Second Court of Appeals Denies Habeas Corpus Relief for Lack of Adequate Record in Child Support Contempt Case

In re Arianna Victoria Law, 02-26-00138-CV, March 13, 2026.

On appeal from the 233rd District Court of Tarrant County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Second Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of habeas corpus because the relator failed to provide a record sufficient to establish a right to relief. The court reaffirmed that a sworn petition is not evidence in an original proceeding and held that the absence of a reporter’s record or underlying orders precluded a finding of due process violations.

Relevance to Family Law

In the high-stakes context of child support enforcement and contempt, the liberty interest at stake does not relax the relator’s burden to provide a complete appellate record. This case serves as a critical reminder that even when alleging a total deprivation of due process—such as the absence of an evidentiary hearing—the appellate court cannot rely on the narrative provided in a sworn petition. For family law litigators, this underscores the necessity of meticulously documenting procedural failures at the trial level and ensuring that the record reflects the absence of a court reporter or the denial of a hearing before seeking extraordinary relief.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Relator, Arianna Victoria Law, was initially held in contempt by an associate judge for failing to pay child and medical support. The court sentenced her to 90 days in county jail but suspended the commitment, placing her on community supervision for five years. Subsequently, the Real Party in Interest, Matthew Wayne Rasnick, filed a motion to revoke the suspension of Law’s commitment. On February 20, 2026, both the associate judge and the district judge signed a commitment order authorizing Law’s 90-day incarceration.

Law filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the order was void because the underlying enforcement motion failed to strictly comply with the pleading requirements of the Texas Family Code. She further contended that her due process rights were violated because the trial court allegedly failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or, in the alternative, failed to provide a reporter’s record of the proceedings. However, the record Law provided to the Court of Appeals consisted only of the initial contempt order and the final commitment order.

Issues Decided

1. Does a motion to revoke community supervision under Texas Family Code Section 157.214 require the same verbatim quoting of provisions as a motion for enforcement under Section 157.002?
2. Does a sworn petition for writ of habeas corpus satisfy the relator’s burden to provide a record sufficient to establish a right to relief?
3. Can an appellate court determine whether due process was violated in a revocation proceeding in the absence of a reporter’s record or a comprehensive set of trial court orders?

Rules Applied

• Texas Family Code § 157.214: Governs the motion to revoke community supervision, which is distinct from the initial motion for enforcement.
• Texas Family Code § 157.002: Outlines the requirements for enforcement motions; notably, the court observed that even under this section, verbatim quoting of the underlying order is not strictly required.
• Burden of the Relator: In an original proceeding, the relator bears the burden of providing a record sufficient to establish a right to relief. In re Inmon, 703 S.W.3d 852, 853 (Tex. App.—Austin 2024, orig. proceeding).
• Evidence in Habeas Proceedings: A petition for writ of habeas corpus, even if sworn, does not constitute proof of the facts stated therein. Ex parte Linder, 783 S.W.2d 754, 760 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990, orig. proceeding).

Application

The court first addressed the Relator’s statutory argument, noting a fundamental misunderstanding of the Texas Family Code. The Relator challenged the motion for enforcement for failing to quote the underlying order verbatim under Section 157.002. However, the court pointed out that the Real Party in Interest had actually filed a motion to revoke community supervision under Section 157.214, for which the Relator offered no specific challenge. Furthermore, the court clarified that Section 157.002 does not, in fact, require verbatim quoting of the provisions allegedly violated.

Regarding the due process claims, the court found the Relator’s petition fatally underserved by the record. Law’s petition contained inconsistent assertions—alternating between claiming a record was not yet available, that no record was made, and that no hearing occurred at all. Because the Relator failed to provide a reporter’s record or any written orders beyond the commitment order itself, the court could not determine the procedural posture of the case. Specifically, the court could not ascertain whether the commitment was the result of an evidentiary hearing before an associate judge, a de novo review by the district judge, or a ruling made without any hearing. Without this evidence, the Relator could not carry her burden.

Holding

The Second Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court held that Law failed to provide a record sufficient to carry her burden of showing a right to relief, as counsel’s assertions in a petition are insufficient to establish facts in an original proceeding.

The court further held that in the absence of a reporter’s record or a complete set of underlying orders, it is impossible for an appellate court to review claims that a trial court committed a party to jail without evidence or without a hearing.

Practical Application

This opinion reinforces the “Record is King” doctrine in Texas appellate practice. When representing a client facing a revocation of community supervision in a family law matter, the attorney must anticipate the habeas petition at the moment the trial court deviates from standard procedure. If the court refuses to hear evidence or refuses to provide a reporter, the practitioner must make a formal record of that refusal. Simply alleging the absence of a hearing in a sworn petition will lead to a summary denial in the Court of Appeals. Furthermore, practitioners must be precise in identifying whether they are defending against a motion for enforcement or a motion to revoke, as these are governed by different sections of the Texas Family Code with distinct requirements.

Checklists

Preserving the Record for Habeas Review

• Demand a court reporter for all revocation hearings; if the request is denied, ensure the denial is reflected on the record or in a written order.
• If no hearing is held, file a formal objection or a motion for a hearing to ensure the trial court’s refusal is documented in the clerk’s record.
• Obtain and include the underlying motion to revoke and any intermediate orders (e.g., the associate judge’s report) in the habeas appendix.
• If the court reporter failed to record a proceeding, obtain an affidavit from the court reporter or a certificate from the clerk confirming no record exists.

Evaluating the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

• Confirm the statutory basis of the underlying motion (e.g., TFC § 157.214 vs. § 157.002).
• Avoid internal inconsistencies regarding the availability of the record (e.g., do not state a record is “not yet available” if you intend to argue “no record was made”).
• Ensure the appendix includes the initial contempt order, the motion to revoke, any docket sheet entries, and the final commitment order.

Citation

In re Arianna Victoria Law, No. 02-26-00138-CV (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 13, 2026, orig. proceeding).

Full Opinion

Link to Full Opinion

~~c2c9d65c-7a75-4c15-a961-ec5a24c2799e~~