in Re Joanne Wilkie (Brochstein) Mancha
440 S.W.3d 158
Tex. App.2013Background
- Relator filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking release from jail; original proceeding in 14-13-00327-CV after confinement in Harris County.
- January 25, 2011: Father moved for contempt, modification, TRO; alleged Mother moved children to San Antonio without permission and failed to provide health-insurance information.
- March 1, 2011: Contempt found for moving the children and not providing health-insurance info; attorney’s fees of $2,000 ordered, payable $100 monthly with 6% interest; contempt enforceable like a child-support judgment.
- December 9, 2011: Court signed modification: Mother and Father become joint managing conservators; Father primary; Mother to reimburse $281 monthly for health insurance; amount may adjust with premium changes.
- December 21, 2011: Notice of premium increase to $292; payments to begin January 1, 2012.
- July 18, 2012: Father filed enforcement for seven health payments and eight attorney-fee payments; March 5, 2013 hearing: Mother found in criminal contempt for several violations; 120 days’ jail; arrears totaling over $3,283.45 plus attorney-fee arrears.
- April 17, 2013: Mother commenced habeas corpus petition; she was released on bond pending decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contempt order complies with §157.166(a)(2). | Wilkie-Mancha argues the order fails to specify the acts subject to enforcement. | Mancha contends the order provides sufficient notice of violations and provisions to be enforced. | Order sufficiently identifies violations; not void for this ground. |
| Whether there is reconciliation error between violations and arrearage/interest. | Wilkie-Mancha claims discrepancies between listed violations and total arrearages render the order void. | Father maintains the relief was criminal contempt; specific violations were proven prior to the enforcement motion. | Discrepancies do not void the order; it was criminal contempt for specific pre-motion violations. |
| Whether statutory inability-to-pay defense invalidates the contempt order. | Wilkie-Mancha argues the inability-to-pay defense was improperly evaluated and improperly applied against her indigent status. | Mancha bears burden to prove inability to pay; evidence showed periods of employment and opportunities to borrow were not adequately pursued. | Affirmative defense not proven for the missed payments; order stands. |
| Whether indigence findings and right to counsel violated due process. | Wilkie-Mancha asserts prior indigence finding creates presumption affecting §157.008(c) defense and due process rights were infringed. | Indigence under §157.163 is separate from §157.008(c); lack of borrowing ability is required for §157.008(c) defense. | No due process violation; indigence determinations are distinct and properly handled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. 1979) (core habeas inquiry is unlawful confinement review)
- Ex parte Shaklee, 939 S.W.2d 144 (Tex. 1997) (contempt review requires clear-state of violations and punishment)
- In re Mott, 137 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. App.—Hou. [1st Dist.] 2004) (criminal contempt distinction and prior order enforcement)
- Ex parte Johns, 807 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (civil vs. criminal contempt distinction)