Court Opinion

ID: 9407751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-08 19:10:05.898087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:39.771988
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00258-CV

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                                IN RE JOSHUA THORNTON

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria
           Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides1

        On June 15, 2023, relator Joshua Thornton filed a petition for writ of mandamus

through which he asserts that the district court2 abused its discretion by failing to comply

with the procedural requirements of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and

Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) before making a final determination of jurisdiction. See TEX.

        1  See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
        2 This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number F-404-10-1 in County Court at Law
Number 1 of Hidalgo County, Texas, and the respondent is the Honorable Rodolfo Rudy Gonzalez, who is
the acting judge for the case. See id. R. 52.2.
FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 152.001–.317. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

       Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,

840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial

court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re

USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “The relator bears the burden of proving these two

requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam); Walker; 827 S.W.2d at 840.

       The Court, having fully examined and considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the response filed by the real party in interest, the record, and the applicable law, is of the

opinion that relator has failed to meet his burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we lift the

stay previously imposed in this case, and we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8, 52.10.

                                                                 GINA M. BENAVIDES
                                                                 Justice

Delivered and filed on the
3rd day of July, 2023.

                                              2