In Re Rachel Ashley Ralston Appeal from 75th District Court of Liberty County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-16-00326-CV _________________ IN RE RACHEL ASHLEY RALSTON ________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 75th District Court of Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. CV1408348 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In this mandamus proceeding, relator Rachel Ashley Ralston 1 contends the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to transfer venue of her petition for modification in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. Specifically, Ralston claims that the trial court’s order disregarded mandatory venue statutes which require the case to be transferred to Bexar County. In her original motion to transfer venue, which was filed on April 28, 2016, Ralston requested that venue of the case be transferred to Comal County. After the 1 Relator is also known as Rachel Ashley Ralston-Miller. 1 real party in interest filed an affidavit controverting the motion to transfer venue, Ralston filed her first amended motion to transfer venue on July 19, 2016. In her amended motion to transfer venue, Ralston requested that the case be transferred to Bexar County. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 155.201(b), 155.203 (West 2014). Mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion when that abuse cannot be adequately remedied by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004). After reviewing the mandamus record and petition, we conclude that the relator has failed to establish an abuse of discretion by the trial court. See id. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on September 23, 2016 Opinion Delivered November 17, 2016 Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.