Supreme Court of Texas Denies Mandamus for Grandparents in Complicated Custody Dispute

In re S.G. and D.G., 25-0307, August 29, 2025.

On appeal from Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas

Synopsis

Direct answer: The Supreme Court of Texas denied the grandparents’ petition for writ of mandamus challenging temporary orders that conditioned visitation on the child’s agreement without providing a means to contact her. The Court emphasized that the impending trial will allow the trial court to reconsider and enter final orders that can address the alleged defects in the temporary orders.

Relevance to Family Law

This decision reinforces that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and that appellate courts will often defer to the trial court when a final hearing is imminent—especially in complex conservatorship and possession disputes. For divorce and custody practitioners, the case signals heightened judicial sensitivity to the clarity and practicality of temporary orders that control access to children, and it confirms that shortcomings in temporary orders are often better remedied at trial or by expedited final orders, rather than by immediate mandamus relief.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The child, E.G.S.N., became subject to protracted litigation after her parents died. After an initial jury appointment of nonparent joint managing conservators, the child was later adopted by her paternal aunt and uncle. Subsequent litigation culminated in temporary orders (October 2024) that limited the maternal grandparents’ visitation to periods “agreed to between the child and” the grandparents. The grandparents claimed they had no practical way to obtain the child’s agreement because they lacked the child’s contact information, the adoptive mother had blocked them, and she declined to provide the child’s phone number. The adoptive parents amended their petition to propose a “teenager clause” making visitation dependent on the child’s assent. The grandparents sought mandamus relief from the court of appeals (which denied relief) and then from the Supreme Court of Texas. Trial was set to begin within weeks (noted as September 23, 2025 in the concurrence), and the grandparents moved to stay the trial fearing final orders might moot their original mandamus petition.

Issues Decided

The Court addressed whether mandamus relief was warranted to invalidate or correct the trial court’s temporary orders that effectively conditioned visitation on the child’s agreement without providing the grandparents any means to contact the child, and whether the imminence of a final trial obviated the need for extraordinary relief.

Rules Applied

The opinion reiterates the governing principle that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy—available in proper cases but not routinely granted to short-circuit the ordinary trial process (citing In re Walker, 683 S.W.3d 400, 402 (Tex. 2024), and In re AIU Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 109, 119 (Tex. 2004)). The concurrence underscores the constitutional and statutory backdrop that fit parents generally direct a child’s upbringing, and it stresses that temporary orders affecting access to children must be clear and workable. The Court relied on these mandamus standards and practical considerations about the impending final adjudication to deny relief without reaching the merits.

Application

The Court applied the mandamus standard pragmatically: although the grandparents presented a non-frivolous claim that the temporary orders might be illusory—conditioning possession on the child’s agreement while leaving the grandparents without a means to communicate with the child—the proximity of a full trial altered the equitable balance. The Court concluded that a prompt trial will give the trial court the opportunity to reconsider and issue final orders that should remedy any ambiguity or impracticality in the temporary orders. The concurrence, authored by Justice Young, amplified the message that temporary conditions that effectively deny access to a conservator are problematic and should be crafted with precision; nevertheless, because a final hearing was imminent, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus was inappropriate at that time.

Holding

The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus. The Court held that mandamus relief was not warranted because the scheduled final trial provides the trial court the opportunity to address and correct any deficiencies in the temporary orders. The denial was procedural and not an adjudication on the merits of whether the temporary orders were legally defective; the concurrence emphasized the need for clarity in orders that limit access to children and indicated that appellate courts should be prepared to expedite review where temporary orders create illusory rights.

Practical Application

For practitioners, the case underscores two practical imperatives. First, draft temporary orders with specificity: Do not make possession contingent on a child’s agreement without also providing a clear, practicable method for communication and agreement—or alternative enforcement mechanisms—because a theoretically consensual condition can be illusory. Second, evaluate mandamus strategically: When a final hearing is imminent and can fix the complained-of defect in temporary orders, mandamus is less likely to be granted. If immediate relief is indispensable to prevent irreparable harm to a child’s relationship with a conservator, the petition must strongly demonstrate that trial will not cure the defect and that the consequences are immediate and irreparable.

Checklists

Drafting Clear Temporary Orders

• Specify methods of communication (phone, email, text) for arranging possession and specify who must facilitate or provide contact information.
• Include fallback procedures if the child declines or is unavailable (e.g., neutral third-party exchange, court-facilitated communication).
• Avoid conditioning possession solely on the child’s assent without a mechanism to ascertain or document that assent.

Gather Your Evidence

• Collect and preserve evidence showing lack of means to contact the child (screenshots, sworn affidavits that numbers were blocked, correspondence showing requests for contact info).
• Maintain a contemporaneous log of attempted communications and responses (or lack thereof).
• Prepare testimony and exhibits demonstrating historical visitation and the practical effect of the temporary order.

When Considering Mandamus

• Confirm the trial setting and whether a final order can realistically remedy the asserted defect.
• Demonstrate irreparable injury that cannot be remedied on appeal—explain why delay until final judgment would cause harm that cannot be corrected later.
• Establish clear legal error that is ministerial or beyond the trial court’s discretion; avoid relying solely on prediction about how the trial court might act at final hearing.

Emergency and Interim Relief Options

• Pursue emergency temporary relief in the trial court (motion to clarify/modify temporary orders, motion for expedited hearing) before seeking mandamus, where feasible.
• Seek expedited trial setting or immediate clarification of temporary orders under Texas Family Code procedures or local rules.
• Consider requesting enforcement mechanisms (contempt, sanctions, court-ordered contact exchanges) to preserve access pending trial.

Preservation for Appeal

• File timely objections and motions to clarify or modify the temporary orders; obtain written rulings to create a record.
• Seek findings of fact and conclusions of law where practical and permissible.
• If mandamus is pursued, craft the petition to focus on the narrow, demonstrable, and immediate harms and tie them to established mandamus standards.

Citation

In re S.G. and D.G., No. 25-0307 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2025) (denying mandamus).

Full Opinion

Full opinion (Young, J.), http://docs.texasappellate.com/scotx/op/25-0307/2025-08-29.young.pdf