From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re T. A.-K.

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Jan 26, 2021
NUMBER 13-21-00031-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 26, 2021)

Opinion

NUMBER 13-21-00031-CV

01-26-2021

IN RE T. A.-K.


On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Silva
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ("When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so," but "[w]hen granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case"); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

Relator T. A.-K. filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this cause through which she alleges that the trial court abused its discretion by failing "to order the return of R.S. to [r]elator when the evidence did not support findings required by [§] 262.201(g) of the Texas Family Code. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 262.201(g) (requiring the trial court to return a child to its parent after a full adversary hearing unless the court finds sufficient evidence of specified circumstances including, inter alia, a danger to the child).

Mandamus is both an extraordinary remedy and a discretionary one. In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). For mandamus to issue, the relator must show that the trial court abused its discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists to cure the error. In re N. Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co., 559 S.W.3d 128, 130 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding); In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving both requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). As it pertains to this case, mandamus relief may be available to review a trial court's ruling under § 262.201. See In re M.N.M., 524 S.W.3d 396, 399 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding); In re Hughes, 446 S.W.3d 859, 860 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, orig. proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has failed to meet her burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.

CLARISSA SILVA

Justice Delivered and filed on the 26th day of January, 2021.


Summaries of

In re T. A.-K.

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Jan 26, 2021
NUMBER 13-21-00031-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 26, 2021)
Case details for

In re T. A.-K.

Case Details

Full title:IN RE T. A.-K.

Court:COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

Date published: Jan 26, 2021

Citations

NUMBER 13-21-00031-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 26, 2021)