What is the litigation takeaway from In re Nicholas David Kiselov?

Mandamus is not automatic just because the dispute is framed as “jurisdictional.” If you want emergency appellate relief to force a trial court to hear (or re-hear) a jurisdictional plea, you must build a mandamus-ready record proving the court clearly abused its discretion and explaining—case specifically—why a normal appeal is inadequate under Prudential; otherwise, the appellate court may deny relief without ever addressing whether jurisdiction is actually lacking.

What is the summary of In re Nicholas David Kiselov?

In an original proceeding arising from a Dallas County family case, the relator sought mandamus relief to force the trial court to vacate its refusal to hold a hearing on a renewed plea to the jurisdiction. The Fifth Court of Appeals analyzed the request under the two-part mandamus standard from In re Prudential—requiring a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy by appeal—and concluded the relator’s mandamus record and briefing did not meet that burden. Without reaching the merits of the underlying jurisdictional challenge, the court denied mandamus under TRAP 52.8(a) and, because mandamus was denied, also denied as moot the relator’s request to compel preparation and filing of an omitted reporter’s record from a March 5, 2026 hearing.

What must a relator prove to obtain mandamus relief in a Texas appellate court?

To obtain mandamus relief, the relator must show (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. Texas appellate courts apply this two-part test as stated in In re Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). If either element is not shown, mandamus relief is denied.

When will a Texas court of appeals deny a petition for writ of mandamus for failure to meet the mandamus standard?

A court of appeals will deny mandamus when the relator does not establish both a clear abuse of discretion and the absence of an adequate appellate remedy. The mandamus burden is on the relator, and failure to demonstrate entitlement to relief requires denial under the governing standard. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36.

Can a Texas appellate court compel a trial court to hear or reconsider a renewed plea to the jurisdiction through mandamus?

Only if the relator satisfies the mandamus requirements—showing a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and no adequate remedy by appeal. A request to compel consideration of a renewed plea to the jurisdiction is not automatically mandamus-worthy; the relator must still prove both elements under the Prudential standard. Without that showing, mandamus relief is denied.

What does Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a) provide regarding mandamus petitions?

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a) provides that if the court determines from the petition and any response that the relator is not entitled to the relief sought, the court must deny the petition. Courts apply this rule when the relator fails to meet the substantive mandamus requirements (abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy).

When is a motion related to preparation or filing of a reporter’s record moot in a Texas mandamus proceeding?

A motion concerning preparation or filing of a reporter’s record can become moot when the court denies the mandamus petition on grounds that make the requested record relief unnecessary to resolve the proceeding. If the underlying request for extraordinary relief is denied, ancillary record-related motions may be denied as moot.

What is the practical meaning of “no adequate remedy by appeal” in Texas mandamus practice?

“No adequate remedy by appeal” means the relator must show that ordinary appellate review would not provide a sufficient remedy for the complained-of ruling, considering the circumstances and practicalities of the case. Texas courts treat adequacy as a context-dependent inquiry and require the relator to carry the burden of demonstrating inadequacy as part of the Prudential mandamus test. If adequacy is not shown, mandamus is unavailable.

In re Nicholas David Kiselov | Texas Family Law Powerhouse

In re Nicholas David Kiselov, 05-26-00390-CV, March 24, 2026.

On appeal from 303rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Synopsis

The Fifth Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief where the relator sought to compel the trial court to hear a renewed plea to the jurisdiction. The court held the relator did not carry the mandamus burden to show a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy under Prudential. A related request to compel preparation of an omitted reporter’s record was denied as moot.

Relevance to Family Law

Texas family cases routinely present “jurisdiction” flashpoints—UCCJEA home-state disputes, UIFSA/child support jurisdiction, standing in SAPCRs, and post-decree enforcement or modification fights where parties frame defects as jurisdictional to accelerate appellate review. In re Kiselov is a reminder that even if you believe the trial court is wrong to refuse to entertain a renewed jurisdictional challenge, mandamus is not automatic: the relator must build a record and analysis that satisfies both prongs of mandamus (clear abuse + no adequate remedy). For family litigators, the decision underscores the strategic cost of treating mandamus as a “reset button” when a jurisdictional theory is repackaged and presented again—particularly late in the case, after prior rulings, or without a complete record showing why ordinary appeal is inadequate.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

This original proceeding arose out of a Dallas County family docket (303rd Judicial District Court), in a case identified by trial court cause number DF-19-23225. The relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus (and an amended supplement) asking the Fifth Court to order the trial judge to vacate a refusal to hear the relator’s renewed plea to the jurisdiction. The mandamus record also included a motion asking the court of appeals to direct preparation and filing of an omitted reporter’s record from a March 5, 2026 hearing. The Fifth Court’s memorandum opinion is short, but the posture is familiar to family practitioners: a party attempts to re-urge jurisdiction through a “renewed” plea and, when the trial court declines to hold a hearing or revisit the issue, seeks emergency appellate intervention.

Issues Decided

Whether the relator established entitlement to mandamus relief compelling the trial court to vacate its refusal to hear a renewed plea to the jurisdiction (i.e., whether the relator showed a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy).
Whether the court of appeals should direct preparation and filing of an omitted reporter’s record from March 5, 2026.

Rules Applied

Mandamus standards drove the outcome:

Mandamus requires the relator to show (1) a clear abuse of discretion and (2) no adequate remedy by appeal.
The court cited In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding), for the governing framework.
The court also cited Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a) (denial of petition).

Although the underlying jurisdictional doctrine is not analyzed in the opinion, the procedural takeaway is that mandamus is a record-driven remedy: the relator bears the burden to provide a record and argument demonstrating both prongs under Prudential.

Application

The Fifth Court did not reach the merits of the renewed plea to the jurisdiction (i.e., whether jurisdiction truly was lacking). Instead, it addressed the threshold question: whether this was an appropriate case for mandamus. Applying Prudential, the court concluded the relator “failed to show his entitlement to mandamus relief.” That conclusion necessarily reflects a failure on one or both mandamus prongs—either the record and authorities did not demonstrate that the trial court’s refusal to hear the renewed plea was a clear abuse of discretion, or the relator did not demonstrate why ordinary appellate review would be inadequate (or both). In other words, even if the jurisdictional argument might ultimately have force, the mandamus presentation did not justify extraordinary relief at this stage and on this record. Because the petition was denied, the requested relief regarding the omitted reporter’s record was denied as moot—procedurally signaling that the court was not going to invest in reconstructing or supplementing the mandamus record when the petition already failed at the entitlement stage.

Holding

The court denied mandamus relief because the relator did not carry the burden to show a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy under Prudential. The denial was issued under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a). The court also denied the relator’s motion to direct preparation and filing of an omitted reporter’s record as moot in light of the denial of mandamus relief.

Practical Application

For Texas family law litigators, In re Kiselov is best read as a “mandamus packaging” decision: if you want extraordinary relief tied to a jurisdictional dispute, you must do more than assert jurisdictional error—you must prove mandamus entitlement with a disciplined record and an appellate-remedy analysis that speaks to Prudential’s practicalities. Common family-law scenarios where this matters:

UCCJEA disputes (home state, exclusive continuing jurisdiction, inconvenient forum): If the trial court refuses to hear (or re-hear) a jurisdictional challenge, mandamus is only as strong as your record showing the refusal, the legal duty to act, and why waiting for final judgment is inadequate (e.g., imminent trial, irreparable jurisdictional harm not curable on appeal).
Standing and SAPCR jurisdictional framing: Litigants often label standing defects as “jurisdictional” to seek immediate appellate intervention. This opinion reinforces that the “jurisdictional” label alone will not substitute for a developed mandamus showing.
Post-decree modifications/enforcement: When jurisdiction is challenged mid-stream (often after an adverse ruling), a “renewed plea” can look like a second bite. If the trial court declines to revisit it, you need a compelling justification why mandamus—rather than appeal from final orders—should be available.
Record-dependent complaints (refusal to set a hearing): If your complaint is that the court refused to hear something, you must meticulously prove that refusal and the context (requests, settings, correspondence, docket entries, hearing transcripts). A thin record is a predictable mandamus loss.

Strategically, this decision should push family litigators to treat mandamus like a merits brief plus an evidentiary package: you are proving up entitlement, not merely arguing you are right.

Checklists

Mandamus-Ready Record for “Refusal to Hear” a Plea to the Jurisdiction

Include the filed renewed plea to the jurisdiction with file-stamp and any amended versions
Include written requests for hearing/setting and the trial court’s written refusal (order, email directive, coordinator response adopted by court, docket sheet entries)
Include transcripts of any relevant hearings where the court refused to take up the plea
Provide a clerk’s record excerpt showing the procedural history (prior pleas, prior rulings, timing relative to trial)
Attach a sworn authentication where required by TRAP 52 (properly assembled mandamus appendix/record)

Proving “Clear Abuse of Discretion” (Not Just Disagreement)

Identify the specific act you want compelled (e.g., “hold a hearing,” “rule on the plea,” “vacate refusal”)
Cite authority establishing the trial court’s duty in the procedural posture you are in (including whether the court must hear/rehear a renewed plea)
Address why this is not a discretionary docket-management decision (or, if it is, why discretion was exceeded)
Explain the effect of any prior rulings (law of the case, waiver, changed circumstances) and why renewal is procedurally proper

Showing “No Adequate Remedy by Appeal” in a Family Case

Tie inadequacy to concrete, case-specific harms (not generalized delay)
Explain why a final appeal cannot cure the alleged jurisdictional injury (or why waiting is impractical under Prudential)
Identify imminent deadlines (trial settings, temporary orders with significant consequences, possession changes, transfer/registration issues)
Address whether interlocutory appeal is available and why it is not (or why it is inadequate)

Avoiding the Non-Prevailing Party’s Pitfall: “Renewed Plea” Without a Mandamus Theory

If renewing a plea, clearly articulate what changed (new facts, new law, new jurisdictional event)
Request a ruling in writing and preserve the refusal with a clean record
Do not assume “jurisdictional = mandamus”; brief both prongs explicitly and thoroughly
If you need a reporter’s record, secure it early and confirm it is filed; build redundancy with written orders and docket entries

Citation

In re Nicholas David Kiselov, No. 05-26-00390-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 24, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here ~~30a0f03e-dcae-4563-bbe8-de49dc0c6a9a~~

In re Nicholas David Kiselov

Litigation Takeaway