Fourth Court of Appeals Denies Mandamus Relief in Bexar County Divorce and SAPCR Action

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 04-25-00767-CV, February 04, 2026.

On appeal from Unknown

Synopsis

The Fourth Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus in a Bexar County divorce and SAPCR proceeding, finding that the relator failed to establish a clear abuse of discretion or the lack of an adequate remedy by appeal. Despite obtaining an initial temporary stay and attempting to bolster the record through a supplemental petition, the relator did not satisfy the rigorous evidentiary and legal burdens required for extraordinary relief under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a).

Relevance to Family Law

Mandamus remains the primary—and often only—procedural vehicle for challenging interlocutory orders in Texas family law, particularly regarding temporary orders in SAPCR or property division where a direct appeal is unavailable. This case serves as a poignant reminder of the “heavy burden” rule: even when a temporary stay is granted initially, the appellate court will strictly scrutinize the record for a clear abuse of discretion. For family law practitioners, it underscores the strategic danger of trying to “repair” a mandamus record through supplemental filings containing new arguments not presented in the original petition, as such tactics often fail to overcome the high threshold for extraordinary relief.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Sydney E. Fenno (Relator) sought mandamus relief against the Honorable Angelica Jimenez in a consolidated divorce and Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) involving Kevin Fenno (Real Party in Interest). The underlying litigation, pending in the 408th District Court of Bexar County, involves contested issues typical of complex domestic relations matters. After filing her initial petition in late November 2025, the Fourth Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay. During the subsequent briefing period, the Relator filed a supplemental petition introducing new legal arguments not found in her original filing. The Real Party in Interest moved to strike these new arguments and contested the merits of the mandamus, leading the court to evaluate whether the trial court’s actions constituted an uncorrectable legal error warranting the court’s intervention.

Issues Decided

The primary issue was whether the Relator demonstrated that the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Additionally, the court addressed whether the Relator had satisfied the procedural and substantive requirements for relief under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a) in light of a record that included supplemental filings and new arguments.

Rules Applied

The court relied primarily on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a), which governs the disposition of original proceedings. The overarching standard applied was the dual-prong test for mandamus relief: the relator must show (1) a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court, and (2) the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal. The court also adhered to the principle that the relator bears the burden of providing a record sufficient to establish her right to relief, a standard that requires more than mere assertions of error.

Application

The Fourth Court’s analysis focused on the Relator’s failure to carry the substantial burden inherent in mandamus proceedings. While the court initially granted a stay to maintain the status quo—a common practice when a petition appears potentially meritorious on its face—the full review of the record and the Real Party in Interest’s response revealed a lack of the “clear” error required for intervention. The Relator’s attempt to pivot strategies by filing a supplemental petition with new arguments likely signaled a deficiency in the original petition. The court’s decision to deny relief indicates that the Relator failed to prove the trial court acted without reference to guiding rules or principles, or that the issues complained of could not be addressed effectively on final appeal.

Holding

The court held that the Relator failed to meet her burden to show she was entitled to the relief sought. Consequently, the court denied the petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a).

In a separate but related holding, the court ordered that the temporary stay previously issued on December 1, 2025, be lifted, effectively allowing the underlying divorce and SAPCR proceedings to resume in the trial court.

Practical Application

This case emphasizes the necessity of a “one-shot” mentality when drafting mandamus petitions in the Fourth Court of Appeals. Litigators should ensure that the initial petition contains every possible ground for relief supported by a robust record. Relying on a reply or a supplemental petition to introduce new theories is a high-risk strategy that rarely yields a different outcome once the court has shifted its focus to the merits of the original complaint. Furthermore, in the context of SAPCR litigation, this decision reinforces the appellate courts’ reluctance to interfere with trial court discretion unless the error is egregious and the harm to the parent or child is truly irreparable.

Checklists

Perfecting the Mandamus Record

• Include a complete, sworn record of all relevant trial court proceedings and exhibits.
• Ensure all transcripts from relevant hearings are filed with the initial petition.
• Verify that the record includes the specific order being challenged and any relevant findings of fact or conclusions of law.

Strategic Drafting of the Petition

• Front-load all legal arguments and authorities in the initial petition; do not reserve arguments for a reply brief.
• Clearly articulate why the remedy by appeal is inadequate, specifically addressing the unique harms prevalent in family law (e.g., loss of parental rights or dissipation of unique assets).
• Align the alleged abuse of discretion with a violation of a ministerial duty or a clear misapplication of established law.

Defending Against Mandamus (Real Party in Interest)

• Scrutinize the relator’s record for omissions that fail to provide a complete picture of the trial court’s reasoning.
• Move to strike or object to new arguments raised for the first time in supplemental filings or replies.
• Emphasize the trial court’s broad discretion in family law matters and the relator’s failure to prove the absence of an adequate appellate remedy.

Citation

In re Sydney E. Fenno, No. 04-25-00767-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 4, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

View the Full Opinion Here

~~7e0440fe-5a48-45a9-87b7-0351e6cabb13~~