Court Opinion

ID: 6500203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-15 07:11:02.830113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:54:33.706042
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-22-00191-CV
                               __________________

                                   IN RE B.A.F.

__________________________________________________________________

                         Original Proceeding
        County Court at Law No. 3 of Montgomery County, Texas
                   Trial Cause No. 21-11-15570-CV
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Relator B.A.F. seeks mandamus relief

from a temporary order that appoints the Department of Family and Protective

Services as the temporary managing conservator of her nephew, N.D.M. B.A.F.

argues that she is the child’s caregiver, the child was not properly removed from her

care, and the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the Department to maintain

conservatorship over N.D.M. rather than order that he be returned to her.

      We may grant the extraordinary relief of mandamus only when the trial court

has clearly abused its discretion and the relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy.

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-40 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

                                          1
proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig.

proceeding); Dancy v. Daggett, 815 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tex. 1991) (orig. proceeding).

After reviewing Relator’s petition and the supporting record, we conclude that

Relator has failed to establish she is entitled to the extraordinary relief sought in her

petition. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App.

P. 52.8(a). We deny the motion for temporary relief as moot. See Tex. R. App. P.

52.10.

         PETITION DENIED.

                                                             PER CURIAM

Submitted on July 13, 2022
Opinion Delivered July 14, 2022

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

                                           2