Court Opinion

ID: 3077239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:25:30.820016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:14:46.615328
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           ____________________
                              NO. 09-13-00149-CV
                           ____________________

              IN RE LATITIA ADELLE JOHNSON BARNARD

_______________________________________________________           ______________

                               Original Proceeding
________________________________________________________           _____________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In a mandamus petition, Latitia Adelle Johnson Barnard seeks to compel the

trial court to vacate temporary orders in a pending suit for modification of the

parent-child relationship. 1 See In re Derzapf, 219 S.W.3d 327, 334-35 (Tex. 2007);

In re Lemons, 47 S.W.3d 202, 203-04 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2001, orig.

proceeding). Relator contends the trial court abused its discretion by changing the

designation of the person who has the exclusive right to designate the primary

residence of the children. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 156.006 (West Supp. 2012).

      1
        Relator and her former spouse, Julius Marion Barnard III, have both
petitioned to modify the custody provisions of their 2008 divorce decree. The real
party in interest has also petitioned to terminate relator’s parental rights.
                                        1
Relator also seeks to compel the trial court to decline to exercise jurisdiction and

transfer the case to a Louisiana court that has denied relator’s request for a

protective order and deferred to the Texas court. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §

152.207 (West 2008).

      After reviewing the mandamus record and considering the arguments

presented in the petition and the response, we conclude relator has not shown that

she is entitled to the relief she has sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of

mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                                        PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 10, 2013
Opinion Delivered April 25, 2013
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

                                         2