In Re: Elizabeth C. Portteus v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 26, 2023
• Docket: 05-23-00909-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DENIED and Opinion Filed September 26, 2023

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00909-CV

IN RE ELIZABETH C. PORTTEUS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 303rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-00119

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Smith, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Smith Relator Elizabeth C. Portteus, who is proceeding pro se, filed a petition for

writ of mandamus wherein she complains about an August 18, 2023 Final Order in

Suit to Modify Parent–Child Relationship (the Final Order). Relator contends she

lacked adequate notice and participation in the proceedings below and makes

generalized complaints about (1) judges, an amicus attorney, and guardian ad litem

not fulfilling their duties; (2) child-support-calculation flaws; (3) “decisions” not

being in the children’s best interest; and (4) the judiciary’s failure to recognize her

communications about the appointment of a new legal representative.

Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure in numerous respects. For instance, she captioned her petition incorrectly, styling it with the initials of her minor children rather than her name. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.1, .2. The petition also does not identify the specific respondent(s) at issue,

see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2., and is not supported by a sufficient record or appendix.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a). Although relator attached a certified copy

of the Final Order, none of the other documents attached to her petition are certified

or sworn copies. Based on the complaints presented, relator’s record is also

incomplete. Additionally, the petition lacks clear and concise arguments for the

contentions made with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or

record. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h).

In any event, entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the

trial court clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate

remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

proceeding). After reviewing relator’s petition and the record before us, we conclude

that relator has failed to demonstrate she lacks adequate remedy by appeal.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a). To the extent relator requests any emergency or other relief in her petition,

those requests are denied as moot.

Additionally, based on our review, the appendix attached to relator’s petition

contains unredacted sensitive data, including the names, birthdates, and addresses of

minors in violation of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P.

9.9.

–2– Accordingly, we STRIKE the petition and its attached appendix.

/Craig Smith/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE

230909F.P05

–3–