Opinion issued July 9, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00540-CV
———————————
IN RE CHRISTOPHER DUPUY, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
Relator, Christopher Dupuy, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus and
request for emergency relief, complaining that Respondent, the Honorable Ben
Hardin, presiding judge of the 306th District Court of Galveston County, abused
1
The underling proceeding is In the Interest of B.T.D. and C.M.D., No. 12FD1807,
in the 306th District Court of Galveston County, the Honorable Ben Hardin
presiding.
his discretion when he issued temporary orders in Relator’s ex-wife Adrienne
Viterna’s suit to modify the parent-child relationship. According to Relator: (1)
Respondent abused his discretion in rendering a temporary order that had the effect
of changing the designation of the person with the exclusive right to designate the
primary residence of the children, (2) Respondent abused his discretion in
rendering the temporary order because there is no evidence, or alternatively, the
evidence is insufficient to prove that the present circumstances of the children
would significantly impair their physical health or emotional development, and (3)
Respondent abused his discretion in admitting testimony and exhibits that pre-date
the date of the prior orders.
Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. Although Relator provided us with an appendix, the appendix does not
include Viterna’s most recent petition to modify or her application for temporary
orders, and it only includes brief excerpts from the 8-day hearing on the
application for temporary orders. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k) (requiring that
appendix include certified or sworn copy of any document showing matter
complained of); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7 (requiring relator to file mandamus record
containing all documents material to claim for relief); see generally In re Bill
Heard Chevrolet, Ltd., 209 S.W.3d 311 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006,
orig. proceeding) (discussing sufficiency of mandamus records). Based on the
2
record provided, we cannot determine the basis for Viterna’s application for
temporary orders or what evidence the trial court actually considered before it
granted the temporary orders.
Relator also failed to certify that he has reviewed the petition and concluded
that “every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence
included in the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Relator’s request
for emergency relief is dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of chief Justice Radack and Justices Sharp and Massengale.
3