support. II. Issues and Analysis A. Interference-with-Custody and Contempt Claims In his second issue, Fox asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to pursue claims for interference with child custody and contempt at the jury trial. In support of this issue, Fox states merely that he had pled these matters well in advance of trial and that these pleadings were not stricken. To the extent Fox’s issue is a complaint about the trial court’s failure to hold Alberto in contempt, we lack jurisdiction to consider this complaint on direct appeal, and we dismiss this part of the issue. See Norman v. Norman, 692 S.W.2d 655, 655 (Tex.1985); Dorsey v. Houston Housing Authority, 14-10-00165-CV, 2011 WL 398022, at *3 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 8, 2011, no pet.) (mem.op) (<HOLDING>). To the extent Fox asserts arguments other
holding that appellate courts may review trial courts legal conclusions to determine their correctness holding that generally appellate courts will not review an issue raised for the first time on appeal holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review a final state court decision in a particular case holding that appellate courts lack jurisdiction on direct appeal to review a trial courts refusal to hold an individual in contempt