in Re Kevin Matthew Hall, 14-15-00895-CV

Kevin Matthew Hall (relator) and the child’s mother were appointed joint managing conservators in their 2012 divorce; mother has exclusive right to designate child’s primary residence.
Mother filed an amended motion for enforcement alleging 55 violations of the decree (mostly failure to return the child at 6:00 p.m. on Sundays) and sought contempt, incarceration, fines, and fees.
At an October 15, 2015 hearing the trial court found Hall in criminal contempt for five specific failures to return the child (dates listed) and sentenced him to 179 days’ confinement for each violation, to run concurrently; the court also entered a separate $50,457.99 child-support judgment.
Hall posted bond and was released; he filed a habeas petition in the court of appeals arguing the contempt order was void for lack of notice, lack of jury admonition, and lack of proof of willfulness and vagueness.
The court of appeals presumed the contempt order valid, placed burden on Hall to show voidness, and ultimately denied the habeas petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Hall)	Held
Notice of violations	Motion and order identified decree provisions and listed specific dates of noncompliance	Motion/order ambiguous as to when/how violations occurred (time/place/school year vs. summer/holiday)	Notice sufficient; motion and order tracked decree and listed dates; overruled Hall
Right to jury trial	Contempt punishable up to 6 months per violation; court pointed to actual concurrent sentences	Hall argued possible aggregate punishment >6 months (55×179) created right to jury trial	No jury required; court looks to sentence actually imposed (five concurrent 179‑day terms = petty offense)
Willfulness of noncompliance	Mother alleged failure to return child at 6:00 p.m. on specified dates	Hall claimed inability to comply because mother moved and did not provide updated address, so noncompliance was not willful	Hall failed to prove inability to comply; willfulness inference stands; overruled Hall
Use of child‑support arrearage as contempt basis	Mother obtained judgement for arrearages separately	Hall argued support provision vague/ambiguous so cannot underlie contempt	Not addressed on habeas (Hall not held in contempt for support); issue overruled for present proceeding

Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. 1979) (purpose of habeas is to determine unlawful restraint)
Ex parte Williams, 690 S.W.2d 243 (Tex. 1985) (restraint exists despite release on bond because bond may be revoked)
Ex parte Conoly, 732 S.W.2d 695 (Tex. App. Dallas 1987) (motion for enforcement must give proper notice of contempt allegations)
Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257 (Tex. 1995) (elements of criminal contempt: specific order, violation, willfulness)
Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1975) (no absolute right to jury trial in criminal contempt)
Ex parte Werblud, 536 S.W.2d 542 (Tex. 1976) (distinguishes petty vs. serious contempt for jury right)
In re Sproull, 815 S.W.2d 250 (Tex. 1991) (discussion of aggregate sentencing and jury-trial rights)
Taylor v. Hays, 418 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1974) (contempt is petty when actual penalty does not exceed six months)