DENY; and Opinion Filed February 15, 2019.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00171-CV
IN RE VENKY VENKATRAMAN, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 256th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-04-11968
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Brown, Molberg, and Reichek
Opinion by Justice Brown
This original proceeding is one of multiple proceedings filed in relation to the underlying
suit affecting the parent-child relationship. Relator’s appeal of the trial court’s December 15, 2017
“Order in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship Nunc Pro Tunc” is pending in this Court
as cause number 05-17-01486-CV. Here, relator complains of a January 15, 2019 unsigned
“memorandum ruling” in which the trial court granted relator unsupervised possession and access
twice a month for a total of three hours per month. Relator complains that that the January 15
ruling is not supported by legally or factually sufficient evidence.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly
abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co.,
148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Based on the record before us, we
conclude relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, we deny relator’s
petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the
court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).
/Ada Brown/
ADA BROWN
JUSTICE
190171F.P05
–2–