In Re Aaron Nicholas Thomas v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-26-00031-CV
__________________

IN RE AARON NICHOLAS THOMAS

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding
County Court at Law No. 3 of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 23-09-14203
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Aaron Nicholas Thomas filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to

compel the trial court to vacate a final default judgment in a suit affecting the parent-

child relationship. As additional relief after the order is vacated, Thomas asks this

Court to direct the trial court to allow Thomas to participate in hearings by Zoom,

appoint an ad litem for the child, consider evidence the trial court did not consider

in the prior hearing, require the opposing party to follow the trial court’s custody

orders, and order temporary visitation and make-up possession.

“To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that an

underlying order is void or a clear abuse of discretion and that no adequate appellate

1
remedy exists.” In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016).

Moreover, “an appellate court may not deal with disputed areas of fact in an original

mandamus proceeding.” Brady v. Fourteenth Ct. of Appeals, 795 S.W.2d 712, 714

(Tex. 1990) (orig. proceeding).

Thomas complains that the trial court delayed providing accommodation for

his disability. Thomas’s mandamus petition includes a photocopy of a Medical

Release/Physician’s Statement dated October 27, 2025, that indicated that Thomas

cannot climb stairs, kneel, stoop, or push but he is able to sit, stand, walk, and work

on a keyboard eight hours a day, that he can complete employment-related activities

in a classroom setting, and that the disability is not permanent and is expected to last

more than six months. Thomas does not explain how his disability prevented him

from appearing in person in court for the May 23, 2025 hearing.1

The Default Order in Suit to Modify Parent-Child Relationship recites that

Thomas “has made a general appearance and was duly notified of trial but failed to

appear and defaulted.” Assuming Thomas did not receive service of process, the trial

court could render a judgment against Thomas anyway because Thomas appeared in

1
We note that one of the photographs Relator included in his appendix as an
example of evidence Relator wants the trial court to consider appears to depict
Relator operating the child’s stroller at the Houston Zoo about two weeks before the
final hearing. There is no indication in the mandamus record that the trial court saw
this photo when it ruled on Thomas’s request for accommodation, but the
photograph suggests that at the time of the hearing, Thomas was sufficiently mobile
to travel to a courtroom.
2
the case. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 124. Thomas claims the Default Order was “entered

without proper service on Relator and without Relator’s participation[]” but he fails

to explain when and how he brought the issue to the attention of the trial court or

how the trial court resolved factual issues regarding notice of the hearing.

After reviewing Relator’s mandamus petition, we conclude that Relator has

failed to establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief.2 Accordingly, we deny the

petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on February 4, 2026
Opinion Delivered February 5, 2026

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

2
This opinion addresses Relator’s contention that he is entitled to immediate
mandamus relief. As we held in Relator’s previous mandamus proceeding, an appeal
provides Relator with an adequate remedy. See In re Thomas, No. 09-25-00460-CV,
2025 WL 3672538, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Dec. 18, 2025, orig. proceeding)
(mem. op.). We express no opinion here regarding issues that may be presented in
an appeal from a final order in Trial Cause Number 23-09-14203.
3