in Re Kimberly Marks

Court of Appeals of Texas

in Re Kimberly Marks

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided May 28, 2015·No. 01-15-00087-CV·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued May 28, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

child relationship.1 We denied Marks’ pro se motion for emergency relief, filed with her petition, which sought a stay of both orders pending this Court’s resolution of her petition, and we requested a response. Marks’ counsel later filed a second supplemental petition seeking vacatur of both orders, dismissal of the trial court proceeding, and declaratory relief.

The real party in interest, the Department of Family and Protective Services (“DFPS”), filed a record showing that the trial court had granted its motion to nonsuit the underlying proceeding on February 17, 2015. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 162. Because the cause made the subject of this mandamus petition was nonsuited, it appeared that this Court no longer had jurisdiction, which prompted this Court’s March 5, 2015 order and notice of intent to dismiss. Marks filed a timely response with an objection to one of the DFPS’ exhibits, and the DFPS filed a reply. The Court, having examined and considered the pro se petition and supplemental petitions, response, and reply, is of the opinion that Marks has not established herself entitled to the mandamus relief sought. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

1 The underlying case is In the Interest of A.R.M., K.R.M., and C.M., Children, Cause No. 2013-73339, in the 310th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Lisa Millard presiding, who is listed as the respondent.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we deny Marks’ petition for a writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(d). We dismiss Marks’ objection as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion issued May 28, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

child relationship.1 We denied Marks’ pro se motion for emergency relief, filed with her petition, which sought a stay of both orders pending this Court’s resolution of her petition, and we requested a response. Marks’ counsel later filed a second supplemental petition seeking vacatur of both orders, dismissal of the trial court proceeding, and declaratory relief.

The real party in interest, the Department of Family and Protective Services (“DFPS”), filed a record showing that the trial court had granted its motion to nonsuit the underlying proceeding on February 17, 2015. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 162. Because the cause made the subject of this mandamus petition was nonsuited, it appeared that this Court no longer had jurisdiction, which prompted this Court’s March 5, 2015 order and notice of intent to dismiss. Marks filed a timely response with an objection to one of the DFPS’ exhibits, and the DFPS filed a reply. The Court, having examined and considered the pro se petition and supplemental petitions, response, and reply, is of the opinion that Marks has not established herself entitled to the mandamus relief sought. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

1 The underlying case is In the Interest of A.R.M., K.R.M., and C.M., Children, Cause No. 2013-73339, in the 310th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Lisa Millard presiding, who is listed as the respondent.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we deny Marks’ petition for a writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(d). We dismiss Marks’ objection as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale.

in Re Kimberly Marks, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

in Re Kimberly Marks (in Re Kimberly Marks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.