Fourth Court of Appeals Denies Mandamus Relief in Bexar County SAPCR Proceeding

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 04-26-00023-CV, February 04, 2026.

Synopsis

The Fourth Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus arising from a Bexar County SAPCR proceeding. The Relator failed to satisfy the heavy burden of demonstrating both a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and the lack of an adequate remedy through the standard appellate process.

Relevance to Family Law

Mandamus remains the primary—and often only—vehicle for challenging interlocutory orders in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) litigation, such as temporary custody orders or jurisdictional rulings. This case serves as a stern reminder that the Fourth Court of Appeals strictly adheres to the “extraordinary” nature of this relief; practitioners must present a record that demonstrates more than a mere disagreement with the trial court’s discretion, but rather a failure by the court to correctly analyze or apply the law. In the context of divorce and custody, failing to meet this threshold means the client must endure the effects of a potentially erroneous interlocutory order until a final, appealable judgment is rendered.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

This original proceeding originated from Cause No. 2024-PA-01069, In the Interest of D.W. and A.W., Children, currently pending in the 224th Judicial District Court of Bexar County under the Honorable Raul Perales. The Relator, Camoray Escobar, filed a petition for writ of mandamus on January 12, 2026, seeking to compel the trial court to vacate or alter an unspecified order issued within the SAPCR litigation. Given the “PA” designation in the cause number, the underlying matter likely involves the protection of children or parental rights. The Fourth Court of Appeals reviewed the Relator’s petition and the record provided but determined that the Relator’s presentation did not warrant the deployment of the court’s extraordinary writ power.

Issues Decided

The court decided whether the Relator met the requisite burden under Texas law to establish a clear entitlement to mandamus relief against a sitting district judge in a family law proceeding.

Rules Applied

The court applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a), which governs the summary disposition of a petition for writ of mandamus when the court determines the relator is not entitled to relief. The court also relied upon the established Texas standard for mandamus, which requires a relator to show that the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal.

Application

In applying the law to the Relator’s petition, the Fourth Court of Appeals engaged in a review of the filed documents to determine if Judge Perales’s actions constituted an error so egregious that it could not be rectified by a later appeal. In Texas family law, the “clear abuse of discretion” standard is difficult to overcome because trial courts are granted significant deference in determining the best interests of the child. The court’s brief per curiam opinion suggests that the Relator either failed to provide a record sufficient to prove the trial court’s error or that the issues raised were within the trial court’s discretionary purview. By denying the petition under Rule 52.8(a), the San Antonio court signaled that the Relator’s arguments did not meet the “prima facie” requirements to even warrant a response from the real party in interest or a full opinion on the merits.

Holding

The Fourth Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus. The court held that the Relator failed to establish that she was entitled to the relief sought, effectively maintaining the status quo of the trial court’s orders.

The court further held that because the Relator did not meet the high burden of proof required for an original proceeding, the appellate court would not interfere with the 224th District Court’s handling of the SAPCR matter at this interlocutory stage.

Practical Application

For the family law practitioner, this denial emphasizes the necessity of “mandamus-proofing” your trial court record and, conversely, the difficulty of oversetting a Bexar County judge’s discretionary rulings. When seeking mandamus in a SAPCR, you must argue that the trial court’s error is a legal one (e.g., misinterpreting a statute) rather than a factual one, as appellate courts rarely find an abuse of discretion on purely factual determinations. Furthermore, litigators must explicitly brief why an ordinary appeal is inadequate, especially in cases involving child possession or access where the passage of time creates irreparable harm.

Checklists

Mandamus Strategy Assessment

• Confirm the order is interlocutory and not subject to an immediate accelerated appeal.
• Identify the specific “clear abuse of discretion”—did the court act without reference to guiding rules or principles?
• Analyze the “Adequate Remedy” prong: Document how the trial court’s error permanently impacts the client’s rights in a way that a final appeal cannot fix.

Record Construction for the Fourth Court of Appeals

• Include a certified copy of the order complained of.
• Ensure the Reporter’s Record from the relevant hearing is filed; a mandamus without a transcript is almost always doomed in SAPCR disputes.
• Verify compliance with TRAP 52.3 regarding the identity of parties and the certification of the appendix.

Citation

In re Camoray Escobar, No. 04-26-00023-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 4, 2026, orig. proceeding [mus. struck]).

Full Opinion

View the full opinion here

~~d2893657-2f5a-4084-a563-173c45e43154~~