In Re: B. R. Appeal from County Court at Law of Anderson County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-23-00256-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS IN RE: § B. R., § RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM B.R. filed this original proceeding to challenge Respondent’s actions in a suit affecting the parent child relationship. 1 On January 24, 2024, this Court conditionally granted the petition and directed Respondent to (1) vacate his June 20, 2023, temporary orders and to dismiss the pleadings filed by Real Party in Interest J.P. for lack of standing, and (2) vacate his order denying B.R.’s application for writ of habeas corpus (insofar as such an order exists) and, in its stead, order that the child, B.J.D., be immediately returned to B.R.’s possession. By an order signed on January 26, Respondent complied with this Court’s opinion and order, rendering this proceeding moot. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. Opinion delivered February 7, 2024. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. 1 Texas. Respondent is the Honorable Jeffrey B. Doran, Judge of the County Court at Law in Anderson County, COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT FEBRUARY 7, 2024 NO. 12-23-00256-CV B. R., Relator V. HON. JUDGE B. JEFFREY DORAN, Respondent ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by B. R.; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12-23-00256-CV and a party in trial court cause number 15372, pending on the docket of the County Court at Law of Anderson County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on October 2, 2023, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the writ should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed as moot. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.

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.