Mandamus Relief Denied in Challenge to Alleged Constitutional Disqualification of Family Court Judge
In re Carey Lynn Johnson, 01-26-00124-CV, February 12, 2026.
On appeal from Unknown
Synopsis
The First Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus that sought to vacate trial court orders and stay proceedings based on an alleged constitutional disqualification of the presiding judge. The court held that the relator failed to meet the heavy burden of establishing a clear abuse of discretion or demonstrating a lack of an adequate remedy by appeal.
Relevance to Family Law
In the context of family law litigation, where emotions run high and parties often perceive judicial rulings as personal bias, this case serves as a critical reminder of the distinction between disqualification and recusal. A constitutional disqualification challenge is a jurisdictional strike that renders orders void, but it requires a strict showing of “interest,” relationship to the parties, or prior service as counsel in the matter. For practitioners dealing with high-conflict custody or property disputes, this ruling emphasizes that mandamus will not serve as a substitute for a properly developed record, even when jurisdictional integrity is questioned.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator Carey Lynn Johnson, proceeding pro se, filed an original proceeding in the First Court of Appeals against the Honorable Germaine J. Tanner, presiding judge of the 311th District Court of Harris County. The underlying litigation, Jon P. Herrera v. Carey Lynn Johnson, involved ongoing family law matters. Johnson sought a writ of mandamus and an emergency stay to halt the enforcement of what she characterized as “void trial-court orders.” Her primary contention was that Judge Tanner was “constitutionally disqualified” from the case, and therefore, any orders entered by her were produced without subject-matter jurisdiction. The petition did not elaborate on the specific constitutional grounds—such as pecuniary interest or kinship—but rather focused on the immediate cessation of enforcement actions by the trial court.
Issues Decided
The court addressed whether the relator had demonstrated a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court in the enforcement of its orders. Additionally, the court determined whether the relator had established her entitlement to the extraordinary relief of mandamus, specifically regarding the claim that the trial court was acting without jurisdiction due to judicial disqualification.
Rules Applied
The court applied the standard for mandamus relief, which requires the relator to show that the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion and that there is no adequate remedy at law, such as a regular appeal. Regarding the substantive claim, the court looked to Article V, Section 11 of the Texas Constitution, which provides the narrow grounds for judicial disqualification: (1) if the judge has an interest in the subject matter; (2) if the judge is related to either party by affinity or consanguinity within the third degree; or (3) if the judge served as counsel in the case. Furthermore, the court adhered to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8, which mandates the denial of relief if the court determines that the relator is not entitled to the relief sought.
Application
The court’s analysis focused on the relator’s failure to bridge the gap between an allegation of disqualification and the evidentiary requirements of an original proceeding. In a narrative of procedural insufficiency, the court noted that the relator bore the burden of providing a record that established a “clear abuse of discretion.” Because the relator failed to provide a factual or legal basis that would bring Judge Tanner’s participation within the specific prohibitions of Article V, Section 11, the court could not conclude that the trial court’s orders were void. The relator’s reliance on the conclusory statement that the court was “enforcing orders entered without jurisdiction” was insufficient to trigger the appellate court’s intervention in the underlying family law dispute.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the relator failed to establish her entitlement to mandamus relief. Specifically, the court found that the relator did not satisfy the dual requirement of showing a clear abuse of discretion by Judge Tanner and the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal.
In a separate but related holding, the court denied the request for an emergency stay and dismissed all other pending motions as moot. The court’s per curiam opinion signifies that the relator’s petition lacked the necessary legal or factual foundation to warrant a formal response from the real party in interest or a full evidentiary review.
Practical Application
This case highlights the strategic necessity of distinguishing between a judge’s discretionary rulings—which might be grounds for recusal or appeal—and a constitutional disqualification that impacts jurisdiction. Practitioners should advise clients that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and that pro se filings challenging a judge’s constitutional authority are rarely successful without a pinpoint demonstration of a pecuniary interest or a prohibited degree of relationship. If a judge has a conflict of interest in a property division or a prior relationship with a party in a SAPCR, those facts must be memorialized in a sworn record before seeking mandamus; otherwise, the appellate court will summarily deny relief as seen here.
Checklists
Vetting a Constitutional Disqualification Claim
- Determine if the judge has a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of the specific family law litigation.
- Check the degree of consanguinity or affinity between the judge (or the judge’s spouse) and the litigants to see if it falls within the third degree.
- Investigate the judge’s prior legal practice to confirm they did not act as counsel in the specific “matter in controversy” before they took the bench.
- Differentiate these constitutional grounds from TRCP 18b recusal grounds, which are waivable and generally not subject to the same jurisdictional voidness.
Perfecting the Mandamus Record in Family Court
- Include certified copies of the specific orders being challenged as void.
- Provide a sworn or certified transcript of the hearing where the disqualification issue was presented to the trial court.
- Ensure the petition complies with Rule 52.3, including an identity of parties and a clear statement of why the legal remedy of appeal is inadequate in the context of the current enforcement proceedings.
Citation
In re Carey Lynn Johnson, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2026, orig. proceeding) (No. 01-26-00124-CV; 2-12-26).
Full Opinion
~~f7629f06-9204-4c84-beda-a202a7b14ae9~~
Share this content:
