in Re S.E. and M.E.
Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-19-00166-CV __________________
IN RE S.E. AND M.E. __________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding County Court at Law No. 1 of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 19-02-03054-CV __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this original mandamus proceeding, S.E. and M.E. challenge the order
appointing the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services as the temporary
managing conservator of their minor children. See generally Tex. Fam. Code Ann.
§ 262.201(j) (West Supp. 2018). They argue: (1) the order is void because M.E. filed
a timely objection to the assignment of the retired judge who signed the order; (2)
insufficient evidence supports the conservatorship order; (3) the trial court violated
S.E.’s due process rights by refusing to allow her to exceed the one-hour limit, per
party, that the trial court imposed during the adversary hearing; and (4) the trial court
1 violated S.E.’s due process rights by refusing to allow S.E. to cross-examine the
witnesses to support her offer of proof. Based on the record before us, we conclude
that the relators have not shown they are entitled to relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827
S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we deny the
petition for a writ of mandamus and the motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R.
App. P. 52.8(a).
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on June 3, 2019 Opinion Delivered June 3, 2019
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
in Re S.E. and M.E. (in Re S.E. and M.E.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.