## Facts

- A divorce decree awarded the mother custody of three minor children and ordered the father to pay $150 per month (also stated as $37.50 weekly) “for the care, support and maintenance of the three minor children until said children attain the age of eighteen years.”
- The father initially paid $150 per month.
- After the oldest child turned 18, the father continued paying $150 per month for about one year, then reduced payments to $100 per month for the two remaining minors.
- A district judge held the father in contempt for noncompliance with the support order and committed him to jail for three days and until he paid $212 to “purge” the contempt.
- The father sought habeas corpus relief in the Supreme Court of Texas, arguing the support provision was too uncertain to be enforced by contempt.

## Issues

1. Whether the child-support provision was sufficiently clear and specific to support a contempt judgment when it did not unambiguously state whether payments decreased as each child turned 18.

## Decision

- Habeas corpus relief was granted.
- The court held the support order was ambiguous after one child reached 18 because it was reasonably susceptible to two different constructions.
- Because the order did not clearly specify the father’s duty under the changed circumstances, contempt could not be used to enforce it.
- The father was discharged from custody, and the contempt commitment could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- A decree enforceable by contempt must be clear, specific, and unambiguous on its face so the obligated party can determine required conduct from the order itself, without inference or speculation.
- If an order is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation, and one interpretation would excuse the alleged violation, contempt is improper.
- Contempt is an extraordinary remedy and cannot rest on an indefinite or uncertain command.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court ordered the relator released because the child-support decree, though definite while all three children were under 18, became ambiguous once one child reached majority and therefore could not support confinement for contempt.


Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43 (Tex. 1967)