## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 21

- 00025

- CV

IN RE CHELSEA MOREHEAD

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens2 

### ME MORANDUM OPIN ION
The underlying proceeding in this case is a modification of the parent

- child relationship, which was initiated by Real Party in Interest Zachary Morehead on December 21, 2020. In her petition for a writ of mandamus, Relator , Chelsea Morehead , ass er ts that Respondent, the Honorable LeAnn Rafferty, presiding judge of the 123rd Judicial District Court of Panola County, abused her discretion when she entered a February 12, 2021, temporary order that , in part, modified the parties’ agreed order’s designa ti on of the conservator with the exclusive right to de termine the ir child’s residence

. 1 Relator asks this Court to , among other things, issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate the complai ned of portions of i ts February 12, 2021, tempo ra ry order. For the reasons below, w e deny Relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Mandamus will issue “only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law , and (2) the absenc e of a clear a n d ade quate remedy at law.” In re Blakene y , 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) (citing Cantu v. Longoria , 878 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839

– 40 (Tex. 1992) (orig

. pr oceeding) ) . “It is the relator’s burde n to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish his or her right to mandamus relief.” Id . (citing Walker , 827 S.W.2d at 839

– 40; In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. , 187 S.W.3d 197, 198

– 99 (Tex. App.

— Texarka n a 2 006, orig. procee ding)); see T EX
. R. A P P
. P. 52.3, 52.7( a ).

1 The temporary order changed the designation of the conservator from Chelsea Morehead to Zachary Morehead.3

Rule 52.3 (j) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires the person filing the petition for a writ of mandamus to “certify that he or she has reviewed the petition and concluded that e v er y factual stateme nt in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3( j). The petition in this case does not contain th e required certification. In addition, a relator must file with the pe t i ti on “a cert ified o r sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding[.]” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.7( a)(1) ; see T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 52.3( k)(1)(A)

. (“The appendix must contain . . . a c e rt ified or sworn c opy of any order compl ained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of

. . . .”) “Documents that are attached to a properly prepared affidavit are sworn copies,” while documents attached to an improperly prepared af fidav i t are
not. In re Henders on , No. 06

- 15

- 0 0034

- CR, 2015 WL 13522812, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana Mar. 10, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing In re Butler , 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding)). “The affidavit ‘must aff irmat iv ely show i t is based on the personal kn owledge of the affiant’; the affidavit ‘is insufficient unless the statements in it are direct and unequivocal and perjury can be assigned to them.’” Id. (citing Butler , 270 S.W.3d at 759); see In re Garrett , No. 0 5

- 20

- 0 0462

- C V, 2020 WL 255 2892, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas May 20, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (an affidavit complies when it states , “under penalty of perjury, that the affiant has personal knowledge that the copies of the documents in the
ap pe ndi x are true a nd correct cop ies of the orig inals”). Although Relator’s appendix and the record contain copies of orders and other documents, they are not properly certified or sworn.4

“Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the pa rt ies ,” we must

“ strictly enfor ce[] the authen tication requirements of rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the mandamus record.” In re Smith , No. 05

- 19

- 00268

- CV, 2019 WL 1305970, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Mar. 22, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (quoting In re M cKin ney , N o. 05

- 14

- 01513

- CV, 2014 WL 73 99301, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Dec. 15, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) ). On the record presented, we cannot say that Relator has established a right to the relief she has requested. We may deny a petition for a writ o f m an damus for an inadequate record alone. See Blakeney , 254 S.W.3d at 662. Since Relator has not shown herself entitled to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, we deny the petition for a writ of mandam us.

Scott E. Stevens Justice

Da te Submitt ed April 27 , 2021 Date Decide d April 28 , 2021