in Re Erica Blumenthal, 01-21-00130-CV

Erica Blumenthal (Relator) and Jeff Blumenthal (Real Party) are divorced and share a minor child; the trial court issued a Protective Order on Oct. 23, 2020 with prohibitions on direct communication and an order that Relator obtain a psychiatric evaluation.
The trial court scheduled compliance hearings; Relator (initially pro se) said she had not completed the psychiatric evaluation and hearings were reset multiple times.
Relator later testified she could not obtain The Harris Center evaluation, sought other providers, and admitted sending voicemails/emails to Real Party and the minor in violation of the Protective Order.
On March 10, 2021 the trial court held a show-cause hearing, found Relator guilty of criminal contempt, and on March 12, 2021 entered a contempt order sentencing her to six months in jail and awarding attorney’s fees to Real Party.
The record contained no motion for contempt or written show-cause order personally served on Relator specifying when/how she allegedly violated the Protective Order; Relator filed an original habeas petition and the court of appeals stayed the contempt order.
The court of appeals granted habeas relief, holding the contempt order void for lack of constitutionally adequate notice and vacated the criminal contempt order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of notice for criminal contempt (due process)	Relator: no motion or written show-cause was personally served; lacked full notice of the accusations and possible jail sentence	Real Party: Relator had actual knowledge of the protective order, read it, attended compliance hearings, and was aware she could be incarcerated for violations	Court: Notice was constitutionally inadequate; contempt order void for lack of written, personally served show-cause or equivalent notice
Whether a compliance hearing or language in the protective order suffices as show-cause notice	Relator: compliance-setting or protective-order language is not a substitute for a written, personal show-cause order in criminal contempt	Real Party: the protective order’s compliance language and prior court admonitions provided adequate notice	Court: Compliance hearings and protective-order language do not satisfy the heightened written personal-notice requirement for criminal contempt
Whether absence of a filed motion for contempt defeats the contempt proceeding	Relator: no motion or enforcement filing existed to apprize her of specific allegations	Real Party: contended constructive or actual knowledge through proceedings and prior statements was sufficient	Court: The record showed no motion or show-cause; absence of specific written allegations rendered the contempt judgment a nullity

Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257 (Tex. 1995) (elements required for criminal contempt conviction and distinction between civil and criminal contempt)
Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. 1979) (contempt judgment void where accused lacked full and complete notification)
In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 545 S.W.3d 626 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016) (timely, written, personally served show-cause required for criminal contempt; notice to counsel insufficient)
In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. 2011) (criminal contempt is punitive, punishing completed acts that affront court’s dignity)
Ex parte Edgerly, 441 S.W.2d 514 (Tex. 1969) (requirement of sufficiently specific motion or process to enforce contempt)
Ex parte Friedman, 808 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1991) (controlling principles on void contempt orders)
In re Moreno, 328 S.W.3d 915 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010) (clarifies that clarity of underlying order does not substitute for separate contempt notice)
Ex parte Chunn, 881 S.W.2d 912 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) (order setting compliance hearing is not a substitute for required notice in criminal contempt)
In re Parr, 199 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (contumacious order presumed valid until relator establishes otherwise)