warnasch, 156 Tex. 334, 339, 295 S.W.2d 890, 893 (1956).

Disposition

Because we have no jurisdiction to review contempt orders by direct appeal, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Brian Hoyle

Justice

Opinion delivered June 30, 2010.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in the Interest of A. N. T., a Child, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-a-n-t-a-child-texapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack