Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jessica and Hiram Coronado were involved in a divorce and suit affecting the parent-child relationship concerning their child, L.J.C. After their separation, Jessica moved with L.J.C. and her two older children from Midland County to Hidalgo County. Evidence at the first temporary-orders hearing indicated that Hiram had physically abused one of Jessica’s older children. The Eleventh Court of Appeals previously held that this credible evidence barred Hiram’s appointment as a joint managing conservator and conditionally granted mandamus relief directing the trial court to vacate its initial temporary orders.
After a second hearing, the trial court again appointed Jessica and Hiram temporary joint managing conservators, restricted L.J.C.’s residence to Midland County, and awarded Hiram unsupervised visitation under a standard possession order. Jessica sought mandamus relief, arguing that the trial court should have appointed her temporary sole managing conservator, should not have imposed the geographic restriction, and should not have permitted unsupervised visitation.
The Court’s Holding
The court conditionally granted mandamus relief as to conservatorship. Its prior determination that credible evidence showed family violence was law of the case because the second hearing produced no materially different facts. Under Texas Family Code Section 153.004(b), that evidence prohibited the trial court from appointing the parents joint managing conservators. The trial court therefore clearly abused its discretion by failing to appoint Jessica temporary sole managing conservator.
The court denied relief concerning the Midland County residency restriction and Hiram’s unsupervised visitation. Conflicting evidence concerning the child’s best interest supported the geographic restriction, and the appellate court could not reweigh that evidence in a mandamus proceeding. Although the trial court incorrectly found that no family violence had occurred, its other findings addressed the statutory considerations governing possession and were supported by evidence that Hiram’s supervised visits had gone well and that he appropriately cared for and bonded with the child. The court directed the trial judge to vacate the joint-conservatorship portion of the temporary orders by November 12, 2026, and denied all other requested relief.
Key Takeaways
- A legal determination resolved on the merits in an earlier mandamus proceeding may govern later stages of the same case under the law-of-the-case doctrine.
- Credible evidence of a history or pattern of family violence bars appointment of the parents as joint managing conservators under Texas Family Code Section 153.004(b).
- Evidence of family violence does not automatically preclude unsupervised possession when the statutory findings support that arrangement, and disputed best-interest evidence ordinarily cannot be reweighed through mandamus.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a trial court cannot evade an appellate mandamus ruling by vacating an order and reconsidering substantially the same evidence at a new temporary hearing. Once the appellate court determined that credible evidence of family violence triggered the statutory bar against joint conservatorship, that legal conclusion controlled absent materially different facts.
The opinion also distinguishes conservatorship from possession and residency decisions. A parent may be statutorily ineligible for joint managing conservatorship while still receiving unsupervised visitation, and a sole managing conservator’s authority to designate the child’s residence may remain subject to a court-imposed geographic restriction supported by the child’s best interest.