in the Interest of W.N.P., C.R.P., and M.L.P.
This text of in the Interest of W.N.P., C.R.P., and M.L.P. (in the Interest of W.N.P., C.R.P., and M.L.P.) 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.
Opinion
On appeal, Stacey Allison attacks the trial court's order finding her in contempt for failure to comply with court-ordered visitation. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Stacey Allison and Nick Spero Pomonis divorced in 1992. Alleging Allison refused to allow him to take the children on a Florida vacation during the 2004 Christmas holidays, Pomonis filed a motion to hold Allison in contempt for interfering with his scheduled period of Christmas visitation. Pomonis also filed a motion to modify the possession order so that periods of visitation commence and end at the children's school. The trial court signed a modification order on October 5, 2005. On October 24, 2005, the trial court signed a separate order in which it found Allison in contempt for failing to comply with court-ordered visitation. The trial court imposed a six month jail sentence as punishment for the contempt, but suspended the commitment and placed Allison on community supervision for thirty-six months. As a condition of probation, the trial court ordered Allison to reimburse Pomonis for the cost of airline tickets. Allison filed notice of appeal.
Allison's five issues complain exclusively of the contempt order. Her first issue contends the trial court abused its discretion "in allowing Appellee to utilize two opposite interpretations of the Order that Appellant was accused of violating." The next two issues challenge the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the finding of contempt. The final two issues challenge the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the order "that Appellant pay a portion of the cost of Appellee's missed vacation." Thus, the issues relate to the evidence supporting the judgment of contempt or to the conditions of probation in the contempt judgment.
Courts of appeals generally do not have jurisdiction to review contempt orders through direct appeal. In re A.C.J., 146 S.W.3d 323, 326 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2004, no pet.); In re B.A.C., 144 S.W.3d 8, 10-12 (Tex. App.--Waco 2004, no pet.); In re T.L.K., 90 S.W.3d 833, 841 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2002, no pet.). "A contempt judgment is reviewable only via a petition for writ of habeas corpus (if the contemnor 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) (citation omitted).
Because Allison challenges the contempt order by direct appeal, we do not have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
_________________________________
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Submitted on March 22, 2006
Opinion Delivered March 30, 2006
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in the Interest of W.N.P., C.R.P., and M.L.P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-wnp-crp-and-mlp-texapp-2006.