In Re Kathleen Lynn Vandever v. State of Texas - Habeas Corpus
Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District, dismissed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Kathleen Lynn Vandever. The court found it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, as the child was located in a county under the jurisdiction of a different appellate court and the court of continuing jurisdiction had already issued a final order.
What changed
The Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District, dismissed the original proceeding filed by Kathleen Lynn Vandever seeking a writ of habeas corpus concerning a minor child. The court determined it lacked jurisdiction because the child was located in Tarrant County, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Second Court of Appeals, and the 360th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the parent-child relationship matters. The appellate court's jurisdiction to issue writs is limited to those necessary to enforce its own jurisdiction or writs of habeas corpus concerning restraints within its district.
This dismissal signifies that the petitioner must pursue relief in the appropriate court with jurisdiction. For legal professionals and courts, this case highlights the importance of adhering to jurisdictional rules when filing petitions for writs of habeas corpus, particularly in matters involving child custody and conservatorship. No compliance actions are required for regulated entities as this is a specific court ruling on jurisdiction.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 3, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
In Re Kathleen Lynn Vandever, Relator v. the State of Texas
Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 07-26-00143-CV
- Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus
Disposition: Dismissed-Want of Jurisdiction
Disposition
Dismissed-Want of Jurisdiction
Lead Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-26-00143-CV
IN RE KATHLEEN LYNN VANDEVER, RELATOR
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
March 3, 2026
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before PARKER, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Kathleen Lynn Vandever, proceeding pro se, filed a petition in this Court seeking
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ordering Deborah Wilkinson to return S.V.V., a minor
child, to her or, alternatively, a writ of attachment directing a sheriff or constable to take
possession of the child and deliver the child to her. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction
to grant the requested relief, we dismiss this original proceeding.
Vandever previously appealed from a Default Order in Suit Affecting the Parent-
Child Relationship issued by the 360th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County. That
order appoints Deborah Wilkinson as sole managing conservator of S.V.V. and appoints
Vandever as possessory conservator. The appeal was originally filed in the Second Court
of Appeals but was subsequently transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court
pursuant to its docket equalization efforts, where it remains pending. See TEX. GOV’T
CODE § 73.001.
In the present original proceeding, Vandever seeks relief under Section 157.371(a)
of the Family Code which permits a person to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in
either the court of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction or in a court with jurisdiction to issue
a writ of habeas corpus in the county in which the child is found.” This Court falls within
neither of the categories of courts authorized by the statute to grant such relief.
The 360th District Court of Tarrant County has rendered a final order in connection
with S.V.V. Accordingly, it retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the matters
affecting the parent-child relationship. See TEX. FAMILY CODE §§ 155.001(a), 155.002.
Further, nothing in the petition alleges that the child is located or restrained in a county
within the Seventh Court of Appeals District. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.201(h)
(identifying the counties comprising the Seventh Court of Appeals District). The petition
instead situates the child in Tarrant County, which is within the Second Court of Appeals
District. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.201(c).
Our jurisdiction to issue writs is further governed by Section 22.221 of the
Government Code. Under that provision, appellate courts may issue (1) “writs necessary
to enforce the jurisdiction of the court,” and (2) writs of habeas corpus in the “court of
appeals district in which a person is restrained in his liberty . . . when it appears that the
restraint of liberty is by virtue of an order, process, or commitment issued by a court or
judge because of the violation of an order, judgment, or decree previously made,
2
rendered, or entered by the court or judge in a civil case.” See TEX. GOV’T CODE §
22.221(a), (d). Vandever has not demonstrated that a writ of habeas corpus is necessary
to protect or enforce our jurisdiction. Nor does she allege that S.V.V. is restrained within
this Court’s territorial jurisdiction under circumstances that would invoke our habeas
authority under section 22.221. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.201(h). Absent such a
showing, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.
Accordingly, Vandever’s petition for writ of habeas corpus or writ of attachment is
dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 1
Per Curiam
1 Vandever may be able to seek relief under Family Code 157.371(a) by filing an application for writ
of habeas corpus with the trial court or the Second Court of Appeals.
3
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get State Courts alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Texas Court of Appeals publishes new changes.