in Re Brittany Hainesworth ( 2020 )

Opinion issued September 10, 2020
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-20-00569-CV
———————————
IN RE BRITTANY HAINESWORTH, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Brittany Hainesworth,1 has filed a petition for writ of mandamus
challenging the trial court’s order striking a hearing, set by relator, to “Set Aside
Modify, and/or for Additional Temporary Orders” in the underlying suit affecting
the parent-child relationship.
1
The underlying case is In the Interest of M.J., II, a Minor Child, Cause No.
103459-F, in the 461st District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, the Honorable
Patrick Bulanek presiding.
We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is only available in limited
circumstances. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992). To be
entitled to mandamus relief, relator must show both that the trial court clearly abused
its discretion and that no adequate remedy by appeal exists. See In re Kansas City
S. Indus., Inc., 139 S.W.3d 669, 670 (Tex. 2004). “An appeal is inadequate when it
comes too late to correct the [trial] court’s error without the loss of substantial rights
to the complaining party.” Id.
Here, relator has failed to demonstrate that her “appellate remedy will cause
the permanent loss of substantial rights.” Id. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition
for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8 (a), (d). All pending motions are
dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Hightower and Adams.
2