Tracy Nixon v. Attorney General

Opinion

Order issued December 7, 2012

In The (Court of _ pptal fth i trict of at alla No. 05-12-01065-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.S.N. AND J.T.N., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court Dallas Counly, Texas ’-Trial C6hrt Cause No. 00-1.4691:T

ORDER Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Francis and Lang-Miers

At ~ssue in this appeal is the trial court’s order holding Father in contempt for failure to pay

child support, committing him to jail for 180 days, and suspending his barber’s license.- An order

suspending an occupational, professional, or business license is reviewable by direct appeal. See

generally In re C.G., 261 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2008, no pet.). However, a contempt

order is not. See Tex. Health Comm ’n v. Nunley, 647 S.W.2d 951,952 (Tex. 1983).

By letter dated October 2, 2012, we directed Father to file a letter brief addressing our

jurisdiction over the contempt order. He responded by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

See In re Henry, 154 S.W.3d 594, 596 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam) (contempt order reviewable by

petition for writ of habeas corpus). Appellee, though given an opportunity, has not responded. Because we have no jurisdiction over direct appeals challenging contempt orders, we

DISMISS that portion of the appeal challenging the contempt order. That portion of the appeal Dine printed: November 26, 20 ! 2 2:37PM

concerning the licence suspension remains pending. As the appellate record has been filed, we

ORDER Father to file his brief on the merits within thirty days of the date of this order.

LANG-MIERS

-2-