DENIED and Opinion Filed May 5, 2023 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00381-CV IN RE ROBERT LANCASTE R AND ALICIA LANCASTER, INTERVENORS, Relators Original Proceeding from the 255th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-20-03861 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Carlyle, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia Before the Court is relators’ April 26, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus wherein relators challenge a me morandum ruling dated April 13, 2023. 1 Entitlement to mandamus relief requires re lators to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that rela tors lack an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).

1 Relators contend the trial court was without jurisd iction to set and go forward with the proceedings that took place on April 13, 2023, because our mand ate had not yet issued in No. 05-21-01108-CV. We express no opinion on the merits of relators’ petition, but we note that relato rs do not explain whether § 109.001 of the Texas Family Code may apply.–2– Based on our review, the appendix att ached to relators’ petition contains unredacted sensitive information, includi ng a minor’s birthdate and address, in violation of the Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.9. Accordingly, we strike the petition and its attached appendix. Moreover, relators bear the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record to show they are entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Because th e parties in an original proceeding assemble their own record, this Court stric tly enforces the requirements of rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the mandamus record. In re Gonzalez , No. 05-23-00056-CV, 2023 WL 3143425, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas April 28, 20 23, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Relators were required to file with their petition a certified or sworn copy of every document material to their claim for relief. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.7(a)(1); see also T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Relators filed their attorney’s unsworn declaration with their petition. An unsworn declaration must be “subscribed by the person making the declaration as true under penalty of perjury.” Bonney v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n , No. 05-15-01057- CV, 2016 WL 3902607, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dal las, July 14, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). “[T]he inclusion of the phrase ‘under pe nalty of perjury’ is the key to allowing an unsworn declaration to replace an affidavit.” Id. ; see also In re Butler , 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceed ing) (“An affidavit is insufficient–3– unless the statements in it are direct and unequivocal and perjury can be assigned to them.”). Here, relators’ attorney declares th at she has “reviewed the documents contained in the mandamus record” and that they “are true and co rrect copies of the pleadings, orders, and documents they purpor ted to be, which were filed, submitted, or received in the trial court proceedings a nd/or in the appellate proceedings in this matter.” The attorney declares that the facts stated “in this affidavit are true and correct and are based upon [her] personal knowledge.” But the attorney’s unsworn declaration does not invoke the penalty of perjury. Accord ingly, we conclude that relators have failed to meet their burden to provide a sufficient record. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a).

230381F.P05 /Dennise Garcia/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE