The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in a habeas-corpus proceeding after the pro se respondent B.B. (Father) informed the court that he was visually impaired and could not read documents served on him the day before the hearing. The trial court conducted a video hearing, did not provide accommodations to Father, and signed a habeas-corpus order that among other things awarded A.C.B. (Mother) a $4,231.44 attorney-fee judgment against Father. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 157.371, .372(a) (habeas-corpus jurisdiction to enforce motion for possession or access to child); § 106.002 (court may render judgment for reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses in a suit under Family Code title 5).[1] In two issues on appeal, Father argues that the trial court (1) violated his rights to due process and due course of law and (2) violated his right to due process when he was not allowed to present evidence of danger to the child. Concluding that we have jurisdiction over the final attorney-fee judgment against Father, we reverse and remand for further proceedings related to that judgment. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002 (appeal from final order). I. BACKGROUND[2] Mother married Father in 1998. The couple subsequently divorced, and in 2000, the 310th District Court in Harris County signed an order concerning possession of the child, child support, and other matters. In 2012, on Mother’s motion, the trial court signed a modification of its original order, allowing Father possession of their child, E.A.B, as specified in the order. In 2021, Mother filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, demanding the return of E.A.B., after Father refused to return E.A.B. under the terms of the 2012 possession order. At the hearing conducted via video conference, Mother was represented by counsel, while Father appeared pro se. At the beginning of Mother’s case-in-chief, she called her first witness, a constable, and questioned him about various exhibits. Father voiced confusion, telling the trial court: “Okay. I’m going to be honest, Judge. I really don’t know what’s going on with this witness.” When Father cross-examined the constable, Father explained that he is vision-impaired: “I can’t see, sir. If you were the officer that showed up at my home, you and the other officers that were standing at the door know that I cannot see.” Mother objected and the trial court admonished Father, explaining that the questioning was outside the scope of the witness’s testimony. Father then told the trial court: “Okay. Judge, I apologize. I can’t see the records that were submitted to me.” After confirming that Mother’s counsel had provided the records to Father the previous day, the following conversation occurred: [Trial court]: Okay. Thank you. So when I say that you may speak, you may speak, but right now we’re trying to get to the bottom of this issue that you’ve raised. Okay? The issue that you raised is that you are sight impaired and you cannot see the documents that were sent to you. What I am asserting, sir, is that you were sent these documents, it sounds like, at 1:30 yesterday, sir. You’ve had an opportunity to have somebody sit down and review those documents with you. Have you not, sir? [Father]: No, sir. [Trial Court]: Why not? [Father]: They sent pictures. [Trial Court]: Exactly, sir. But— [Father]: Those— [Trial Court]: Don’t you— [Father]: I apologize. [Trial Court]: So, sir, what do you need to be able to see them, sir? I know you are sight impaired, but that’s not going to stop this hearing from moving forward. You know what I’m saying, sir? I mean, what is it that you need? What sort of accommodation are you needing to ensure that you know what’s in those exhibits? How do you usually have somebody relay to you what printed information is or what photographs depict, sir? How do you normally do that just on a daily basis, sir? [Father]: My voiceover on my iPhone reads PDFs if they are in a Word document. [Trial Court]: Okay. [Father]: The voiceover does not, however, read pictures or—any pictures. [Trial Court]: Okay. How does somebody—how does one normally relay to you what is depicted in a picture? All right? How does that normally work for you? [Father]: If someone sends me a photo, I have someone with vision to tell me or describe it to me; however, I don’t—I don’t have a lot of pictures. . . . . [Trial Court]: I thought you were—I thought you were referring to the exhibits that were sent to you, sir. Sir, you’ve had ample time for somebody to sit down and review those pictures with you, sir. So, I mean, why did you do that? I’m just trying to get to the bottom of this. Maybe I’m just giving you to much leeway here. I’m trying to understand, sir. If you were given the pictures by 1:30 yesterday—right? [Father]: Yes, sir. [Trial Court]: —why—I’m trying to get to the bottom of why you didn’t have somebody sit down with you and describe to you what was depicted in those photographs because that’s normally how it sounds like you would have somebody assist you with photographs. Okay. Continue, Counsel. Mother then moved to an exhibit that included nine videos that had also been provided to Father via a “Dropbox link.” Father’s mother made a brief appearance during the hearing to help Father read some of the exhibits:
