Mandamus Record Must Include Material Orders and Evidence | In re Perez (2026)

In Re Jose Gilberto Perez, 05-25-01484-CV, May 11, 2026.

On appeal from 254th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Synopsis

Mandamus failed because the relator did not bring a mandamus record that allowed the Dallas Court of Appeals to evaluate the challenged ruling. When the record omits the operative temporary order, the motions at issue, and authenticated transcripts and exhibits from the relevant temporary-orders proceedings, the relator cannot establish a clear abuse of discretion under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7.

Relevance to Family Law

For Texas family lawyers, this is a record-case first and a conservatorship case second. In SAPCR, divorce, and modification litigation, especially where a party seeks mandamus review of temporary orders affecting conservatorship, possession, or parental rights, In re Perez reinforces that even strong parental-presumption arguments will not get traction in the court of appeals without a complete Rule 52.7 record. The lesson extends beyond custody disputes: whether the temporary ruling concerns a child, exclusive use of property, interim support, or enforcement-related relief, appellate success depends on supplying the operative order, the motion(s) actually heard, and a properly authenticated evidentiary record showing why the trial court had only one permissible decision.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The underlying case was a SAPCR filed by the relator’s brother, who alleged that appointing the parents as joint managing conservators would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development. The petition also indicated the child’s mother was deceased and the relator-father was incarcerated when suit was filed.

Early in the case, the relator, acting pro se, filed a sworn “Statement to Confer Standing and Waiver of Service.” In that filing, he represented that he was the father, asked that the case proceed without him, requested that his brother be granted sole managing conservatorship and immediate possession, and purported to waive rights regarding conservatorship, support, and parental rights and duties. The court of appeals flagged that filing as potentially significant, while also noting questions in the record concerning standing and even the precise parent-child relationship.

The appellate court’s opinion reflects that multiple temporary-orders proceedings apparently occurred before the associate judge in 2024, followed by a de novo hearing before the district judge in January 2025 and entry of a temporary order later that month. The relator’s mandamus petition, however, did not include that January 2025 temporary order—the apparent order that originally placed the child with a nonparent. Instead, the relator attacked an August 22, 2025 memorandum ruling denying his later request to modify existing temporary orders.

That omission proved fatal. The mandamus materials also failed to include the relevant hearing transcripts from the associate judge’s temporary-orders hearings, the January 2025 de novo hearing, at least one associate judge ruling referenced by the district court, and the motions counsel said had been filed and set. The only reporter’s record provided was from the August 22, 2025 de novo hearing. The court also noted a separate problem: the petition and record included unredacted sensitive data in violation of Rule 9.9.

Issues Decided

• Whether a relator seeking mandamus relief from an order denying modification of SAPCR temporary orders must provide the material temporary orders, relevant motions, and properly authenticated transcripts required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7.
• Whether mandamus may issue when the relator omits the operative temporary order that originally appointed a nonparent and omits the evidentiary record from the temporary-orders proceedings underlying the challenged ruling.
• Whether the relator carried his burden to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in refusing to modify the temporary orders.
• Whether the court should strike a petition and mandamus record that disclose unredacted sensitive data.

Rules Applied

The court relied on familiar but unforgiving mandamus principles.

• Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the relator shows both a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–38 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
• The relator bears the burden to provide a record sufficient to establish entitlement to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a) requires filing with the mandamus petition:
• a certified or sworn copy of every document material to the relator’s claim for relief, and
• a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from the underlying proceeding, including exhibits offered in evidence.
• The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the relator must provide the material documents and properly authenticated testimony necessary to evaluate the complaint. In re CG Searcy, LLC, 687 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
• A trial court abuses its discretion only when it acts without reference to guiding rules and principles or when the record shows it could have reached only one decision. In re M-I L.L.C., 505 S.W.3d 569, 574 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 198 S.W.3d 778, 780 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
• In the family-law context, mandamus may be appropriate when a temporary order wrongly divests a fit parent of possession of a child, but the relator still must present a sufficient record. In re C.J.C., 603 S.W.3d 804, 811 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding).
• Sensitive data must be redacted from appellate filings. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9.

Application

The court framed the case as a failure of proof, not as an endorsement of the temporary conservatorship arrangement. The relator urged that custody had been awarded to a nonparent, but the order he actually challenged was only the August 2025 ruling denying modification. That distinction mattered because the complained-of placement apparently originated in the January 2025 temporary order, and the relator did not include that order in the mandamus record.

Without the operative temporary order, the court could not determine the terms the trial court had actually imposed, whether the order was agreed, whether the relator’s earlier waiver affected the ruling, or what legal and factual predicates supported appointing the nonparent. The missing order also prevented the court from analyzing the relationship between the original temporary ruling and the later request to modify it.

The evidentiary omissions compounded the problem. The court noted the absence of transcripts from the associate judge proceedings and the January 2025 de novo hearing, along with the absence of evidence showing what the trial court heard regarding significant impairment, parental presumption, or the propriety of a nonparent sole-managing-conservatorship appointment. Because the relator sought mandamus relief, the court would not presume error from a partial record or resolve factual disputes in his favor.

The court further emphasized that the petition did not develop the legal standard governing modification of the temporary orders or explain why the trial court had no discretion to deny relief under that standard. In other words, the relator presented neither the full record nor the full legal theory necessary to prove that the trial court could have reached only one decision. On that record, the court could not conclude the trial court acted without reference to guiding rules and principles.

Finally, the court addressed a recurring appellate practice issue: confidentiality failures. Because the petition and mandamus record included unredacted sensitive information, including a minor’s full name and birth date, the court struck the petition and record under Rule 9.9.

Holding

The Fifth Court held that mandamus relief was unavailable because the relator failed to provide a record sufficient to establish a clear abuse of discretion. Specifically, the relator did not supply the operative temporary order, the material motions implicated by the ruling, or the properly authenticated transcripts and evidentiary materials required by Rule 52.7(a). Without those materials, he could not show that the trial court’s refusal to modify temporary orders was one for which only a single outcome was legally permissible.

The court also held that, although mandamus can be an appropriate vehicle to challenge temporary orders affecting a parent’s possession rights, that principle does not excuse noncompliance with mandamus-record requirements. A potentially important parental-presumption argument does not substitute for the actual order and evidence on which the complained-of ruling rests.

The court additionally struck the petition and mandamus record because they disclosed unredacted sensitive data in violation of Rule 9.9. The petition was denied without prejudice to refiling with a mandamus petition and record that comply with the rules.

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, Perez is a reminder that emergency appellate strategy begins in the trial court. If you anticipate mandamus from temporary orders in a SAPCR, divorce-with-children case, or modification proceeding, you need to create and preserve a reviewable record at each hearing layer—associate judge, de novo hearing, and any later modification setting. That means obtaining signed orders, confirming which motions were actually before the court, securing the reporter’s record, preserving exhibits, and organizing the chronology before filing the petition.

The case is equally useful for respondents. If the relator files a thin mandamus record, the response should focus immediately on Rule 52.7 deficiencies. Many family mandamus petitions overemphasize merits themes—parental presumption, C.J.C., due process, best interest—while underdeveloping the threshold requirement to provide the appellate court the material needed to test those themes. Perez confirms that a respondent can often win by exposing omissions in the record rather than litigating the entire merits dispute.

The opinion also has practical force outside conservatorship. In divorce litigation, parties seek mandamus over temporary injunctions, interim attorney’s fees, exclusive occupancy, business-control orders, and discovery sanctions. The same rule applies: if the challenged order depends on prior rulings, prior evidence, or a sequence of hearings, the mandamus record must capture that sequence. A partial excerpt from the latest hearing is often not enough.

Finally, Perez should change how lawyers handle cleanup before filing. Sensitive-data violations can derail a mandamus filing even where the merits are substantial. Family-law records are especially vulnerable because they often contain children’s identifying information, birth dates, medical records, and school records. A final redaction audit is now a nonnegotiable step in appellate filing practice.

Checklists

Build the Mandamus Record Before You Draft

• Obtain the signed order actually being challenged.
• Obtain any prior operative temporary orders that the challenged ruling modifies, confirms, or refuses to modify.
• Include every motion, amended motion, response, and pleading material to the issue presented.
• Include associate judge reports if the district court’s ruling adopts, confirms, or reviews them.
• Confirm file stamps where applicable.
• If an order was agreed or partially agreed, include the documents showing that posture.

Secure the Necessary Reporter’s Records

• Order transcripts from every hearing relevant to the challenged ruling, not just the latest setting.
• Include the transcript from the original temporary-orders hearing if the later ruling depends on that evidentiary record.
• Include the de novo hearing transcript if the district court conducted one.
• Confirm the reporter’s record is properly authenticated under the rules.
• Make sure admitted exhibits are included with the transcript or separately in a compliant record.

Tie the Law to the Procedural Posture

• Identify whether you are attacking the original temporary order, the denial of a motion to modify, or both.
• State the governing standard for the precise ruling under review.
• Explain why the trial court had no discretion under that standard.
• Address any waiver, agreement, stipulation, or invited-error issue in the record.
• If invoking parental-presumption authority such as In re C.J.C., connect that authority to the actual order and evidence in your record.

Preserve SAPCR-Specific Issues for Appellate Review

• Establish the client’s standing and parent-child relationship with clarity in the record.
• Make sure the record reflects whether the client appeared, participated, or was prevented from participating.
• Preserve evidence and objections concerning parental presumption and significant impairment.
• Clarify whether the challenged custody arrangement was temporary, agreed, emergency-based, or contested.
• If a nonparent was appointed, ensure the record contains the evidence the trial court relied upon.

Audit for Rule 9.9 Compliance

• Redact minors’ full names.
• Redact dates of birth.
• Review exhibits for medical, school, financial, and identifying information.
• Check appendices separately from the mandamus record.
• Perform a final PDF-level review before e-filing, not just a word-processing review.

Responding to a Deficient Mandamus Petition

• Lead with Rule 52.7 defects.
• Identify each missing order, motion, transcript, and exhibit.
• Emphasize that the court cannot determine abuse of discretion from a partial record.
• Point out any failure to brief the governing legal standard for the ruling under review.
• Raise Rule 9.9 defects where present.
• Resist litigating fact questions that the incomplete record does not conclusively establish.

Citation

In re Jose Gilberto Perez, No. 05-25-01484-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Dallas May 11, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~ba507161-188b-405e-a7ed-33b5b5a226bc~~