Whittle v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
KRISTOPHER ADAM WHITTLE 	§
§
§
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL NO. 4:26-CV-363-P
§
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY 	§
& PROTECTIVE SERVICES, ET AL. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE AS TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
On March 25, 2026, pro se Plaintiff Kristopher Adam Whittle (“Plaintiff”) filed a
document titled “Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order” (“Motion”). In
that Motion, Plaintiff requests this Court grant a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) enjoining
the enforcement of an ex parte removal order obtained in cause number CIV-25-0257 in County
Court at Law No. 2, Parker County, Texas. Having carefully reviewed the motion, the Court finds,
concludes, and recommends that the motion be DENIED because the relief sought by Plaintiff is
barred by the domestic relations exception. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703
(1992).
To obtain a TRO, Plaintiff must satisfy the following four requirements: (1) a substantial
likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable harm;
(3) the balance of hardships weighs in the movant’s favor; and (4) the issuance of the injunction
will not disserve the public interest. See Women's Med. Ctr. v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 418–20 (5th
Cir. 2001); Champion Nat'l Sec., Inc. v. A&A Sec. Grp., LLC, No. 3:21-CV-00528-M, 2021 WL
1400979, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2021). The party seeking injunctive relief must clearly carry
the burden of persuasion on all four prerequisites to prevail. 	See Miss. Power & Light Co. v.
Case 4:26-cv-00363-P-BJ Document 15 Filed 04/08/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985). “A TRO is ‘simply a highly
accelerated and temporary form of preliminary injunctive relief.’” 	CompuCom Sys., Inc. v. WJ
Global, LLC, No. 3:14-CV-3625-L, 2014 WL 5032747, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 8, 2014) (quoting
Hassani v. Napolitano, No. 3:09-CV-1201-D, 2009 WL 2044596, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 15, 2009)).
Under “the domestic-relations exception, federal courts lack jurisdiction to ‘issue divorce,
alimony, and child custody decrees.’” Estate of Merkel v. Pollard, 354 Fed. Appx. 88, 92 (5th Cir.
2009) (quoting Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992)). In the Motion, Plaintiff asks
the Court to “ORDER [Texas Department of Family & Protective Services] to cease reliance on
[an] ex parte removal order obtained through omissions and misrepresentations.” 	(Plaintiff’s
Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“Mot. for TRO”) at 3.) 	This ex parte
ordered allowed the “removal of children” from Plaintiff’s custody. (Mot. for TRO at 2.) Thus,
the ex parte order is a custody order. As a result, if the Court were to grant Plaintiff’s Motion, the
Court would in essence be setting aside a custody order and issuing its own. See Saloom v. Tex.
Dep't of Family & Child Protective Services, 578 Fed. Appx. 426, 430 (5th Cir. 2014). 	The
domestic relations exception does not allow a federal court to do so. See Estate of Merkel, 354
Fed. Appx. at 92. Consequently, the Court finds, concludes, and recommends that the motion be
DENIED.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific
written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the party has
been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only make a de
novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings,
Case 4:26-cv-00363-P-BJ Document 15 Filed 04/08/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
conclusions and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. 	See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). 	Failure to file, by the date stated above, a specific written objection to a proposed
factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest
injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d
1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) (extending time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until April 22,
2026, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed
and the opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within seven (7) days
of the filing date of the objections.
SIGNED April 8, 2026.
____________________________
JEFFREY L. CURETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00363-P-BJ Document 15 Filed 04/08/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>