IN THE INTEREST OF C. A. W. P. AND Z. J. W. P., MINOR CHILDREN--Appeal from County Court at Law No. 5 of Hidalgo County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-09-00503-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ______________________________________________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF C. A. W. P. AND Z. J. W. P., MINOR CHILDREN _____________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 of Hidalgo County, Texas. ______________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Yañez, Benavides, and Vela Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, William Hayes Wyttenbach, attempts to appeal an order of contempt for failure to pay child support, granting judgment for arrearages, and suspending commitment and order modifying prior order entered against him on August 4, 2009. Appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and specific types of interlocutory orders designated by the legislature as appealable. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see, e.g., TEX . CIV . PRAC . & REM . CODE ANN . § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2003). A judgment is final and appealable if it disposes of all parties and all issues. Lehmann, 39 S.W.2d at 195. Without affirmative statutory authority to hear an interlocutory appeal, this court is without jurisdiction. Id. The order issued by the trial court was not a final, appealable judgment. Additionally, the order held appellant in contempt and this court does not have jurisdiction to review contempt orders by direct appeal. See Norman v. Norman, 692 S.W.2d 655, 655 (Tex. 1985); Tracy v. Tracy, 219 S.W.3d 527, 530 (Tex. App. Dallas 2007, no pet.). Contempt orders may be reviewed only 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); Tracy, 219 S.W.3d at 290. The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX . R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 29th day of December, 2009. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
