In Re Patricia Parker v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 18, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00582-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00582-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE PATRICIA PARKER

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Cron and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Patricia Parker asserts that the trial court

abused its discretion by sua sponte modifying temporary orders regarding

conservatorship of minor children K.P., K.A.P., and K.G.P. without proper notice and a

full adversarial hearing as required by the Texas Family Code. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.

§ 105.001 (a), (b), (h).

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). “Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy available only on a showing that

(1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion and (2) the party seeking relief lacks an

adequate remedy on appeal.” In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig.

proceeding); see In re Liberty Cnty. Mut. Ins., 679 S.W.3d 170, 174 (Tex. 2023) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex.

2004) (orig. proceeding); 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.

Because a trial court’s temporary orders are not appealable, mandamus is an

appropriate vehicle for review. See In re Derzapf, 219 S.W.3d 327, 334–35 (Tex. 2007)

(orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re K.B., 683 S.W.3d 850, 855 (Tex. App.—Austin 2024,

orig. proceeding); In re D.D., 661 S.W.3d 608, 617 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2023, orig.

proceeding); In re Walser, 648 S.W.3d 442, 445 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2021, orig.

proceeding).

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

the record, the response filed by real party in interest Paul Parker, and the applicable law,

is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden to obtain mandamus relief.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

YSMAEL D. FONSECA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 18th day of November, 2025.