IN THE INTEREST OF AND CHILDREN v. << (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

By notice of appeal filed September 26, 2016, Tracy Nixon challenges the trial court's September 12, 2016 child support contempt conditional release order and the trial court's order to withdraw admissions and substitute response. Because neither order appeared to be appealable, we directed Nixon to file a letter brief addressing our jurisdiction over the appeal. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011) (appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgment and interlocutory orders specifically authorized as appealable by statute); In re Office of Attorney Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d 913, 915-16 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, orig. proceeding) (because contempt proceedings are not concerned with disposing of all claims and parties before trial court, a contempt order is not a final judgment and is not appealable). Nixon complied, but nothing in his brief persuades us we have jurisdiction over the complained-of orders.¹ Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Perez, 340 S.W.3d 447; Office of Attorney Gen., 215 S.W.3d at 915.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We allowed appellees an opportunity to respond, but they did not file a response.

MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE