Third Court of Appeals Denies Mandamus Relief in Hays County Family Law Proceeding

In re A.T., 03-26-00071-CV, February 24, 2026.

On appeal from Hays County

Synopsis

The Third Court of Appeals denied a second amended petition for writ of mandamus arising from a Hays County family law proceeding after the relator failed to establish the requisite grounds for extraordinary relief. The court concluded that the relator did not demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court or the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal, resulting in the dismissal of all ancillary motions as moot.

Relevance to Family Law

In family law litigation—particularly regarding temporary orders, jurisdictional challenges, or discovery disputes—mandamus remains an essential but elusive tool. This decision underscores the Third Court’s strict adherence to the rigorous standards of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52. Even with the benefit of multiple amendments, a relator’s failure to precisely articulate how a trial court’s action constitutes a clear abuse of discretion, or why a standard appeal cannot rectify the harm, is fatal. For practitioners, this highlights that the “extraordinary” nature of the writ is not a mere platitude but a high evidentiary and legal wall that must be scaled with surgical precision.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

This original proceeding originated from a family law matter in Hays County. The relator sought mandamus relief from the Third Court of Appeals, eventually filing a second amended petition. While the memorandum opinion does not detail the underlying substantive dispute—consistent with the court’s practice when a petition is summarily denied—the procedural history indicates a persistent attempt by the relator to invoke the court’s original jurisdiction. Despite the opportunity to amend the pleadings twice, the relator remained unable to satisfy the appellate court that the trial court’s interlocutory actions necessitated the “nuclear option” of mandamus intervention.

Issues Decided

The primary issue was whether the relator met the heavy burden of showing that the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion and that the relator possessed no adequate remedy by appeal.

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 that the relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Additionally, the court acted under Rule 52.8(d), which mandates the dismissal of pending motions once the primary petition is resolved. These rules operate alongside the well-established Texas Supreme Court standards requiring a relator to demonstrate a violation of a clear legal duty or a trial court’s failure to analyze or apply the law correctly.

Application

The court’s analysis focused on the relator’s failure to cross the threshold established for extraordinary relief. Mandamus is intended to correct a trial court’s clear failure to apply the law or to prevent a manifest injustice that cannot be cured on regular appeal. In this instance, the Third Court reviewed the second amended petition and the record provided. The court determined that the relator’s arguments did not rise to the level of showing that the trial court’s actions were arbitrary, unreasonable, or without reference to guiding rules and principles. Because the relator failed to meet this conjunctive burden, the court declined to issue the writ.

Holding

The court denied the second amended petition for writ of mandamus. The court found that the relator did not establish the necessary prerequisites for the issuance of the writ under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Furthermore, the court dismissed all pending motions as moot. Because the petition itself was denied, any requests for temporary stays or other ancillary relief no longer presented a justiciable controversy for the court to resolve.

Practical Application

For the family law practitioner, this case is a reminder that the Third Court of Appeals expects a comprehensive and persuasive record at the outset. When a trial court’s ruling threatens a client’s position—whether through an erroneous SAPCR order or an overbroad discovery ruling—the petition for writ of mandamus must be framed not as a request for the appellate court to “second guess” the trial judge, but as a demonstration that the judge had no legal choice but to rule otherwise. If you find yourself filing a second amended petition, you must ensure that each amendment addresses the specific legal or factual gaps previously identified, rather than merely re-arguing the same points with increased volume.

Checklists

Perfecting the Mandamus Record

• Include a certified or sworn copy of the order complained of, or a statement that no written order was signed.
• Provide a complete transcript of the relevant hearing to demonstrate that the specific legal argument was preserved in the trial court.
• Ensure every factual statement in the petition is supported by a direct citation to the appendix or record.
• Verify that the appendix is properly paginated and bookmarked according to the local rules of the Third Court of Appeals.

Overcoming the “Adequate Remedy” Hurdle

• Identify if the error involves a “permanent” change in a temporary environment (e.g., a temporary order that effectively determines the outcome of the case).
• Argue, if applicable, that the trial court’s order interferes with a parent’s fundamental constitutional rights, which cannot be restored after a months-long appeal.
• Demonstrate that the cost or delay of a standard appeal would result in a “waste of judicial resources” or irreparable harm to the children involved.

Citation

In re A.T., No. 03-26-00071-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 24, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Link

~~87b561cc-f02a-43f5-9547-b503353a3f49~~