In re Tatiana Gunn, 05-25-01718-CV, February 17, 2026.
Synopsis
The Dallas Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus and struck the filing due to pervasive procedural non-compliance, including the failure to provide a certified or sworn record and the omission of the mandatory Rule 52.3(j) certification. Furthermore, the Court struck the petition and its appendix for violating Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9 by failing to redact sensitive information, a critical error in the context of a suit affecting the parent-child relationship.
Relevance to Family Law
In high-stakes family law litigation, particularly SAPCR cases, the necessity for immediate appellate intervention via mandamus is common. However, the Dallas Court of Appeals continues to enforce “exceptionally strict compliance” with the procedural requirements of Rule 52. This case serves as a warning that the merits of a trial court’s alleged abuse of discretion—no matter how egregious—will not be reached if the relator fails to properly authenticate the record or protect the privacy of the parties and children involved. For the practitioner, this underscores that a failure to scrub sensitive data under Rule 9.9 is not merely a clerical oversight but a ground for having the entire petition struck, potentially delaying relief and increasing client exposure.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator Tatiana Gunn, appearing pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus on December 30, 2025, seeking relief from various actions in an underlying suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR) in Collin County. The Relator’s filing suffered from a series of procedural infirmities: the record was neither sworn nor certified, and the petition omitted the specific certification required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j). Substantively, the Relator provided only a broad outline of issues and citations to the Texas Family Code and constitutional provisions without applying that law to the specific facts of the record or providing appropriate citations to the appendix. Finally, the petition and its attached appendix contained unredacted sensitive information in violation of the privacy protections afforded under the appellate rules.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether a relator is entitled to mandamus relief when the petition fails to comply with the authentication and certification requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 52.3 and 52.7 and violates the privacy requirements of Rule 9.9 regarding the redaction of sensitive information.
Rules Applied
The Court applied Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3(b)–(d), (h), (j), (k)(1)(B), and 52.7(a). These rules dictate the formal requirements for a mandamus petition, including the necessity of a clear argument with record citations and a certified or sworn record. The Court specifically relied on In re Stewart, emphasizing its precedent for “exceptionally strict compliance” with Rule 52.3(j). Additionally, the Court applied Rule 9.9, which mandates the redaction of sensitive information, such as social security numbers, birth dates, and the names of minors, from appellate filings.
Application
The Dallas Court of Appeals’ analysis focused entirely on the procedural deficiencies of the Relator’s filing. The Court noted that the Relator failed to provide a sworn or certified record, which is a prerequisite for the Court to determine if the trial court abused its discretion. Furthermore, the omission of the Rule 52.3(j) certification—where counsel or the relator must certify they have reviewed the petition and confirmed the factual statements are supported by the record—was viewed as a fatal defect.
The Court also highlighted a lack of substantive briefing; a relator cannot merely cite the Family Code and expect the Court to construct a legal argument. The narrative of the opinion suggests that without clear, record-backed arguments, the Court has nothing to review. Finally, the Court addressed the privacy violation. Because the Relator filed documents containing unredacted sensitive information in an SAPCR context, the Court exercised its authority under Rule 9.9 to strike the petition and appendix in their entirety, effectively removing the non-compliant documents from the court’s consideration.
Holding
The Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus. It held that the Relator’s failure to provide a sworn or certified record and the omission of the Rule 52.3(j) certification precluded the Court from considering the merits of the requested relief.
The Court further held that the petition and appendix must be struck. It determined that the disclosure of unredacted sensitive information was a direct violation of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9, necessitating the removal of the filing from the record.
Practical Application
This opinion reinforces the “lawyer’s game” aspect of original proceedings in the Fifth Court of Appeals. Family law practitioners must ensure that every exhibit in a mandamus appendix is either a certified copy from the district clerk or is supported by a meticulous affidavit from someone with personal knowledge (usually the trial attorney) attesting that the documents are true and correct copies of what was filed in the trial court. Moreover, in the frantic pace of family law litigation, Rule 9.9 compliance is often the first thing to slip. This case confirms that the Dallas Court will not hesitate to strike a pleading that exposes sensitive data, which could be devastating if a party is seeking an emergency stay of a custody or turnover order.
Checklists
Mandamus Record & Briefing
- Rule 52.3(j) Certification: Ensure the petition contains the exact certification language: “I have reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record.”
- Authentication: Verify that all documents in the appendix are either certified by the clerk or supported by a sworn affidavit.
- Pinpoint Citations: Cross-reference every factual assertion in the “Statement of Facts” and “Argument” sections to the specific page number in the Appendix (e.g., “App. 004”).
- Legal Application: Avoid “abstract” legal briefing; specifically apply Family Code provisions to the facts established in the record.
Sensitive Information Scrub (Rule 9.9)
- Minor Names: Redact the names of all minors to initials.
- Identifying Numbers: Redact Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, and bank account numbers to the last three or four digits as required by the rules.
- Birth Dates: Ensure birth dates are redacted to the year of birth only.
- Appendix Review: Manually review all exhibits (especially temporary orders and mediated settlement agreements) for “hidden” sensitive data that may have been missed by automated redaction software.
Citation
In re Tatiana Gunn, No. 05-25-01718-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 17, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~4f47765f-e217-4693-b044-528f4b87c14e~~
Share this content: