Opinion
No. 04-05-00865-CV
Delivered and Filed: January 18, 2006.
Appeal from the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 1999-PA-01061, Honorable Andy Mireles, Judge Presiding.
Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction.
Sitting: Karen ANGELINI, Justice, Sandee Bryan MARION, Justice, Rebecca SIMMONS, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services appeals from the trial court's order holding it in contempt. Because we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal, we dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.
R.M. is an adult disabled person who has been under the conservatorship of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services ("TDFPS"). On October 26, 2005, TDFPS filed a notice of appeal, stating that it is appealing the trial court's "Order on Motion for Contempt" signed on September 27, 2005. In this order, the trial court held TDFPS in contempt for violating its May 21, 2004, order which required TDFPS to continue providing support for R.M. After holding TDFPS in contempt, the trial court ordered TDFPS to reinstate support payments.
Appellate courts do not have jurisdiction to review contempt proceedings on direct appeal. In re Rich, 993 S.W.2d 272, 274 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.). Contempt orders may be reviewed by an application for writ of habeas corpus, if the contemnor has been confined, or by a petition for 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). Noting that these cases relate to when a person, not a governmental unit, has been held in contempt, we ordered TDFPS to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We emphasized that TDFPS should cite to the statute or legal authority which allows it to appeal from the trial court's contempt order. In response, TDFPS states that it is not aware of any legal authority excepting it from the general rule that appellate courts do not have jurisdiction to review contempt proceedings on direct appeal.
We, therefore, dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.