In re Bradley Welsh

In re Welsh · Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth · June 3, 2026 · No. 02-26-00334-CV

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, granted Bradley Welsh’s petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging a contempt and commitment order arising from unpaid child support. The court held that the trial court violated due process by waiting thirty-six days after orally ordering confinement to sign the written contempt and commitment order. The court vacated the order and discharged Welsh from the obligation to report to the Denton County jail.

Court
Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth
Writing for the Court
Elizabeth Kerr; Bassel; Womack
Jurisdiction
Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth
Decision date
June 3, 2026
Docket number
02-26-00334-CV
Procedural posture
Welsh petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus after the trial court orally found him in contempt for failure to pay child support and ordered him confined, then signed a written contempt and commitment order thirty-six days later.
Precedential value
Published memorandum opinion
Parties
Bradley Welsh, Relator v. Edith Orozco, Real Party in Interest, State of Texas
Disposition
writ_granted

Topics

child supportcontemptdue processappellate procedurefamily law procedure

Practice areas

family lawcivil procedureconstitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a trial court violates due process by orally ordering a contemnor confined and delaying the written contempt and commitment order for thirty-six days.
  2. Whether the delay was attributable to Welsh or constituted invited error.

Holdings

  1. A trial court violates the contemnor's due-process rights when it orally orders confinement for contempt and then unduly delays signing the written contempt and commitment order for thirty-six days.
  2. The record did not establish that Welsh caused the delay or invited the error; the delay was attributable to the trial court.

Key quotations

A trial court has no authority to orally order a person confined for contempt and, thereafter, unduly delay signing a contempt judgment and commitment order. (at 3)
But the supreme court held that the three-day delay in Calvillo Amaya was not a “short and reasonable time.” (at 3)
This delay violated Welsh’s due-process rights. (at 4)

Factual background

The trial court heard Orozco's motion to enforce child support on April 8, 2026. It orally found Welsh in contempt, ordered him confined in the Denton County jail, and sought additional information concerning work release after the parties had rested and closed. The court did not sign a written contempt and commitment order until May 14, 2026, thirty-six days after the oral ruling, and the order required recurring weekend incarceration.

Procedural history

Edith Orozco moved to enforce child support in the 477th District Court of Denton County. After an April 8, 2026 hearing, the trial court orally found Welsh in contempt and ordered sixty days of confinement, with additional discussion concerning work release. The trial court signed an order of confinement and work release on May 14, 2026. Welsh filed a habeas petition on May 22, 2026, and the court of appeals granted relief, vacated the order, and discharged him from the order's reporting requirements.

Remand instructions

None. The court vacated the May 14, 2026 order and discharged Welsh from any duty to report to the Denton County jail under that order; if he remained in custody, the court ordered his unconditional release.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…