Opinion
No. 09-10-00177-CV
Submitted on March 1, 2011.
Opinion Delivered June 16, 2011.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Montgomery County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 08-04-03365-CV.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., KREGER and HORTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
K.L. (Mother) appeals from two separate orders finding her in contempt of court for violating orders issued by the trial court in a child custody case. We dismiss Mother's appeal for want of jurisdiction.
To protect the privacy of the parties involved in this appeal, we identify them by their initials and by familial titles. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d) (West 2008).
Mother had a child, B.L.W., in September 2006. In June 2008, the Montgomery County Court at Law Number One found that V.W. was B.L.W.'s father, and appointed Father as B.L.W.'s joint managing conservator. The court also gave Father the right to establish B.L.W.'s primary residence, gave Mother standard possession rights, and ordered that Mother pay child support. Based on the parties' agreement, the County Court at Law modified the June 2008 possession order in December 2009, giving Mother extended possession of B.L.W. The modified order required that Mother continue to pay child support.
In March 2010, Father asked the County Court at Law to find Mother in contempt of court. Father's motion asserts that Mother failed to pay child support as required by the trial court's prior child support orders, and that Mother failed to return B.L.W. to Father at the end of her possession period. Following the hearing on Father's motion for contempt, the trial court found Mother in contempt for violating its orders by failing to make child support payments and by failing to return B.L.W. to Father.
On appeal, Mother argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the enforcement proceeding, because during the enforcement hearing, she had requested that the trial court transfer venue of the proceedings. According to Mother, transfer of the case to Harris County was mandatory, and the trial court's compliance was ministerial because testimony during the enforcement hearing established that B.L.W. had resided in Harris County for more than six months prior to the enforcement hearing. According to Mother, the trial court did not have the discretion to complete the enforcement hearing after Mother had orally requested that the case be transferred, and Mother contends that Father's false allegation that B.L.W. resided in Montgomery County excuses her failure to file a timely written motion to transfer.
Generally, courts of appeals do not possess jurisdiction to review a trial court's contempt order through a direct appeal. See Norman v. Norman, 692 S.W.2d 655, 655 (Tex. 1985); In re A.C.J., 146 S.W.3d 323, 326 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2004, no pet.). Because an order finding a party in contempt does not dispose of all claims before the court, it is not considered to be a final, appealable judgment. See In re Office of Attorney Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d 913, 915 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2007, orig. proceeding). Contempt orders are unlike judgments in that ?contempt proceedings involve a court's enforcement of its own orders, regardless of the status of the claims between the parties[.]? Id. at 915-16. A party may attack the validity of an order of contempt by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus (if the contemnor is confined) or by filing a petition for writ of mandamus (if not confined). Id. at 916 (citing Cadle Co. v. Lobingier, 50 S.W.3d 662, 671 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied)); Metzger v. Sebek, 892 S.W.2d 20, 55 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied). ?[H]owever, because a contempt order is not a final judgment, a remedy by appeal does not lie.? In re Office of Attorney Gen., 215 S.W.3d at 916.
Mother also argues on appeal that the trial court's contempt orders are void because the trial court abused its discretion by denying her request to transfer venue of the case to Harris County. Mother's argument concerning her right to have venue transferred is based on section 155.201 of the Texas Family Code, which applies to suits affecting the parent-child relationship. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 155.201(b) (West 2008). An order denying transfer under section 155.201 is not subject to interlocutory appeal. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 155.204(h) (West 2008).
Mother is appealing from the trial court's orders finding her in contempt, and we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the trial court's contempt order on direct appeal. See Norman, 692 S.W.2d at 655; In re A.C.J., 146 S.W.3d at 326. Mother can seek a review of the trial court's denial of her oral motion to transfer by mandamus. See Proffer v. Yates, 734 S.W.2d 671, 672-73 (Tex. 1987); In re Leder, 263 S.W.3d 283, 285 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, orig. proceeding) (holding that mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel a mandatory transfer of venue in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship). We conclude that we are required to dismiss Mother's appeal for want of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED — WANT OF JURISDICTION.