in Re Gerard Gabel

Opinion issued February 9, 2021
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-20-00815-CV
———————————
IN RE GERARD THOMAS GABEL, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Gerard Thomas Gabel, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus,
asserting that the trial court abused its discretion in entering temporary orders in a
suit to modify the parent-child relationship brought against him by real party in
interest, Tracey Gabel Koehne.1
1
The underlying case is Tracey Gabel Koehne v. Gerard Thomas Gabel, Cause No.
2010-74676, in the 312th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable
Clinton E. Wells, Jr. presiding.
1
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, the relator must show both that the trial court abused its
discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Prudential Ins.
Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004).
Because temporary orders in a suit to modify the parent-child relationship are
not appealable, a petition for writ of mandamus is an appropriate means to challenge
such orders. See In re Herring, 221 S.W.3d 729, 730 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
2007, orig. proceeding). However, relator has failed to meet his burden to establish
an abuse of discretion of the trial court. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840 (abuse of
discretion exists where trial court “reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable
as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law”).
Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. All pending
motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Farris.
2