in the Interest of C. A. W. P. and Z. J. W. P., Minor Children

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of C. A. W. P. and Z. J. W. P., Minor Children

DecidedDecember 29, 2009

Docket13-09-00503-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in the Interest of C. A. W. P. and Z. J. W. P., Minor Children (in the Interest of C. A. W. P. and Z. J. W. P., Minor Children) 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 C. A. W. P. and Z. J. W. P., Minor Children, (Tex. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-09-00503-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ______________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF C. A. W. P. AND Z. J. W. P., MINOR CHILDREN _____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 of Hidalgo County, Texas. ______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Benavides, and Vela Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, William Hayes Wyttenbach, attempts to appeal an order of contempt for

failure to pay child support, granting judgment for arrearages, and suspending commitment

and order modifying prior order entered against him on August 4, 2009. Appellate courts

have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and specific types of interlocutory

orders designated by the legislature as appealable. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39

S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see, e.g., TEX . CIV . PRAC . & REM . CODE ANN . § 51.014

(Vernon Supp. 2003). A judgment is final and appealable if it disposes of all parties and all issues. Lehmann, 39 S.W.2d at 195. Without affirmative statutory authority to hear an

interlocutory appeal, this court is without jurisdiction. Id.

The order issued by the trial court was not a final, appealable judgment.

Additionally, the order held appellant in contempt and this court does not have jurisdiction

to review contempt orders by direct appeal. See Norman v. Norman, 692 S.W.2d 655, 655

(Tex. 1985); Tracy v. Tracy, 219 S.W.3d 527, 530 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2007, no pet.).

Contempt orders may be reviewed only by an application for a writ of habeas corpus, if the

contemnor has been confined, or by a petition for a writ of mandamus, if the contemnor

has not been confined. See Rosser v. Squier, 902 S.W.2d 962, 962 (Tex. 1995); Ex parte

Williams, 690 S.W.2d 243, 243 (Tex. 1985); Tracy, 219 S.W.3d at 290.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the

opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the

appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX . R. APP. P.

42.3(a), (c).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 29th day of December, 2009.

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