We review a trial court's ruling on access under an abuse-of-discretion standard. In re E.R.C., 496 S.W.3d 270, 283 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, pet. denied), cert. denied, Stokes v. Corsbie, 137 S.Ct. 834 (2017) (citing Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982)). A trial court's order will not be disturbed unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown.
See In re E.R.C., 496 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, pet. denied), cert. denied sub nom. Stokes v. Corsbie, 137 S. Ct. 834 (2017). In September 2016, Stokes filed a petition for bill of review seeking to set aside the December 2015 modification order.
In re E.R.C., 496 S.W.3d 270, 279-80 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016), cert. denied sub nom. Stokes v. Corsbie, 137 S. Ct. 834, 85 USLW 3350, 85 USLW 3352 (2017); Fuelberg v. State, 410 S.W.3d 498, 509 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, no pet.); see Rogers, 909 S.W.2d at 879 (Enoch, J., concurring). Rule 16.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure prescribes the procedure to be followed for recusal of an appellate justice or judge before whom the case is pending.