Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-26-00404-CV __________________ IN RE MAGALY A. ESPINOSA __________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 410th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 19-01-00898 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Magaly A. Espinosa filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and motions for temporary relief. The Real Party in Interest, Paul Jacob Carlson, filed a response. As discussed more fully below, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and any motions for temporary relief. On April 16, 2026, the associate judge for the 410th District Court signed temporary orders in a suit to modify the parent-child relationship. The Temporary Orders changed the parent with the right to determine the child’s residence from Espinosa to Carlson. On May 14, 2026, the presiding judge signed temporary orders 1 de novo that kept the temporary orders in effect and expanded the orders to include in-person supervised visitation. On August 14, 2026, the trial court signed an amended docket control order that set the case for trial on October 5, 2026. Espinosa filed her initial petition for a writ of mandamus and request for temporary relief on October 1, 2026, more than five months after the temporary orders came into effect and mere days before the date set for the trial. In her mandamus petition, Espinosa sought a stay of the trial, the return of the child to her under the terms of the January 17, 2020 Order Adjudicating Parentage, and possession of the child’s passport. On October 2, 2026, we denied Espinosa’s request for temporary relief and requested a response from Carlson. Espinosa filed a motion asking this Court to enjoin the trial court from signing a final order and filed a Second Amended Petition for a writ of mandamus. In her Second Amended Petition, Espinosa contends the trial court abused its discretion: (1) by affirming and incorporating temporary orders that altered the primary residence designation during a pending modification suit absent an affidavit that stated adequate facts of significant impairment required by Family Code section 156.006(b)(1); (2) by refusing to issue written findings explaining the variance from the Standard Possession Order as required by Family Code section 153.258; (3) by compelling mediation over Espinosa’s objection without holding an evidentiary hearing as required by Family Code section 153.0071(f); (4) by directing the court 2 reporter pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145 to withhold the verbatim reporter’s record of the de novo hearings until Relator filed a case in the appellate court; (5) by appointing Carlson as temporary sole managing conservator, although in August 2019 he was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for stalking Espinosa, which Espinosa argues is credible evidence of family violence for purposes of Family Code section 153.004; and (6) through the cumulative effect of the complained-of actions, by depriving Relator of her constitutional rights to procedural due process, equal protection, and the right to meaningful review. Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy that issues only to correct a clear abuse of discretion for which the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus is an appropriate vehicle for challenging a temporary order that is not appealable. Dancy v. Daggett, 815 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tex. 1991) (orig. proceeding). Nonetheless, we must weigh the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus is not issued as a matter of right, but at the discretion of the court, and whether the writ should issue is largely controlled by equitable principles. Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993) (orig. proceeding). 3 For instance, an appellate court may deny mandamus relief concerning temporary orders when a final judgment is imminent. See In re Williams, No. 03-25-00013-CV, 2025 WL 209427, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 15, 2025, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op.). Entry of a final order renders moot any complaints about a temporary order. See In re A.A., No. 08-14-00085-CV, 2014 WL 3953490, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Aug. 13, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). In this case, the trial has concluded. Although the mandamus record remains unclear regarding rendition of judgment, impending final orders may displace the need for mandamus relief. In re S.B., 720 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. 2025) (orig. proceeding) (Young, concurring). We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and any motions for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a), 52.10. PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on October 8, 2026 Opinion Delivered October 22, 2026 Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ. 4