IN RE: BRET DAVID FOREMAN (2011)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion by Justice Myers

Relator Bret David Foreman filed this mandamus proceeding after the trial court signed a protective order on May 16, 2011.   The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein.   Based on the record before us, we conclude relator had an adequate appellate remedy at law—a direct appeal to this court—to challenge the trial court's order;  thus, he may not attack it by seeking a writ of mandamus.   See Tex.R.App. P. 52.8(a);  Cooke v. Cooke, 65 S.W.3d 785, 788–89 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2001, no pet.) (concluding that a protective order was a final, appealable order);  see also In re Tex. Dep't. of Family and Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d 609, 614 (Tex.2006);  In re Pannell, 283 S.W.3d 31, 35 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2009, orig. proceeding) (“Mandamus is not available if another remedy, though it would have been adequate, was not timely exercised.”);  In re Carson, 12 S.W.3d 886, 888 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2000, orig. proceeding) (relator was not entitled to mandamus relief because he “did not take advantage of [a] clearly adequate remedy when it existed, so he may not now pursue a remedy by mandamus”).   Accordingly, we DENY relator's petition for writ of mandamus.

110856F.P05

LANA MYERS JUSTICE