In Re Jaimee Michelle Collins, 04-26-00210-CV, March 18, 2026.
On appeal from the 37th District Court, Bexar County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Fourth Court of Appeals summarily denied a petition for writ of mandamus and a related emergency motion in a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR). The court determined that the Relator failed to satisfy the requisite burden of proof under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a) to establish entitlement to extraordinary relief.
Relevance to Family Law
In the context of Texas family law litigation, mandamus is often the only vehicle for challenging temporary orders or interlocutory rulings that lack a statutory basis for accelerated appeal. However, this case serves as a stark reminder that the "extraordinary" nature of the writ is not merely a rhetorical flourish; the Fourth Court of Appeals maintains a high evidentiary and procedural bar for Relators. Even in SAPCR proceedings—where the "best interests of the child" often dominate the trial court's focus—an appellate court will not intervene if the Relator fails to strictly adhere to the technical requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure or fails to present a record that clearly demonstrates a manifest abuse of discretion.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator Jaimee Michelle Collins initiated an original proceeding in the Fourth Court of Appeals following a ruling in the 37th District Court of Bexar County. The underlying litigation, styled In the Interest of C.W.W., et al., involves a SAPCR proceeding. On March 13, 2026, Collins filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion for temporary relief, presumably seeking to stay or vacate an order issued by the Honorable Nicole Garza. While the memorandum opinion does not detail the specific nature of the trial court’s underlying order, the rapid five-day turnaround between the filing of the petition and the court’s denial suggests that the Relator’s presentation failed to meet the threshold requirements necessary for the court to even request a response from the Real Party in Interest.
Issues Decided
The court decided a single, dispositive issue:
- Whether the Relator established a clear right to mandamus relief by demonstrating both a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal, as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Rules Applied
The court relied on the following legal standards:
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a): This rule dictates that if the court determines the relator is not entitled to the relief sought, it must deny the petition.
- The Mandamus Standard: Although not explicitly cited in the brief memorandum, the court’s reference to "entitlement to the requested relief" incorporates the dual-prong requirement that a Relator must show a trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the Relator has no adequate remedy by ordinary appeal.
Application
The court’s analysis was concise and focused entirely on the Relator’s failure to carry her burden. In original proceedings, the burden is entirely on the Relator to provide the appellate court with a record and a legal argument sufficient to establish that the trial court’s actions were so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly. By citing Rule 52.8(a), the Fourth Court indicated that upon its initial review of the petition and the emergency motion, the Relator’s submissions were insufficient on their face to justify the requested intervention. Consequently, the court did not reach the merits of the underlying SAPCR dispute, as the procedural and evidentiary prerequisites for mandamus relief remained unmet.
Holding
The court held that the petition for writ of mandamus must be denied because the Relator did not establish her entitlement to the relief requested under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court further held that because the underlying petition for writ of mandamus was denied, the Relator’s emergency motion for temporary relief was rendered moot.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, this case emphasizes the necessity of "mandamus-proofing" your filing before it reaches the Clerk's desk. When seeking to challenge a temporary order in a custody or property dispute, the Relator must ensure the record is not only complete but also specifically tailored to show why an ordinary appeal cannot rectify the harm. A failure to provide a sufficient record—including the required certified or sworn copies of every document material to the claim—often leads to the summary denial seen here.
Checklists
Perfecting the Mandamus Record
- Include a certified or sworn copy of the order complained of, or a statement that no relevant order has been signed.
- Provide a complete transcript of the relevant hearing or a statement that no testimony was adduced.
- Ensure all exhibits and motions filed in the trial court that are necessary to the appellate court's understanding are included in the Appendix or Record.
- Verify that the record is properly paginated and bookmarked according to local court rules.
Establishing Entitlement to Relief
- Identify the specific legal standard the trial court allegedly misapplied.
- Explicitly argue why an ordinary appeal (post-final judgment) is inadequate, particularly in SAPCR cases where the passage of time may render an appeal moot.
- Address the "abuse of discretion" standard by citing specific instances where the trial court acted without reference to guiding rules or principles.
Citation
In re Jaimee Michelle Collins, No. 04-26-00210-CV, 2026 WL (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 18, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
View the full opinion here. ~~f6e06cac-9b98-4824-b1c4-3d3f94decb23~~
