Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-26-00337-CV __________________ IN RE ANDREW BRYCE JOHNSON __________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 1A District Court of Tyler County, Texas Trial Cause No. 27909 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Andrew Bryce Johnson, asks this Court to grant mandamus and temporary relief concerning a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship filed on June 30, 2026. In the trial court, Johnson filed motions on July 15, 2026, including a “Plea to the Jurisdiction and, Alternatively, Statutory Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with Texas Family Code Section 153.432(c)” and an “Alternative Motion for Mandatory Transfer to Hardin County, Texas.” Johnson requested the trial court rule on his threshold issues before addressing the merits of the SAPCR, because if either of Johnson’s motions were to be granted, the case would either be dismissed 1 or transferred to Hardin County. Without a ruling from the trial court, Johnson filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. The only order in the mandamus record is an order setting a hearing on September 10, 2026. The order states that the hearing will proceed in two phases: (1) “the Court will hear and determine all threshold matters, including but not limited to jurisdiction, venue, standing, service, notice, justiciability, and any other legal prerequisites to the Court’s consideration of temporary relief[;]” and (2) “If, and only if, the Court determines that the threshold matters are resolved and that all legal prerequisites are satisfied, the Court will immediately proceed to a temporary orders hearing.” As temporary relief Johnson asks this Court to stay the trial court from “(1) receiving evidence or conducting a merits hearing concerning temporary managing conservatorship, possession, access, significant impairment, best interest, parental fitness, or other non-transfer merits issues; and (2) signing, implementing, or enforcing any order that grants Real Party temporary managing conservatorship, possession, access, or other affirmative relief altering the existing parent-child status.” As mandamus relief, Johnson asks this Court to compel the trial court to dismiss the suit filed by the Real Party in Interest, Marian Antoinette Skinner, or to rule on Johnson’s jurisdictional arguments sufficiently in advance of the September 2 10 hearing so that he may seek review of any adverse rulings in this Court before the trial court considers any relief requested by Skinner. In the alternative, Johnson asks this Court to direct the trial court to address his motion to transfer the case to Hardin County based only on “transfer evidence” and enter “an express transfer ruling” before proceeding to the merits. “Mandamus is an extraordinary proceeding, encompassing an extraordinary remedy.” Deloitte & Touche LLP v. Fourteenth Ct. of Appeals, 951 S.W.2d 394, 396 (Tex. 1997) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we are to “exercise our mandamus power sparingly and deliberately.” Id. Mandamus will issue only when an ordinary appeal would not adequately remedy a trial court’s clear abuse of discretion or failure to carry out a duty imposed by law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “The operative word, ‘adequate,’ has no comprehensive definition; it is simply a proxy for the careful balance of jurisprudential considerations that determine when appellate courts will use original mandamus proceedings to review the actions of lower courts.” In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments, considering whether extending mandamus relief will preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). An appeal is not an adequate 3 remedy if the very act of proceeding to trial—regardless of the outcome—would defeat the substantive right involved. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 465 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). The arguments Johnson presents in his mandamus petition are matters that can and should be heard, considered, and ruled upon by the trial court in the exercise of the trial court’s discretion without preliminary instructions from the appellate court. Johnson has not shown that the trial court’s order setting a hearing is arbitrary and unreasonable, nor has he shown that the benefits of mandamus review outweigh the detriments at this stage of the proceedings. We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and any request for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a), 52.10. PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on August 26, 2026 Opinion Delivered August 27, 2026 Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ. 4