in Re Donna Jean Van Gilder, 03-17-00781-CV

Derek Van Gilder filed a Motion for Enforcement of Final Decree of Divorce against Donna Jean Van Gilder on June 20, 2017.
On October 20, 2017, the trial judge orally found Donna in contempt for violating the divorce decree and orally sentenced her to 45 days in county jail, ordering her to appear November 3 for entry and effectuation of the sentence.
At the November 3 hearing the judge orally deferred entry of a written contempt order and incarceration until December 15, 2017, pending appellate action.
Donna filed an original proceeding (mandamus) asking the appellate court to direct the trial judge to vacate the oral contempt order as an abuse of discretion.
The appellate court examined whether it had jurisdiction to grant mandamus given that no written contempt judgment or commitment order had been entered and the relator was not imprisoned.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an oral contempt order imposing confinement is reviewable now by mandamus	Van Gilder argued the oral contempt order was invalid and sought mandamus to vacate it	Trial court asserted contempt order had been pronounced and punishment assessed orally	Mandamus dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; oral contempt and deferred commitment not yet enforceable; relief must await habeas corpus if confinement occurs
Whether a written contempt/commitment is required before imprisonment	Van Gilder contended due process requires written orders before confinement	Trial court proceeded orally and scheduled future enforcement	Court held due process requires a written contempt judgment and written commitment before imprisonment; oral orders cannot support incarceration
Whether relator was currently restrained in liberty such that habeas or mandamus is available	Van Gilder claimed immediate relief was needed to prevent enforcement	Court noted relator was not incarcerated and no written commitment existed	Court concluded relator not presently restrained; habeas unavailable now and mandamus inappropriate
Whether the petition should be dismissed or decided on merits	Van Gilder requested mandamus relief now	Trial court had not entered enforceable orders to review	Court dismissed petition for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to seek habeas or other relief if confinement occurs

In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. 1999) (contempt confinement challenges generally by habeas corpus)
Ex parte Williams, 690 S.W.2d 243 (Tex. 1985) (noting contempt confinement review via habeas)
Ex parte Shaklee, 939 S.W.2d 144 (Tex. 1997) (due process requires written contempt judgment and written commitment before imprisonment)
Deramus v. Thornton, 333 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. 1960) (habeas premature where trial court had not yet acted to enforce contempt order)
Ex parte Calhoun, 91 S.W.2d 1047 (Tex. 1936) (no restraint where no written commitment issued; dismissal without prejudice)