Tracy Nixon v. the Attorney General of the State of Texas and Kimberlyn Rhynes ( 2017 )

Dismissed and Opinion Filed February 2, 2017
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-16-01159-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF C.S.N. AND J.T.N., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-00-14691
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Fillmore, and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Francis
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.
/Molly Francis/
MOLLY FRANCIS
JUSTICE
161159F.P05
1
We allowed appellees an opportunity to respond, but they did not file a response.
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF C.S.N. AND J.T.N., On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District
CHILDREN Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-00-14691.
No. 05-16-01159-CV Opinion delivered by Justice Francis.
Justices Fillmore and Stoddart participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
Judgment entered February 2, 2017.
–3–