Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, granted Stephen Girard’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordered his discharge from custody. The court held that the trial court’s writ to the sheriff did not identify the provisions of the divorce decree violated or the acts constituting criminal contempt, and therefore did not satisfy the requirements for a valid written contempt and commitment order. The court concluded that Girard’s confinement violated due process.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court's writ to the sheriff satisfied the written-judgment and written-commitment requirements for constructive criminal contempt.
- Whether confinement under a commitment order that failed to identify the violated divorce-decree provisions and the contemptuous acts violated relator's due-process rights and rendered the order void.
Holdings
- A commitment order for constructive criminal contempt must contain the elements of a contempt judgment, including a clear statement of how the court's order was violated. In a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, an enforcement order imposing incarceration must identify, set out, or incorporate by reference the provisions allegedly violated and the date of each occasion constituting criminal contempt.
- Relator was entitled to habeas relief because the trial court's commitment order was void and his confinement violated due process.
Key quotations
“Thus, we must conclude that the trial court’s commitment order does not satisfy the requirements for a written order of contempt and is void and that relator’s due-process rights were violated when he was confined without a valid contempt order.” (at 3)
“Because we have concluded that relator’s due-process rights were violated when he was confined without a valid contempt order, we grant his petition for writ of habeas corpus and order him discharged from custody.” (at 3)
Factual background
The relator and real party in interest were formerly married and had a child before divorcing in 2021. The real party in interest alleged that relator violated the possession and access provisions of the divorce decree, including by withholding the child from April 26 through May 9, 2025, and sought incarceration for contempt. After a July 16, 2025 hearing, the trial court signed a writ to the sheriff stating that relator was sentenced to 180 days for contempt, but the writ did not identify the decree provisions violated or the specific acts found to constitute contempt.
Procedural history
After the real party in interest moved to enforce the parties' divorce decree and sought to have relator held in contempt and jailed, the trial court held a hearing and signed a writ to the sheriff stating that relator was sentenced to 180 days for contempt. Relator was taken into custody and petitioned the court of appeals for habeas relief. The court of appeals previously ordered his release on a personal bond pending resolution and, after no response was filed, granted the habeas petition and ordered him discharged.
Remand instructions
The court ordered relator discharged from custody. No remand instructions were given.