IN RE: Kayla M. WARNER (2025)

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur with the majority opinion because we are bound by our precedents and are, therefore, unable to consider the merits of this mandamus. I write separately because I am mindful of the constitutional ramifications in this case arising from Justice O'Connor’s opinion in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000), the Texas Supreme Court's opinion in In re Derzapf, 219 S.W.3d 327 (Tex. 2007), and this Court's opinion in In re A.V., No. 05-20-00966-CV, 2022 WL 2763355 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 15, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.). The continued battle between a fit parent and third parties over a long period of time wreaks havoc upon the family. The interference with a fit parent's judgment, and the costs associated with litigation, all weigh heavily upon the parent and the child.

The record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties, and this Court strictly enforces the authentication requirements of Rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the mandamus record. In re Meehan, No. 05-21-00337-CV, 2021 WL 2943938, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 13, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding). Relator's petition does not meet those requirements. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j); 52.3(k)(1)(A); 52.7(a)(1). Since the petition does not meet those requirements, we are unable to proceed further in our analysis.

Mandamus relief is, however, the appropriate remedy in cases like this. The Texas Supreme Court has previously “granted relief to require a trial court to vacate orders erroneously permitting nonparents access to a child over a fit parent's objection.” In re C.J.C., 603 S.W.3d 804, 811 (Tex. 2020); Derzapf, 219 S.W.3d at 334–35; In re Mays-Hooper, 189 S.W.3d 777, 778 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). This Court has held that “[a] court's duty to protect children's interests should not be limited by technical rules.” Stewart v. Reese, 698 S.W.2d 236, 241 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Because the defects at issue here may be corrected, and given the exigency of a petition for writ of mandamus, I believe the better course in a case such as this, where a child's best interests are at issue, would be to disregard the defects and address the merits of the petition. See In re Spiller, 303 S.W.3d 426, 430 (Tex. App.—Waco 2010, orig. proceeding).

That said, given that we strictly enforce the rules by our precedent, I am unable to disagree with the majority.