### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03 - 21 - 00624 - CV

In re T. C.

OR I GINAL PROCEEDING FROM HAYS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Relator has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial court ’ s failur e to hold a de novo hearing within thirty days of an associate judge ’ s ruling on temporary orders

. See Tex . Fam. Code § 201 .015 (f) ( general ly requiring referring court to hold de novo heari ng with in thirty days of req uest)

. Relator also seeks sanctions p ur suant to rule 52.11 of the Texas R u les of Appellate Procedure against opposing counsel for allegedly mischaracterizing or misciting the record and legal authorities

. S ee Tex. R. App. P. 52.11 (authorizing appellate court wit hin its discretion to impose ju st san c tions on party or attorney w ho is not acting in good faith)

. Having reviewed the petition, re spo nse, reply , and record provided , we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and request for sanctions

. The underlying suit seeks t o modify a n order co nc e rning the parent
- child relationship

. On October 29 , 2021, an associate judge he ld a hearing and announced his ruling

o f temporary orders on the record

. On November 2 , r elator filed a request for a de novo hearing and requested a hearing date of Novem be r 29

. The trial court, however, was not available for a2 hearing on November 29 and provided alternative dates : December 6, 8, 13 , 14 , 15, 16, 17, 20, and 21 or the first week in January 2022. Relator was available for a hearing on December 20 but oppos in g counsel was not. Mandamus relief generally is available when a referring court refuses to hold a de novo hearing on an associate judge’s rulings

. S ee, e.g. , In re Talley , No. 07

- 15

- 00198

- CV , 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 6268 , at *4 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo June 22, 2 015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) ( “ A trial court ’ s failure to hold a timely requested de novo hearing within thirty days is subject to mand amus because such failure constitutes a clear abuse of discretion and remedy by appeal is inadequate to protect th is time designated right. ”)

. Here, however, t he record

r eflects that a lthough the trial court did not hold the d e novo hearing within 30 days , the trial

co urt did not den y or re fus e t o hold a de no vo hearing

— it offered multiple dates for the hearing withi n the next few weeks

. See In re L.R. , 324 S.W.3d 885, 888

– 89 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2010, orig. proceeding) (explaining that trial court i s not statutorily prohibited from s etting de no vo hearing more than thirty days after date of re quest) ; c f. In re R .A.O. , 5 61 S.W.3d 704 , 705 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (reversing and remanding because trial court denied request for de novo hearing) ; In re Jones , No. 05

- 07

- 00879

- CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 6255 , at

* 2 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Aug. 8, 2007, orig. pr oc eeding) (mem. op.) ( granting mandamus relief when trial court had not h eld he aring and tr ial court ’ s clerk returned request “ with a notation that the trial court said the temporary order could not be appealed ” )

. In this context, we deny the petition an d re quest for sanctions

.3 ____________ ______________________________ Melissa Goodwin , Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana Filed: January 7, 2022