Opinion
No. 05-16-01451-CV
06-16-2017
Original Proceeding from the 254th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF13-23371-R
ORDER
Before Justices Lang-Miers, Evans, and Schenck
Before the Court is relator's June 16, 2017 emergency motion to remove conditional nature of mandamus. On June 5, 2017, this Court issued its opinion and order conditionally granting relator's petition for writ of mandamus and ordering the trial court to, within ten days of the date of the order to "issue a written ruling vacating the December 1, 2016 temporary orders and reinstating the agreed final divorce decree." The trial court complied with this Court's directives on June 15, 2017 by signing an order that vacates the December 1, 2016 temporary orders and reinstates the agreed final divorce decree. However, the trial court, at the behest of real party in interest Mark Eddins, also signed a temporary restraining order and notice of hearing for temporary orders on June 15, 2017 in which the court restrained relator from having unsupervised contact, possession of, or access to the children, and ordered that the children shall remain in the exclusive and immediate possession of Mark Eddins. The court continued the hearing to June 16, 2017 to determine whether a temporary injunction should issue pending final hearing and to determine other issues.
Relator now asks the Court to remove the conditional nature of the June 5, 2017 opinion and order, and to issue a writ that vacates the December 1, 2016 temporary orders, reinstates the agreed final decree of divorce, orders the trial court to cease the hearing on Mark Eddins' request for primary custody of the children, and voids the temporary restraining order. The trial court complied with this Court's June 5, 2017 order. Our mandamus jurisdiction pertained to the orders originally complained of based on the mandamus record presented by relator. The trial court's further proceedings based on a new and much more developed record—only part of which has been filed by relator and more of which is being presented today and next Monday in a temporary injunction hearing to the trial court—is not before us on this mandamus.
Accordingly, we DENY the motion without prejudice to relator seeking relief in a future proceeding.
/s/ DAVID EVANS
JUSTICE