In re Stephen Girard, 03-25-00775-CV, March 17, 2026.
On appeal from Hays County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Third Court of Appeals granted habeas corpus relief and ordered the discharge of a relator after determining that the trial court’s commitment order was void for failing to specify the underlying decree provisions violated or the specific dates of non-compliance. Under Texas Family Code § 157.166(b), an enforcement order imposing incarceration for criminal contempt must contain specific findings identifying the provisions enforced and the dates of each violation to satisfy due process.
Relevance to Family Law
For Texas family law practitioners, this case serves as a critical reminder that the “Writ to Sheriff” or a standard commitment order is legally insufficient to sustain a client’s incarceration if it lacks granular specificity. Whether litigating custody, possession and access, or child support, the movant bears the burden of ensuring the trial court signs an order that strictly adheres to the technical requirements of the Family Code. A victory at the enforcement hearing—resulting in the respondent being taken into custody—is illusory if the commitment order cannot survive a habeas challenge due to a lack of detailed findings regarding the dates and nature of the violations.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator Stephen Girard and the Real Party in Interest (RPI) were divorced in 2021. The RPI filed a motion to enforce the possession and access provisions of the final divorce decree, seeking to hold Girard in constructive criminal contempt for allegedly withholding their child on various dates in early 2025. During a July 2025 hearing where both parties appeared pro se, the trial court found Girard in contempt. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court signed a “Writ to Sheriff” stating only that Girard was “sentenced to serve 180 days for contempt of court.” Girard was immediately taken into custody. He subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the order authorizing his confinement was void because it failed to articulate the specific violations or the decree provisions upon which the contempt was based.
Issues Decided
- Whether a trial court’s “Writ to Sheriff” satisfies the due process requirements for constructive criminal contempt when it fails to specify the provisions of the order violated.
- Whether an enforcement order in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship is void under Texas Family Code § 157.166(b) if it fails to identify the specific dates of the violations found to constitute contempt.
Rules Applied
- Texas Family Code § 157.166(b): In an enforcement order, the court must include findings identifying the provisions of the order for which enforcement was requested and the date of each occasion of non-compliance.
- Due Process Requirements: Constructive contempt—acts occurring outside the court’s presence—requires both a written judgment of contempt and a written order of commitment.
- Voidness of Orders: A contempt order is void if it is beyond the power of the court to issue or if it deprives a relator of liberty without due process.
- Ex parte Strickland, 723 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1987): Established the necessity of written orders in contempt proceedings to satisfy constitutional due process.
Application
The Third Court of Appeals analyzed the “Writ to Sheriff” as the operative instrument of Girard’s confinement. The Court noted that because the trial court did not sign a separate, detailed contempt judgment concurrently with the commitment order, the writ itself was required to contain all the essential elements of a contempt judgment. Specifically, it needed to state clearly in what respect the court’s prior order had been violated.
The Court found that the writ in question was entirely silent regarding which provisions of the 2021 divorce decree Girard had breached. Furthermore, it failed to incorporate the RPI’s motion by reference or list the specific dates of the alleged withholding of the child. Because the writ failed to provide Girard with the required statutory and constitutional notice of the grounds for his 180-day sentence, the Court concluded the order was void. The Court emphasized that the mandatory language of Texas Family Code § 157.166(b) leaves no room for “shorthand” commitment orders that omit the dates of non-compliance.
Holding
The Court held that the trial court’s commitment order was void because it failed to include specific findings identifying the provisions of the decree violated and the dates of the violations as required by Texas law.
Consequently, the Court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordered Girard discharged from custody. The Court determined that the violation of Girard’s due process rights rendered the confinement illegal, making it unnecessary to address Girard’s additional arguments for relief.
Practical Application
This holding underscores the necessity of meticulous drafting during the “prove-up” of an enforcement motion. Litigators must resist the urge to rely on a trial court’s standard writ forms. Instead, counsel for the movant should prepare a comprehensive “Order of Contempt and Commitment” that explicitly lists every date of violation and quotes the specific language from the underlying decree. For defense counsel, this case highlights a primary avenue for habeas relief: the “technicality” of the order’s form is, in fact, a constitutional due process requirement. If the respondent is jailed on a generic writ, a petition for writ of habeas corpus should be filed immediately.
Checklists
Drafting a Valid Enforcement Order
- Identify the Underlying Order: Include the exact title and date of the decree or order being enforced.
- Quote the Provisions: Set out the specific language of the provisions the respondent violated.
- Specify Violation Dates: List the specific date and, if applicable, the time of each act of non-compliance found by the court.
- Separate Findings: Ensure the order clearly distinguishes between the findings of contempt and the terms of the commitment (punishment).
- Incorporate by Reference: If not listing everything in the order, explicitly incorporate the Motion to Enforce and its specific allegations by reference (though listing them in the order is the safer practice).
Analyzing a Commitment Order for Habeas Relief
- Check for Concurrency: Was a written contempt judgment signed at the same time as the commitment order?
- Review for Specificity: Does the order state exactly how the respondent violated the court’s prior mandate?
- Verify Statutory Compliance: Does the order meet all requirements of Texas Family Code § 157.166, including the “dates of each occasion” of non-compliance?
- Distinguish Contempt Types: Determine if the contempt is constructive (outside the court) or direct (in the court), as constructive contempt triggers higher procedural hurdles for the trial court.
Citation
In re Stephen Girard, No. 03-25-00775-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 17, 2026, orig. proceeding).
Full Opinion
~~e1855011-c453-465e-84f6-92d4e5f9d252~~
Share this content: