IN THE INTEREST OF MINOR CHILD v. << (2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

By letter dated November 14, 2016, the Court notified appellant's counsel that the Court questions its jurisdiction over appellant's appeal of the trial court's October 10, 2016 contempt order. We instructed appellant to file a letter brief addressing the Court's concerns within ten days of the date of the letter. We cautioned appellant that failure to file the requested jurisdictional letter may result in dismissal, without further notice, of the appeal. To date, appellant has not filed the requested letter brief or otherwise communicated with the Court regarding the Court's jurisdictional concerns.

Generally, appellate courts do not have jurisdiction to review contempt orders by way of direct appeal. In re Braden, 483 S.W.3d 659, 662 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.); Tracy v. Tracy, 219 S.W.3d 527, 530 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.). Rather, they are reviewable by original proceeding. If the contempt order does not involve confinement, it is reviewable by petition for writ of mandamus. In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam on reh'g).

Appellant's notice of appeal states that she appeals an order holding appellant in contempt for failure to comply with temporary orders regarding visitation. As such, the order is not reviewable by direct appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE