Thirteenth Court of Appeals Denies Mandamus Challenge to Child Support Contempt Order

In re Jonathon Patrick Simons, 13-26-00204-CV, April 13, 2026.

On appeal from Unspecified Texas trial court

Synopsis

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief from a February 9, 2026 contempt order arising from nonpayment of child support. The court held that the relator did not carry his mandamus burden to show either that the contempt order was void or that the trial court otherwise abused its discretion in a manner warranting extraordinary relief.

Relevance to Family Law

This opinion matters directly to Texas family law litigators because child-support enforcement and contempt remain core post-divorce and SAPCR battlegrounds. The case is a reminder that when a party attacks an enforcement or contempt order through mandamus, the appellate court will strictly enforce the relator’s burden to establish voidness, jurisdictional defect, or a clear abuse of discretion; conclusory attacks on support-enforcement orders are unlikely to gain traction, particularly where the record does not affirmatively demonstrate why the order cannot stand.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The relator, Jonathon Patrick Simons, filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging a trial court’s February 9, 2026 order holding him in contempt for failing to pay child support. The memorandum opinion provides only a limited factual discussion, but the procedural posture is clear: the contempt finding arose from a child-support enforcement proceeding, and the relator contended that the order was void, either in whole or in part.

The real party in interest, Heather Nicole Graham f/k/a Heather Nicole Simons, filed a response opposing extraordinary relief. The court considered the petition, the response, and the governing mandamus standards, then concluded that relator had not established entitlement to relief. Because the opinion is brief and the court denied relief, the decision does not elaborate on the underlying enforcement evidence, the amount of arrearage, or the specific defect alleged in the contempt order. What matters for practitioners is that the appellate court treated the challenge as one requiring a developed showing that the order was jurisdictionally void or otherwise mandamus-worthy, and found that showing lacking.

Issues Decided

• Whether the relator established that the trial court’s February 9, 2026 contempt order for failure to pay child support was void, in whole or in part.
• Whether the relator established the elements necessary for mandamus relief, including a clear abuse of discretion and the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal.
• Whether the nature of the alleged defect was sufficient to bypass the ordinary adequate-remedy requirement on the theory that the contempt order was void ab initio.

Rules Applied

The court relied on familiar Texas mandamus standards and void-order principles:

• Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy.
• To obtain mandamus relief, a relator ordinarily must show both:
• a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court; and
• no adequate remedy by appeal.
• The relator bears the burden to prove both requirements.
• If the challenged order is void because it was issued beyond the trial court’s jurisdiction, mandamus may issue without a separate showing that the relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy.
• A voidness argument does not prove itself; the relator still must establish that the order is in fact void ab initio.

The opinion cites, among other authorities, In re Allstate Indem. Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–38 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d 536, 539 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding); In re Vaishangi, Inc., 442 S.W.3d 256, 261 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); and In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding).

Application

The court’s analysis was concise but doctrinally straightforward. Simons framed his challenge around voidness, which is a strategically important distinction in contempt litigation because a truly void contempt order can justify immediate extraordinary relief without requiring the relator to prove that appeal is inadequate. But invoking the label “void” is not enough. The court began with the ordinary mandamus framework, emphasizing the dual requirements of abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy, and then recognized the exception for orders that are void ab initio because they exceed the trial court’s jurisdiction.

From there, the court effectively held that Simons did not bridge the gap between allegation and proof. After reviewing the petition, the response, and the applicable law, the court concluded that he had not met his burden to obtain relief. In practical terms, that means the court was not persuaded that the contempt order was jurisdictionally defective, facially void, or otherwise infected by the kind of clear error that would support mandamus intervention. The opinion does not specify the precise defect asserted, which itself highlights an important appellate reality: where the relator does not present a record and argument that clearly demonstrate voidness or abuse of discretion, the court will deny relief without reaching for unbriefed theories or reconstructing the case for the petitioner.

Holding

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that the relator failed to establish entitlement to mandamus relief from the February 9, 2026 child-support contempt order. Specifically, the court held that he did not carry his burden to show that the trial court’s order was void in whole or in part.

The court also necessarily held that, on the record and arguments presented, the relator failed to demonstrate the predicates for ordinary mandamus relief. Because he did not establish a void order or otherwise prove a mandamus-worthy abuse of discretion, the petition for writ of mandamus was denied.

Practical Application

For family law practitioners, the case reinforces several strategic points in enforcement and contempt litigation. First, if you represent the obligor and intend to challenge a contempt order by mandamus, your briefing must isolate the defect with precision. Was the trial court acting outside its jurisdiction? Did the order fail to satisfy the specificity requirements necessary for contempt enforcement? Was there a due-process failure apparent on the face of the record? If the answer is yes, the mandamus petition must walk the court through that defect with a record that leaves little room for inference.

Second, if you represent the obligee seeking enforcement, this opinion underscores the value of building a clean record and obtaining a carefully drafted enforcement order. A well-supported child-support contempt order is difficult to unsettle on mandamus absent a true voidness problem. That matters not only in stand-alone enforcement suits, but also in post-divorce litigation where support enforcement is proceeding alongside modification claims, possession disputes, or property-enforcement issues.

Third, the logic of this case extends beyond child support. In divorce, SAPCR, and post-judgment property enforcement, parties often overuse mandamus as a corrective tool. This opinion is another reminder that appellate courts will not substitute mandamus for a properly preserved and properly supported appellate complaint. In custody and support contexts especially, where interim orders and enforcement rulings generate urgency, the practitioner who can distinguish between a merely erroneous order and a truly void order will have a significant strategic advantage.

Checklists

Evaluating Whether a Contempt Order Is Truly Void

• Confirm whether the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction or acted beyond its statutory authority.
• Determine whether the challenged defect is jurisdictional, as opposed to merely procedural or evidentiary.
• Review the contempt order for facial specificity regarding the violated obligation, dates, amounts, and manner of noncompliance.
• Examine whether the underlying support obligation was sufficiently definite to support contempt.
• Assess whether the record shows a due-process defect that renders the order vulnerable to extraordinary relief.
• Avoid characterizing every alleged error as “voidness”; appellate courts will scrutinize that label closely.

Building a Mandamus Record in Child-Support Enforcement Cases

• Include the challenged contempt order and all relevant underlying support orders.
• Include the enforcement motion, notice materials, reporter’s record, and exhibits necessary to evaluate the alleged defect.
• Present a chronology showing precisely how the trial court allegedly exceeded its authority.
• Tie each complaint to the mandamus standard rather than simply arguing that the order was wrong.
• Address adequate-remedy-by-appeal unless voidness is clear and fully established.
• Anticipate and rebut the real party’s preservation, waiver, and record-deficiency arguments.

Drafting and Defending Enforceable Support Orders

• Ensure the underlying child-support order is clear, definite, and enforceable by contempt.
• Plead enforcement claims with specificity as to missed payments, dates, and amounts.
• Request a contempt order that clearly identifies each violation found by the court.
• Confirm that the order separates arrearage findings, money judgments, and contempt sanctions in a way that is internally coherent.
• Make a complete evidentiary record on nonpayment and any defenses raised by the obligor.
• Preserve the enforcement record with appellate review in mind, particularly where mandamus is foreseeable.

Avoiding the Relator’s Problem on Extraordinary Review

• Do not rely on broad assertions that a contempt order is void without pinpointing the jurisdictional or facial defect.
• Do not file mandamus with an incomplete appendix or record.
• Do not assume the court of appeals will infer missing facts or reconstruct the procedural posture.
• Do not blur the distinction between abuse of discretion and voidness.
• Do not ignore the requirement to prove the absence of an adequate appellate remedy when voidness is uncertain.
• Do not under-brief family-law-specific enforcement requirements when attacking a contempt order.

Citation

In re Jonathon Patrick Simons, No. 13-26-00204-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. 13, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~140b79ca-9d20-44ab-8d47-c74002cb51cf~~