What is the litigation takeaway from In Re Diego Raoul Goding?

Procedural technicalities in mandamus proceedings are mandatory and strictly enforced. Family law practitioners must ensure that every document in the appellate record is properly authenticated (either certified or sworn) and that the appendix complies with all requirements of TRAP 52; otherwise, the court will deny relief regardless of the underlying 'best interest of the child' arguments.

What is the summary of In Re Diego Raoul Goding?

In a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR), Relator Diego Raoul Goding filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate three trial court orders. The First Court of Appeals denied the petition without reaching the merits of the case. The court's analysis focused on the Relator's failure to satisfy the mandatory procedural requirements under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3 and 52.7, which require a relator to provide a sworn or certified record and a sufficient appendix. Because the Relator failed to authenticate the documents and provide a proper record of the underlying proceedings, the court held that he failed to demonstrate a clear entitlement to mandamus relief.

What is the procedural context of the In re Diego Raoul Goding mandamus proceeding?

The case In re Diego Raoul Goding (No. 01-26-00115-CV) is an original proceeding on a petition for writ of mandamus. The relator sought to vacate trial court orders signed on December 19, 2025, December 23, 2025, and January 9, 2026, arising from a family law matter in the 312th District Court of Harris County.

Why did the First Court of Appeals deny the petition for writ of mandamus in the Goding case?

The First Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus because the relator failed to meet the formal requirements for a mandamus filing under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure (TRAP). Specifically, the Court cited TRAP 52.3 and 52.7, which govern the contents of the petition and the required record.

What are the essential requirements for the contents of a mandamus petition under TRAP 52.3?

Relators must comply with TRAP 52.3(i), (k), and (l), which require a certification of the petition, a proper appendix containing the orders complained of, and factual statements supported by the record. In In re Goding, the Court's citation to these rules indicates that a failure to provide these verified components is grounds for summary denial under Rule 52.8(a).

What are the requirements for a mandamus record under TRAP 52.7?

Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a)(1)-(2), a relator is required to file a record that includes certified or sworn copies of every document material to the claim for relief and a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant trial court hearing. The First Court of Appeals cited these specific sections as a basis for denying relief in the Goding matter.

Can a Texas appellate court grant mandamus relief if the relator fails to provide a complete record?

If a relator fails to provide an adequate record or appendix as required by the appellate rules, the court will typically deny the petition without reaching the merits. As shown in In re Goding, the Court dismissed all pending motions as moot and denied the writ because the relator did not provide the necessary documentation to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial court.

Who were the presiding justices in the In re Goding mandamus proceeding, and what was the nature of their opinion?

The First Court of Appeals panel, consisting of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Guiney, and Morgan, issued a Per Curiam memorandum opinion. This signifies a collective decision by the court to deny the petition based on procedural non-compliance with TRAP 52, rather than a substantive evaluation of the underlying family law dispute.

In Re Diego Raoul Goding | Texas Family Law Powerhouse

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 01-26-00115-CV, February 12, 2026.

On appeal from the 312th District Court of Harris County.

Synopsis

The First Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus in a SAPCR proceeding because the relator failed to satisfy the mandatory procedural requirements for the appellate record and petition. Under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the relator’s failure to provide a sufficient appendix and authenticated record precluded the court from reaching the merits of the challenged trial court orders.

Relevance to Family Law

In the high-stakes environment of SAPCR and divorce litigation, mandamus is often the only immediate vehicle to correct a trial court’s clear abuse of discretion regarding temporary orders or child-custody determinations. However, this opinion underscores that the "best interest of the child" does not excuse a practitioner from the technical rigors of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52. If a family law litigator fails to properly authenticate the record or provide the specific documents required by the rules, the appellate court will summarily deny relief without ever considering the underlying substantive errors of the trial court. This results in a total loss of the "extraordinary" remedy, leaving the client bound by potentially harmful orders for the duration of the trial court proceedings.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Relator Diego Raoul Goding filed an original proceeding seeking a writ of mandamus to vacate three specific orders signed by the Honorable Teresa J. Waldrop in the 312th District Court of Harris County. These orders, dated December 19, 2025, December 23, 2025, and January 9, 2026, were issued in a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) involving the child E.S.G. While the Relator sought to have these orders vacated—presumably on the grounds of an abuse of discretion—the appellate court’s review was halted at the threshold. The record filed by the Relator did not meet the mandatory authentication and inclusion standards required to allow the Court of Appeals to evaluate the trial court’s actions.

Issues Decided

The primary issue was whether the relator met the burden to provide a petition and record that complied with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3 and 52.7, thereby enabling the court to determine if a clear abuse of discretion occurred or if the relator lacked an adequate remedy by appeal.

Rules Applied

The Court applied the strict procedural mandates of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure governing original proceedings:
* TRAP 52.3(i), (k), and (l): Governing the form and contents of the petition, including the necessity of a proper appendix and the certification of the petition’s factual statements.
* TRAP 52.7(a)(1)-(2): Requiring the relator to file a record containing certified or sworn copies of every document material to the claim and a properly authenticated transcript of the relevant underlying hearings.
* TRAP 52.8(a): Providing the basis for the court to deny the petition if the relator fails to show entitlement to the relief sought.

Application

The Court's analysis focused entirely on the deficiency of the Relator's filing rather than the merits of the SAPCR orders. In a mandamus proceeding, the relator bears the heavy burden of providing the appellate court with a record sufficient to establish the right to mandamus relief. The Court found that Goding failed to comply with Rule 52.3, which dictates the contents of the appendix, and Rule 52.7, which requires a sworn or certified record.

Because original proceedings are decided on the record provided by the parties, the lack of authenticated documents (such as the challenged orders or the evidence presented at the trial court level) meant the Court could not legally presume that the trial court erred. The Court followed a well-established line of Texas precedent holding that when a relator fails to provide a record that complies with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the appellate court has no choice but to deny the petition.

Holding

The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus. The court held that because the relator failed to provide a petition, appendix, and record that complied with the mandatory requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, he failed to demonstrate a clear entitlement to the relief requested.

As a corollary to this holding, the court further held that all pending motions related to the mandamus proceeding were rendered moot by the denial of the petition. The court did not reach the substantive question of whether the trial court’s orders of December 2025 and January 2026 were an abuse of discretion.

Practical Application

This case highlights the "procedural trap" that often catches family law practitioners who are in a rush to stay or vacate an emergency order. You must treat the mandamus record with the same level of care as a final trial record. If you are challenging an order, you must ensure the copy in your appendix is either certified by the District Clerk or supported by an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge (usually the attorney) swearing that it is a true and correct copy of what was filed in the trial court. Furthermore, if the trial court held a hearing, you must either provide the reporter's record or a statement that no record was made; silence on this front is usually fatal to the petition.

Checklists

Mandamus Record Compliance

Authenticate Every Document: Ensure every document in the record is either a certified copy from the clerk or a "sworn copy" accompanied by an affidavit.
The Appendix Essentials: The appendix must include a certified or sworn copy of the order complained of, as well as any other document showing the matters complained of (TRAP 52.3(k)).
The Transcript Requirement: Include a reporter’s record of the hearing in question. If no testimony was taken, include an affidavit stating that no testimony was adduced in connection with the challenged orders.
Verification: Ensure the relator or their counsel provides a verification that meets the specific language of Rule 52.3(j), certifying that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence in the appendix or record.

Avoiding Summary Denial

Cross-Reference the Rules: Before filing, perform a "Rule 52 Audit" to ensure every sub-part of 52.3 and 52.7 is addressed.
Proper Labeling: Ensure the record is paginated and corresponds correctly to the citations in the petition.
Mootness Check: Ensure that the relief sought has not been rendered moot by subsequent trial court actions, though in this case, the procedural defects mooted the relator's own motions.

Citation

In re Diego Raoul Goding, No. 01-26-00115-CV, 2026 WL (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 12, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Available Here

~~2bd269c1-55b9-4953-9539-07fb33a8c08b~~

In Re Diego Raoul Goding

Litigation Takeaway