## Facts

- Donald Harris and Bettye Harris divorced and signed a written child-support agreement requiring Donald to pay Bettye $300 per month until their minor child turned 18.
- The divorce court signed a decree stating the agreement was in the child’s best interests and incorporating the agreement by reference into the decree.
- The decree did not itself state, in direct decretal language, that Donald “is ordered” to pay $300 per month or otherwise set out a specific payment command in the court’s own words.
- Donald did not make the agreed payments, and Bettye filed a motion seeking enforcement through contempt.
- The trial court found Donald in contempt, assessed a $250 fine, and ordered confinement for at least 30 days and thereafter until the arrearage was paid.
- Donald filed an original habeas corpus proceeding in the Texas Court of Appeals, Corpus Christi, challenging the contempt judgment and commitment order.
- The court of appeals allowed Donald to be released on bond while it considered whether the confinement order was lawful.

## Issues

1. Whether a person may be jailed for contempt for failing to pay child support when the divorce decree only incorporates a support agreement by reference and does not contain a clear, specific court order commanding payment.

## Decision

- The court of appeals granted habeas corpus relief.
- The court held the contempt judgment and commitment order were void because there was no clear, definite, and unambiguous support order in the divorce decree that Donald could have violated.
- The court ordered Donald discharged from custody (relieved from restraint under the contempt and commitment order).

## Legal Principles

- Contempt confinement must be based on violation of a prior court order that states the required act in clear, specific, and unambiguous terms so the charged party can know exactly what is required.
- A decree that approves a child-support agreement and incorporates it by reference, without a direct decretal command to pay a stated amount on stated terms, may be insufficient to support contempt incarceration.
- If the underlying order is not enforceable by contempt because it lacks a definite command, a resulting contempt judgment and commitment order are void and may be attacked by habeas corpus.
- Habeas corpus is the proper method to obtain release from confinement under a void contempt order.

## Conclusion

Because the divorce decree did not itself contain a definite and express court order requiring Donald Harris to pay specified child support, the trial court’s contempt finding and jail commitment lacked a valid enforceable order as its basis, rendering the confinement order void and entitling Harris to habeas relief.


Ex Parte Harris, 649 S.W.2d 389 (1983)