in the Interest of A.M.R. and O.R., Children v. .

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 29, 2021
• Docket: 04-21-00438-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas October 29, 2021

No. 04-21-00438-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.R. AND O.R., CHILDREN

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019-CI-12197 Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding

ORDER Christopher Rodriguez seeks to appeal the trial court’s order denying his motion to enforce a divorce decree. Our review of the record raises a question concerning this court’s jurisdiction.

The parties were divorced October 1, 2020. In July 2021, Rodriguez filed a petition to modify and to enforce the decree. The motion for enforcement alleged appellee, Kaitlyn Fonzi, violated specific provisions of the decree relating to conservatorship of the children and prayed that she be held in contempt and punished by being placed on community supervision.

The trial court held a hearing on various motions, including the motion for enforcement, on August 20, 2021. On September 14, the trial court signed temporary orders in the suit to modify, an order denying the motion for enforcement, and an order referring the remaining issues to mediation. On October 13, Rodriguez filed a notice of appeal stating his desire to appeal the order denying the motion for enforcement.

“An order failing to hold a person in contempt is not a final, appealable judgment.” Norman v. Norman, 692 S.W.2d 655, 655 (Tex. 1985). “Contempt proceedings, whether the court grants or denies the motion, are not appealable because they ‘are not concerned with disposing of all claims and parties before the court, as are judgments; instead, contempt proceedings involve a court’s enforcement of its own orders, regardless of the status of the claims between the parties before it.’” Casey v. Casey, No. 01-18-00644-CV, 2019 WL 1338968, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 26, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (quoting In re Office of Attorney Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d 913, 915–16 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, orig. proceeding).

Because it appears this court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal of the order denying the motion for enforcement, we order appellant may file a response not later than November 8, 2021, showing cause why this appeal should not be dismissed. If appellant fails to satisfactorily respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). All other deadlines in this appeal are stayed until further order of the court.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 29th day of October, 2021.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court