In Re Michelle Chase, 05-26-00304-CV, March 11, 2026.
On appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Fifth Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel a trial court to grant a plea to the jurisdiction and dismiss a SAPCR proceeding. The Court determined that the relator failed to establish a clear abuse of discretion or the lack of an adequate appellate remedy and further struck the petition and record for failure to comply with sensitive data redaction requirements under TRAP 9.9.
Relevance to Family Law
In high-stakes SAPCR and divorce litigation, jurisdictional disputes—particularly those involving the UCCJEA or the residency requirements of the Texas Family Code—often tempt practitioners to seek immediate mandamus intervention. This case serves as a stark reminder that the Dallas Court of Appeals maintains a high threshold for "extraordinary" relief in jurisdictional challenges. More importantly, it highlights the technical pitfalls of appellate practice; in family law, where records are replete with birth certificates, social security numbers, and minor children’s names, a failure to strictly adhere to TRAP 9.9 redaction requirements will result in the striking of your filings, causing significant delays and potential prejudice to the client’s position.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The underlying litigation is a suit affecting the parent–child relationship (SAPCR) filed in Dallas County. The relator, Michelle Chase, challenged the trial court’s authority to hear the case by filing a plea to the jurisdiction. On February 12, 2026, the judge of the 255th Judicial District Court signed an order denying that plea. Relator subsequently sought mandamus relief, requesting the Fifth Court of Appeals to compel the respondent to grant the plea to the jurisdiction, vacate temporary orders previously signed in August 2025, and dismiss the suit in its entirety. Additionally, the relator requested that the Court compel the trial court to rule on a pending motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Upon filing the petition and the mandamus record, the Court observed that the documents contained unredacted sensitive data.
Issues Decided
- Whether the relator met the heavy burden of showing a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying the plea to the jurisdiction.
- Whether an adequate remedy by appeal existed for the relator.
- The procedural consequences of filing a mandamus petition and record containing unredacted sensitive data in violation of TRAP 9.9.
Rules Applied
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a): Providing the basis for the summary denial of mandamus relief when the petition fails to show entitlement to the writ.
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9: Prohibiting the inclusion of "sensitive data" (e.g., Social Security numbers, birth dates, names of minors) in filed documents unless redacted or required by law.
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004): Defining the dual-prong test for mandamus: (1) a clear abuse of discretion and (2) no adequate remedy by appeal.
Application
The Court applied the Prudential standard to the relator's challenge of the jurisdictional order. Under Texas law, mandamus is generally not available to review the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction because the error can typically be corrected on ordinary appeal. The Court reviewed the relator's petition and the record to determine if the circumstances were sufficiently "extraordinary" to bypass the usual appellate process. The Court concluded that the relator failed to demonstrate that the trial court's denial of the plea was a clear abuse of discretion or that the legal remedies available through a final appeal were insufficient.
Beyond the substantive merits, the Court conducted a procedural review of the filings. Family law records are inherently dense with sensitive data. The Court found that the relator’s petition and the separately filed mandamus record contained unredacted information protected by Rule 9.9. Because these rules are designed to protect the privacy of litigants and minors, the Court determined that striking the non-compliant documents was the necessary remedy.
Holding
The Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus. The Court held that the relator did not carry the burden of establishing that the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction constituted a clear abuse of discretion for which there was no adequate remedy at law.
Furthermore, the Court struck the relator’s petition and the mandamus record. The Court held that because the filings contained unredacted sensitive data in violation of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9, they were procedurally improper and could not remain part of the active record in their current form.
Practical Application
For the family law litigator, this opinion is a cautionary tale regarding "procedural hygiene." When a plea to the jurisdiction is denied, the instinct is often to file for mandamus to avoid the expense of a full trial in an improper forum. However, unless the jurisdictional error is "clear" and the harm "irreparable" under Prudential, the Dallas Court remains hesitant to interfere with the trial court’s interlocutory rulings. Moreover, practitioners must implement a multi-layered review process for redactions. In SAPCR cases, it is remarkably easy to miss a child’s birth date in a medical record or a Social Security number in a financial exhibit. A TRAP 9.9 violation not only results in the striking of the record but can also alert the Court to a lack of attention to detail that may subtly undermine the perceived merit of the substantive arguments.
Checklists
TRAP 9.9 Sensitive Data Audit
- Redact all Social Security numbers and Taxpayer Identification numbers to the last four digits.
- Redact all birth dates to the year of birth only.
- Replace names of minor children with initials throughout the petition and all exhibits (e.g., "A.B." instead of "Alice Brown").
- Redact all driver’s license and government ID numbers.
- Redact financial account numbers to the last four digits.
- Confirm that no "Sensitive Data" remains in the metadata of the PDF or in the bookmarks of the mandamus record.
Mandamus Viability for Jurisdictional Challenges
- Determine if the jurisdictional issue involves a mandatory statute (e.g., UCCJEA home-state jurisdiction) where a trial would be a "meaningless waste of resources."
- Ensure the record includes the transcript of the hearing on the plea to the jurisdiction, as a "clear abuse of discretion" is difficult to prove without the trial court’s stated reasoning.
- Verify that the order being challenged is a signed, written order, not merely a docket entry or an oral ruling.
Citation
In re Michelle Chase, No. 05-26-00304-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 11, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
The full opinion can be found here: Full Opinion Link
~~31c82c34-03d2-4911-9724-70d310152aad~~
