In Re Andrew Bryce Johnson v. the State of Texas

2026-08-27

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus and all requests for temporary relief, finding that mandamus relief was not warranted because the matters Johnson raised can be adequately addressed by the trial court in its discretion, an ordinary appeal would provide an adequate remedy, and the benefits of mandamus review did not outweigh the detriments at this stage of the proceedings.

Andrew Bryce Johnson filed a mandamus petition in the appellate court seeking to prevent the trial court from proceeding with a parental-rights case initiated by Marian Antoinette Skinner. Johnson had previously filed motions in trial court challenging its jurisdiction, requesting dismissal for noncompliance with family code requirements, and alternatively seeking transfer to another county. The trial court scheduled a hearing for September 10, 2026, structured to address threshold jurisdictional and procedural matters first, with consideration of temporary relief only if those threshold issues were resolved.

Johnson sought mandamus relief compelling dismissal or an early ruling on his jurisdictional arguments so he could appeal any adverse decision before the trial court addressed the merits. He also requested temporary relief to prevent the trial court from proceeding on non-transfer issues. The appellate court found that Johnson's concerns were matters properly within the trial court's discretion to address at an appropriate time, and that the trial court's scheduling order was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether mandamus relief is appropriate to compel dismissal or early ruling on jurisdictional matters before trial court hearing
Whether temporary relief should be granted to stay proceedings pending resolution of threshold matters
Whether a trial court's scheduling order that addresses threshold issues before merits constitutes abuse of discretion

Procedural posture

Johnson filed an original mandamus petition in the appellate court seeking to prevent the trial court from proceeding with a family law case pending resolution of his jurisdictional challenges.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

NO. 09-26-00337-CV

IN RE ANDREW BRYCE JOHNSON

Original Proceeding

1A District Court of Tyler County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 27909

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Andrew Bryce Johnson, asks this Court to grant mandamus and

temporary relief concerning a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship filed on

June 30, 2026. In the trial court, Johnson filed motions on July 15, 2026, including

a “Plea to the Jurisdiction and, Alternatively, Statutory Motion to Dismiss for Failure

to Comply with Texas Family Code Section 153.432(c)” and an “Alternative Motion

for Mandatory Transfer to Hardin County, Texas.” Johnson requested the trial court

rule on his threshold issues before addressing the merits of the SAPCR, because if

either of Johnson’s motions were to be granted, the case would either be dismissed

or transferred to Hardin County. Without a ruling from the trial court, Johnson filed

a petition for a writ of mandamus.

The only order in the mandamus record is an order setting a hearing on

September 10, 2026. The order states that the hearing will proceed in two phases:

(1) “the Court will hear and determine all threshold matters, including but not limited

to jurisdiction, venue, standing, service, notice, justiciability, and any other legal

prerequisites to the Court’s consideration of temporary relief[;]” and (2) “If, and only

if, the Court determines that the threshold matters are resolved and that all legal

prerequisites are satisfied, the Court will immediately proceed to a temporary orders

hearing.”

As temporary relief Johnson asks this Court to stay the trial court from “(1)

receiving evidence or conducting a merits hearing concerning temporary managing

conservatorship, possession, access, significant impairment, best interest, parental

fitness, or other non-transfer merits issues; and (2) signing, implementing, or

enforcing any order that grants Real Party temporary managing conservatorship,

possession, access, or other affirmative relief altering the existing parent-child

status.”

As mandamus relief, Johnson asks this Court to compel the trial court to

dismiss the suit filed by the Real Party in Interest, Marian Antoinette Skinner, or to

rule on Johnson’s jurisdictional arguments sufficiently in advance of the September

10 hearing so that he may seek review of any adverse rulings in this Court before the

trial court considers any relief requested by Skinner. In the alternative, Johnson asks

this Court to direct the trial court to address his motion to transfer the case to Hardin

County based only on “transfer evidence” and enter “an express transfer ruling”

before proceeding to the merits.

“Mandamus is an extraordinary proceeding, encompassing an extraordinary

remedy.” Deloitte & Touche LLP v. Fourteenth Ct. of Appeals, 951 S.W.2d 394, 396

(Tex. 1997) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we are to “exercise our mandamus

power sparingly and deliberately.” Id. Mandamus will issue only when an ordinary

appeal would not adequately remedy a trial court’s clear abuse of discretion or failure

to carry out a duty imposed by law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.

1992) (orig. proceeding). “The operative word, ‘adequate,’ has no comprehensive

definition; it is simply a proxy for the careful balance of jurisprudential

considerations that determine when appellate courts will use original mandamus

proceedings to review the actions of lower courts.” In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,

148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). We determine the adequacy of

an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the

detriments, considering whether extending mandamus relief will preserve important

substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss. In re Team Rocket, L.P.,

256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). An appeal is not an adequate

remedy if the very act of proceeding to trial—regardless of the outcome—would

defeat the substantive right involved. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458,

465 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding).

The arguments Johnson presents in his mandamus petition are matters that can

and should be heard, considered, and ruled upon by the trial court in the exercise of

the trial court’s discretion without preliminary instructions from the appellate court.

Johnson has not shown that the trial court’s order setting a hearing is arbitrary and

unreasonable, nor has he shown that the benefits of mandamus review outweigh the

detriments at this stage of the proceedings. We deny the petition for a writ of

mandamus and any request for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a), 52.10.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 26, 2026

Opinion Delivered August 27, 2026

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.