From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Covington

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
Nov 1, 2021
No. 13-21-00322-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 1, 2021)

Opinion

13-21-00322-CV

11-01-2021

IN RE JULIE COVINGTON


On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Silva

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LETICIA HINOJOSA JUSTICE.

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. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case."); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

On October 5, 2021, relator Julie Covington filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to set aside an order striking relator's petition in intervention in the underling suit regarding the parent-child relationship. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 102.004(b) (governing standing for grandparents and other persons regarding the managing conservatorship of a minor child).

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem. Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that "(1) the trial court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal." In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135-36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving these two 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). In addition to other requirements, the relator must include an appendix and record sufficient to support the claim for relief. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3 (governing the form and contents for a petition); id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); id. R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed by one of the real parties in interest, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (TDFPS), and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden to obtain mandamus relief. Both relator and TDFPS support their analysis with citations to an evidentiary hearing; however, relator did not provide this Court with the reporter's record of that hearing in support of her request for relief. See id. R. 52.7(a)(2); In re Bill Heard Chevrolet, Ltd., 209 S.W.3d 311, 314 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice. See id. R. 52.8(a), (d). The relator's motion to stay, which we previously ordered to be carried with the case, is dismissed as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) ("Unless vacated or modified an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.").

The Court also requested responses to the petition for writ of mandamus from other real parties in interest, Jessica Schaffer, Allen Schaffer, Ashley Osteen Gortemiller, and ad litem Carmen M. Ramirez. However, none of these real parties in interest favored the Court with a response. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.


Summaries of

In re Covington

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
Nov 1, 2021
No. 13-21-00322-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 1, 2021)
Case details for

In re Covington

Case Details

Full title:IN RE JULIE COVINGTON

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg

Date published: Nov 1, 2021

Citations

No. 13-21-00322-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 1, 2021)