Second Court of Appeals Denies Mandamus Relief in Tarrant County Family Law Proceeding

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 02-26-00075-CV, February 05, 2026.

Synopsis

The Second Court of Appeals summarily denied a petition for writ of mandamus and a related emergency motion to stay proceedings filed by Relator Charles Dustin Myers. The court determined that the Relator failed to carry the heavy burden of demonstrating a clear abuse of trial court discretion or the lack of an adequate remedy by appeal.

Relevance to Family Law

In Texas family law litigation, particularly within the jurisdictional bounds of the Fort Worth Court of Appeals, mandamus is the primary—and often only—mechanism for challenging interlocutory rulings such as temporary orders in a SAPCR or divorce. This summary denial highlights the court’s strict adherence to the “extraordinary relief” standard, signaling to practitioners that a petition arising from a Tarrant County family court (here, the 322nd District Court) must present an indisputable legal error and a record that leaves no room for discretionary interpretation.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Relator Charles Dustin Myers filed an original proceeding in the Second Court of Appeals, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Judge of the 322nd District Court of Tarrant County to vacate an unspecified order. Concurrently, the Relator filed an emergency motion to stay the underlying trial court proceedings (Trial Court No. 322-744263-23). While the per curiam memorandum opinion does not detail the underlying substantive facts of the litigation, the trial court’s designation confirms the matter involves a family law dispute. The court reviewed the petition and the emergency motion but found the Relator’s presentation insufficient to warrant appellate intervention at this stage.

Issues Decided

The central issue was whether the Relator satisfied the two-prong test for the issuance of a writ of mandamus: (1) showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and (2) demonstrating that the Relator has no adequate remedy by appeal.

Rules Applied

The court applied the standard governing original proceedings under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a), which mandates that if the court determines the relator is not entitled to the relief sought, the court must deny the petition. The court also relied on the well-settled principle that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, requiring a high threshold of proof regarding both the trial court’s error and the irreparable nature of the harm.

Application

The court conducted a summary review of the Relator’s petition and the accompanying motion for stay. In the context of mandamus practice, the Relator bears the burden of providing the appellate court with a record that establishes the right to relief. Because the opinion was issued per curiam and without a request for a response from the real party in interest, it indicates that the Relator’s filing failed on its face to meet the stringent requirements for extraordinary relief. The court concluded that the Relator did not present a compelling case for a “clear abuse of discretion” or establish why a regular appeal following a final judgment would be inadequate to address any alleged errors.

Holding

The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus, concluding that the Relator failed to demonstrate entitlement to the relief sought.

The Court of Appeals further denied the Relator’s emergency motion to stay proceedings, thereby permitting the litigation in the 322nd District Court to proceed as scheduled.

Practical Application

For the family law practitioner, this case serves as a reminder of the “Mandamus Gap” in the Second Court of Appeals. When seeking to stay a trial or challenge a temporary order, the initial filing must be comprehensive. The court will not hunt through a deficient record to find an abuse of discretion. Practitioners should ensure that every factual assertion in the petition is tied to a specific page in a certified appendix and that the legal argument addresses why the specific order cannot be corrected on appeal—a notoriously difficult task in property division cases, though slightly more achievable in custody matters involving parental rights.

Checklists

Perfecting the Mandamus Record

• Include a certified or sworn copy of every order complained of, as required by TRAP 52.3(k)(1)(A).
• Provide a complete Reporter’s Record of the hearing at issue; if no testimony was taken, include an affidavit to that effect.
• Ensure the petition contains a specific certification that the relator has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement is supported by competent evidence in the appendix or record.
• Clearly distinguish between “error” and “abuse of discretion”—the latter requiring a showing that the trial court could have reached only one decision.

Overcoming the “Adequate Remedy” Hurdle

• Identify if the order involves the permanent loss of a significant right, such as parental access or the right to counsel.
• Determine if the trial court’s order forces a party to settle or abandon a claim by making the costs of litigation prohibitive.
• Analyze whether the order violates a specific statute that the legislature has deemed “mandamus-ready” (e.g., certain jurisdictional or venue challenges).

Citation

In re Charles Dustin Myers, No. 02-26-00075-CV (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 5, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Link

~~0da879e8-d651-479d-8527-0ee957616f3c~~