In Re Cynthia R. Degollado and Adrian Degollado v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-25-00691-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE CYNTHIA R. DEGOLLADO AND ADRIAN DEGOLLADO

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Cron, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relators Cynthia R. Degollado and Adrian

Degollado assert that: (1) the probate court abused its discretion by issuing and enforcing

orders after dismissing the underlying guardianship proceeding; (2) the Texas Estates

Code does not authorize “a trial court to initiate or continue a guardianship sua sponte

after dismissal, without a hearing, without a finding, and without an order”; and (3) “post-

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
dismissal orders that restrain liberty and family integrity constitute irreparable harm

warranting mandamus relief.” Relators have also filed an emergency motion for temporary

relief seeking to “stay and suspend enforcement of all post-dismissal orders.”

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and the party seeking relief lacks an adequate remedy on

appeal. In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding); In re

Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential

Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer,

827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). However, when a trial court’s

order is void, mandamus relief is appropriate, and the relator does not have to show that

it lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex.

2000) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain

relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the emergency motion

for temporary relief.

JENNY CRON
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
7th day of January, 2026.

2