in the Interest of W.L.D. and D.T.D., Children

Opinion

Opinion filed May 15, 2014

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

___________

No. 11-14-00111-CV

___________

IN THE INTEREST OF W.L.D. AND D.T.D., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 91st District Court Eastland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV-11-42,439

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kelli Sue Bouget, Appellant, has filed a notice of appeal from an order holding her in contempt for failing to comply with a previous order of the trial court regarding the possession of her children. Upon filing the appeal, the clerk of this court notified Appellant by letter that it did not appear this court had jurisdiction to entertain her direct appeal from an order of contempt. We requested that Appellant respond by May 5, 2014, and show grounds to continue the appeal. Appellant has not filed a response addressing the jurisdictional issue. We dismiss the appeal.

A judgment of contempt is not appealable on direct appeal. Tex. Animal Health Comm’n v. Nunley, 647 S.W.2d 951, 952 (Tex. 1983); In re Smith, 310 S.W.3d 908, 913 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010, orig. proceeding); Tracy v. Tracy, 219 S.W.3d 527, 530 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.). The only available means of review from an order of contempt are writs of mandamus and writs of habeas corpus. In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding). Because this is a direct appeal from a contempt order, we have no jurisdiction. Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

May 15, 2014 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J.