In Re Carmen Carter-Faughtenbery v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Carmen Carter-Faughtenbery v. the State of Texas (In Re Carmen Carter-Faughtenbery v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-23-00036-CV
In re Carmen Carter-Faughtenbery
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Carmen Carter Faughtenbery filed a wrongful death suit against Kourtney Voigt
alleging that Voight “negligently, with gross negligence or malice, or intentionally, created a
foreseeable medical emergency, and failed to exercise ordinary care to address it, which conduct
was a proximate cause of” the death of Faughtenbery’s son Tyson Lambeck. Faughtenbery filed
the suit individually and as next friend of Lambeck and Voigt’s son T.L. Faughtenbery later
filed a motion asking the trial court to appoint her as a guardian ad litem for T.L. In response,
Voigt filed a motion to dismiss. After convening a hearing, the trial court granted in part Voigt’s
motion to dismiss by dismissing the claims Faughtenbery sought to pursue on behalf of T.L. In
its order, the trial court also denied Faughtenbery’s motion to appoint her as a guardian ad litem.
Following that ruling, Faughtenbery filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court to
direct the trial court to withdraw its order dismissing the claims brought on behalf of T.L. and
to appoint a guardian ad litem for T.L. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; Tex. R. App. P. 52.1.
Having reviewed the petition, the response, and the record, we deny the petition for writ of
mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a) (requiring court to deny petition if court determines that relator is not entitled to relief sought); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36
(Tex. 2004) (explaining that to be entitled to mandamus relief relator must show both that trial
court abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate remedy by appeal).
__________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker, Justice
Before Justices Baker, Kelly, Smith
Filed: March 10, 2023
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Carmen Carter-Faughtenbery v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-carmen-carter-faughtenbery-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.