Mandamus Denied in Child Possession Dispute Due to Incomplete Record Under TRAP 52.7

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garcia, 05-26-00114-CV, February 03, 2026.

On appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court, Dallas County.

Synopsis

The Fifth Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus arising from a child possession dispute because the relator failed to provide a record sufficient to establish entitlement to relief. Under the mandatory requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a)(1), the relator bears the absolute burden of providing a complete record; failure to do so precludes the appellate court from conducting a meaningful review of the trial court’s exercise of discretion.

Relevance to Family Law

This case serves as a critical procedural warning for family law practitioners navigating high-stakes temporary orders and writs of attachment. In the volatile context of child possession, the instinct is often to seek immediate mandamus relief from “emergency” orders that appear to violate the Status Quo or the Texas Family Code. However, this opinion underscores that the Dallas Court of Appeals will not exercise its extraordinary writ power—no matter how egregious the alleged error—if the relator fails to meticulously curate the mandamus record. For practitioners, this means that speed in filing cannot supersede the technical requirements of TRAP 52.7. A failure to include all material documents or transcripts effectively insulates a trial court’s temporary possession order from appellate scrutiny.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

On January 27, 2026, an associate judge in the 255th Judicial District Court of Dallas County issued two significant orders: one granting the real party in interest temporary possession of the children and another directing the clerk to immediately issue a writ of attachment. The relator, Larab Shiza Butt, sought to challenge these orders via a petition for writ of mandamus. The underlying dispute appears to involve a contested change in possession of children, a scenario where the “extreme” remedy of a writ of attachment is often employed to enforce or modify custody. However, when the relator filed the petition for mandamus relief with the Fifth Court of Appeals, the record submitted alongside the petition was deficient.

Issues Decided

The Court addressed whether a relator can maintain a mandamus proceeding to challenge temporary child possession orders and a writ of attachment when the relator fails to provide a complete record as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a)(1).

Rules Applied

The Court relied primarily on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a)(1), which stipulates that a relator must file with the petition a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding.

Additionally, the Court cited the foundational standard in Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992). Walker establishes that the party seeking mandamus relief bears the heavy burden of providing the appellate court with a record sufficient to establish that the trial court abused its discretion. Without such a record, the appellate court is procedurally barred from granting relief.

Application

The court’s application of the law was purely procedural, focusing on the relator’s failure to meet threshold evidentiary burdens. Because a mandamus proceeding is an original proceeding rather than a standard appeal, the Court of Appeals does not have the benefit of the trial court’s clerk’s record or reporter’s record unless the relator provides them.

The relator in this case challenged the associate judge’s January 27 orders but neglected to submit a record that allowed the Court to evaluate the arguments presented. The Court noted that without a “complete record,” it was “unable to conduct a meaningful review.” This suggests that material documents—potentially including the underlying motions for the writ of attachment, the evidence presented to the associate judge, or the transcripts of the hearing—were absent from the filing. Consequently, the Court could not determine whether the trial court acted without reference to guiding rules or principles.

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the relator failed to meet the burden of providing a record sufficient to show entitlement to mandamus relief. The Court emphasized that compliance with Rule 52.7 is a prerequisite to appellate review in original proceedings.

The Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus. The denial was based solely on the inadequacy of the record, reinforcing the principle that the relator’s failure to provide the necessary documentation is fatal to the petition.

Practical Application

When challenging temporary orders or writs of attachment, practitioners must act with both speed and precision. If an associate judge issues an order without a hearing, or if the hearing was unrecorded, the relator must still comply with TRAP 52.7 by providing the relevant pleadings and a statement that no testimony was taken. In Dallas County, the Fifth Court of Appeals strictly enforces these rules. If you are seeking to stay or vacate an order of attachment, ensure your “Relator’s Record” is filed simultaneously with your petition and contains every document the trial court touched before making its decision.

Checklists

The Mandamus Record Under TRAP 52.7

• Provide a certified or sworn copy of the order complained of (the “Subject Order”).
• Include all motions, responses, and exhibits filed by both parties in the trial court that relate to the issue.
• Include the court’s docket sheet if relevant to the timeline of the orders.
• Ensure all documents are “certified” (by the clerk) or “sworn” (via an affidavit from counsel stating they are true and correct copies of the documents filed in the trial court).

Addressing the Reporter’s Record

• Include a transcript of the hearing that led to the complained-of order.
• If no testimony was adduced, file a statement to that effect as required by TRAP 52.7(a)(2).
• If a transcript is requested but not yet available, ensure the petition explains why and includes the requisite motion for extension or a placeholder.

Citation

In re Larab Shiza Butt, No. 05-26-00114-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 3, 2026, orig. proceeding).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Link

~~90cbab2a-cad9-4872-b651-3b8943e7a118~~