COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-14-00197-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF B.W.B.,
M.P.B., AND P.M.B., CHILDREN
----------
FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. D2006220
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
On June 13, 2014, appellant C.A.B. filed a notice of appeal from an order
holding her in contempt. On June 19, 2014, we sent her a letter expressing our
concern that we lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the order did not
appear to be a final judgment or appealable order. We invited appellant to file a
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, but she has not filed any
response.
Although the order allows appellant to post bond to suspend her
commitment “pending appeal,” contempt orders are not subject to being
challenged by a direct appeal. See In re Office of Attorney Gen. of Tex., 215
S.W.3d 913, 915 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, orig. proceeding) (“Decisions in
contempt proceedings cannot be reviewed on appeal because contempt orders
are not appealable, even when appealed along with a judgment that is
appealable.”); Cadle Co. v. Lobingier, 50 S.W.3d 662, 671 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth 2001, pets. denied) (en banc) (stating the same and explaining that a
“contempt judgment is reviewable only via a petition for writ of habeas corpus (if
the contemnor is confined) or a petition for writ of mandamus (if no confinement
is involved)”). Therefore, because we do not have jurisdiction over appellant’s
attempted appeal from the trial court’s contempt order, we dismiss this appeal.
See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Cadle Co., 50 S.W.3d at 671.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.
DELIVERED: July 24, 2014
2