In Interest of D.J.G

Full title: IN THE INTEREST OF D.J.G., a Minor Child

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio

Date published: Jun 22, 2005

No. 04-05-00243-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 22, 2005)

Opinion

No. 04-05-00243-CV

Delivered and Filed: June 22, 2005.

Appeal from the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 1994-EM5-03335, Master Juan A. Chavira, Judge Presiding.

Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction.

Sitting: Alma L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, Catherine STONE, Justice, Rebecca SIMMONS, Justice.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant's notice of appeal states that he is appealing the associate judge's order entered on February 23, 2005. The notice of appeal states, "The appeal is more specific as to the terms of conditional release ordering Respondent to pay arrears as previously ordered. Respondent further appeals the alleged order of the Associate Judge denying Petitioner's Motion and Request that the Attorney General's Office withdraw from representing the interests of Petitioner and the minor child in this cause."

The order referenced in the notice of appeal notes that the proceeding may result in the incarceration of the Respondent, finds that the Respondent is represented by an attorney, and sets the cause for trial at a later date. In order for the associate judge's order to be appealable, it must be a "final order." See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002 (Vernon 2002). Furthermore, this court does not have jurisdiction to review contempt orders by direct appeal. Norman v. Norman, 692 S.W.2d 655, 655 (Tex. 1985). Contempt orders may only be reviewed 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). Finally, the order referenced in the notice of appeal does not address appellant's motion with regard to the Attorney General's representation of the petitioner and the minor child.

Appellant failed to respond to our order directing appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.