Opinion
04-24-00219-CV
04-11-2024
IN RE THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2020-PA-01945, styled In the Interest of J.D. a Child, pending in the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez presiding.
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
On March 26, 2024, Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for emergency relief.
This court believes a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). Accordingly, Respondent and Real Party in Interest may file a response to the petition in this court no later than May 9, 2024. Any such response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.
This is the eighth mandamus petition filed by Relator arising from the same underlying matter. The five petitions that have been ruled on so far by this court have been meritorious, and this court is of the tentative opinion that Relator is entitled to relief in this proceeding.
Our prior opinions and orders should have eliminated any confusion or question that Respondent could have had regarding the limits of her authority to order the Department to take certain actions-especially given that in those decisions, we held that portions of Respondent's orders exceeded her authority and were void. In each decision we explained in substantial detail how portions of her order exceeded her authority-especially with respect to the Separation of Powers Clause.
See generally In re Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 04-23-00865-CV, 2024 WL 1289597 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Mar. 27, 2024, orig. proceeding); In re Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 04-23-00382-CV, 2023 WL 5418313 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Aug. 23, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 04-22-00341-CV, 2022 WL 6815172 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Oct. 12, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs., 660 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2022, orig. proceeding) (Sep. 14, 2022); In re Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 04-22-00166-CV, 2022 WL 3372425 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Aug. 17, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 04-22-00094-CV, 2022 WL 3219924 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Aug. 10, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 04-22-00087-CV, 2022 WL 3219596 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Aug. 10, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs., 660 S.W.3d 175 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2022, orig. proceeding) (Aug. 3, 2022); In re Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 04-22-00163-CV, 2022 WL 2821251 (Tex. App.-San Antonio July 20, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 04-22-00085-CV, 2022 WL 2820937 (Tex. App.-San Antonio July 20, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 04-22-00196-CV, 2022 WL 2442169 (Tex. App.-San Antonio July 6, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 04-22-00091-CV, 2022 WL 2230720 (Tex. App.-San Antonio June 22, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 04-22-00092-CV, 2022 WL 2230719 (Tex. App.-San Antonio June 22, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 04-22-00096-CV, 2022 WL 2135572 (Tex. App.-San Antonio June 15, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 04-22-00165-CV, 2022 WL 2135534 (Tex. App.-San Antonio June 15, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs., 660 S.W.3d 161 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2022, orig. proceeding) (June 1, 2022); In re Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 04-22-00226-CV, 2022 WL 1751013 (Tex. App.-San Antonio June 1, 2022, orig. proceeding).
Undeterred, Respondent has continued "to use the powers of [her] judicial office to accomplish a purpose which [she] knew or should have known was beyond the legitimate exercise of [her] authority." See In re Ginsberg, 630 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tex. Spec. Ct. Rev. 2018). Such actions arguably amount to a "willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of [her] duties." TEX. CONST. art. V, § 1-a(6)(A).
Further, Respondent has repeatedly-including twice in the underlying matter-violated the due process rights of Relator's employees.
See, e.g., In re Mack, No. 04-23-00402-CV, 2023 WL 5418314, at *2 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Aug. 23, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) ("[T]he trial court deprived Mack of the notice due process requires."); In re Gallegos, No. 04-23-00401-CV, 2023 WL 4482240, at *3 (Tex. App.-San Antonio July 12, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) ("Because Gallegos was not afforded the notice due process requires, the capias order is null and void.").
Accordingly, we conclude that a stay is required 1) to protect the rights of Relator and its employees; 2) to spare the time, money, and judicial resources being wasted by Respondent's actions; 3) to aid in the administration ofjustice; and 4) to protect the dignity and integrity of our courts.
"An appellate court may grant 'any just relief pending the court's action on'" a mandamus petition, including a stay of all underlying proceedings in the trial court." In re Bates, 429 S.W.3d 47, 53 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, orig. proceeding) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(a)-(b)). Rule 52.10(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure states that this court "on motion of any party or on its own initiative-may without notice grant any just relief pending the court's action on the [mandamus] petition." TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (emphasis added). As such, this rule, like Rules 24.4(c) and 29.3, embodies this court's inherent authority to grant temporary relief. See Tex. Educ. Agency v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 609 S.W.3d 569, 577 (Tex. App.-Austin 2020, order) (per curiam), mandamus denied sub nom. In re Tex. Educ. Agency, 619 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. 2021) (explaining that Rule 29.3 embodies an appellate court's "inherent authority . . . 'to make any temporary orders necessary to preserve the parties' rights'") (quoting TEX. R. APP. P. 29.3). See also TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4(c) ("The appellate court may issue any temporary orders necessary to preserve the parties' rights.").
Respondent, Relator, or any other interested party may request from this court a temporary lift of this stay. See Oryx Cap. Int'l, Inc. v. Sage Apartments, L.L.C., 167 S.W.3d 432, 438 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.) ("If Sage desired to non-suit its claims against Oryx, Sage should have asked this court to lift our stay so that it could file its non-suit in the trial court."). See also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10 (c) ("Any party may move the court at any time to reconsider a grant of temporary relief.'"). The best interests of the child will be considered in any such request to this court.
We ORDER that all proceedings in the underlying cause are STAYED pending further order of this court. We warn Respondent that any act in defiance of this stay will subject her to contempt proceedings.
It is so ORDERED.