What is the litigation takeaway from In Re D.B.?

Strict compliance with privacy rules is not optional; failing to redact sensitive information like children's names and birth dates under TRAP 9.9 can lead to your appellate filings being struck and your case being dismissed before the court ever hears the merits.

What is the summary of In Re D.B.?

In a mandamus proceeding arising from a contempt order in a child-related lawsuit, Relator D.B. submitted filings containing sensitive information, such as unredacted minor names and birth dates, in violation of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9. The First Court of Appeals struck the non-compliant documents and provided a seven-day window for the Relator to file redacted versions. Instead of curing the deficiencies, the Relator filed a 'Request to Withdraw Mandamus.' The court analyzed the request as a motion for voluntary dismissal and held that the proceeding should be dismissed without prejudice, effectively ending the appellate challenge due to procedural non-compliance and the Relator's subsequent abandonment of the petition.

What are the consequences of filing a mandamus petition that includes sensitive information prohibited by TRAP 9.9?

Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9(a)-(c), an appellate court may strike a mandamus petition and its appendix if they contain sensitive information. In the case of In re D.B., the First Court of Appeals ordered the relator to refile corrected documents within seven days or face dismissal of the original proceeding to ensure compliance with privacy protections.

How does a Texas appellate court treat a relator's request to withdraw a mandamus petition?

In In re D.B. (No. 01-26-00073-CV), the court construed the relator’s 'Request to Withdraw Mandamus' as a motion for voluntary dismissal. Because the relator opted not to refile corrected documents after the original filing was struck for a TRAP 9.9 violation, the court granted the motion and dismissed the proceeding.

What are the requirements for protecting sensitive information in Texas appellate filings under TRAP 9.9?

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9 requires parties to omit or redact sensitive information from filed documents. In In re D.B., the Court of Appeals struck the relator's petition and appendix because they contained sensitive information prohibited by the rule, illustrating that strict adherence to privacy rules is a prerequisite for maintaining an original proceeding.

Can a relator challenge a contempt order through a petition for writ of mandamus in Texas?

Yes, a petition for writ of mandamus is the appropriate procedural vehicle for challenging a contempt order in a Texas appellate court. As demonstrated in In re D.B., while the court has jurisdiction to hear such challenges, the relator must still comply with all technical requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure regarding the contents of the petition and appendix.

What is the procedure when a mandamus petition is struck for non-compliance with filing rules?

When a Texas appellate court strikes a petition for a TRAP 9.9 violation, it generally provides a specific timeframe for the party to refile. In In re D.B., the court allowed seven days for corrected documents; however, when the relator failed to refile and instead requested a withdrawal, the court dismissed the case rather than allowing it to remain on the docket.

In Re D.B. | Texas Family Law Powerhouse

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 01-26-00073-CV, February 19, 2026.

Synopsis

The First Court of Appeals dismissed a petition for writ of mandamus after the relator failed to comply with an order to redact sensitive information pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9. Following the court’s decision to strike the non-compliant filings, the relator filed a request to withdraw the petition, which the court construed as a motion for voluntary dismissal.

Relevance to Family Law

In the context of family law litigation—specifically SAPCR and contempt proceedings—compliance with TRAP 9.9 is not merely a clerical hurdle; it is a jurisdictional gatekeeper. This case demonstrates that the appellate court will not hesitate to strike a petition challenging a contempt order if sensitive information, such as unredacted minor names or birth dates, is included. For practitioners, the risk of a Rule 9.9 violation is twofold: it causes critical delays in seeking emergency relief and, as seen here, can result in the voluntary or involuntary abandonment of the mandamus proceeding altogether.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Relator D.B. filed an original proceeding seeking mandamus relief from a contempt order issued by the 313th District Court in a case styled In the Interest of S.C., a Child. Upon review of the petition and the accompanying appendix, the First Court of Appeals determined that the filings contained sensitive information prohibited by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9. On January 30, 2026, the court issued an order striking the petition and appendix, explicitly warning the Relator that the proceeding would be dismissed unless corrected documents were refiled within seven days. Rather than submitting redacted versions of the documents, the Relator filed a "Request to Withdraw Mandamus" on February 9, 2026, stating she would not be refiling the petition.

Issues Decided

The primary issue was whether the mandamus proceeding should be dismissed following the Relator's affirmative request to withdraw the petition after failing to cure TRAP 9.9 violations.

Rules Applied

The court applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9, which governs the handling of sensitive information in appellate filings. Under Rule 9.9(a)-(c), parties are required to redact specific data, including the names of minors and full birth dates. The court also utilized its discretion to construe a "Request to Withdraw" as a motion for voluntary dismissal, a practice consistent with the court's authority to dispose of proceedings at the request of the initiating party.

Application

The court’s application of the law was purely procedural. Once the Relator’s initial filings were struck for non-compliance with the privacy requirements of TRAP 9.9, the burden shifted to the Relator to maintain the proceeding by filing corrected documents. When the Relator reached the seven-day deadline and instead chose to file a formal letter requesting withdrawal, the court treated the letter as a motion for voluntary dismissal. Because the Relator expressed a clear intent to abandon the mandamus relief sought, the court found it unnecessary to reach the merits of the underlying challenge to the contempt order.

Holding

The Court held that the Relator’s request to withdraw the petition was effectively a motion for voluntary dismissal of the original proceeding. Based on this construction, the court granted the request. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to the underlying merits, as the procedural deficiencies and the Relator's subsequent withdrawal precluded appellate review.

Practical Application

For the family law litigator, this opinion highlights the aggressive stance the First Court of Appeals takes regarding the protection of sensitive data in child-related litigation. When seeking mandamus relief from a contempt order or a temporary orders ruling, counsel must ensure that every page of the appendix—often comprising hundreds of pages of trial court exhibits—is scrubbed of sensitive data. If a petition is struck under TRAP 9.9, the window to refile is narrow; failure to have a "clean" set of documents ready can lead to the loss of appellate momentum and may force a strategic withdrawal that leaves a client subject to an unfavorable trial court order.

Checklists

TRAP 9.9 Redaction Audit

Confirm all minor children are identified by initials only throughout the petition and all appendix exhibits.
Verify that birth dates are limited to the year of birth only.
Redact Social Security numbers and taxpayer-identification numbers to the last four digits.
Ensure driver’s license and other government-issued ID numbers are completely redacted.
Check bank account and credit card numbers, ensuring only the last four digits are visible.

Responding to a Rule 9.9 Strike Order

Immediately calculate the court-ordered deadline for refiling (often 7 days or fewer).
Perform a global electronic search of the PDF appendix for the specific "sensitive" strings identified by the Clerk.
Determine if the "sensitive information" was contained in a trial court exhibit that requires a motion to seal in the court below.
Evaluate the strategic necessity of the mandamus versus the cost of a comprehensive re-redaction of the record.

Citation

In re D.B., No. 01-26-00073-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 19, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Link ~~7945e103-ed4c-4e5e-91ef-b39ac8ac6d4f~~

In Re D.B.

Litigation Takeaway