In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-21-00118-CV
__________________
IN RE CODY NEIL TAYLOR
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
317th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. C-223,529-C
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Cody Neil Taylor, Relator, argues that
in a suit for modification of the parent-child relationship the trial court abused its
discretion by temporarily ordering no contact between Relator and his child pending
the completion of a court-ordered custody evaluation. Because we conclude Taylor
has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief, we deny the petition.
Generally, because no immediate appeal may be taken from temporary orders
in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, mandamus is an appropriate remedy
if a trial court abuses its discretion in temporary visitation orders. See Little v.
1
Daggett, 858 S.W.2d 368, 369 (Tex. 1993) (orig. proceeding). We must defer to the
trial court’s factual determinations that are supported by the record, but we may
correct a trial court’s failure to correctly analyze or apply the law. In re C.J.C., 603
S.W.3d 804, 811 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding).
An order that denies possession of a child to a parent “may not exceed those
that are required to protect the best interest of the child.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §
153.193. Taylor claims the testimony of the child’s mother and stepfather in a
hearing held on February 12, 2021, failed to establish that Taylor engaged in extreme
conduct that could justify a no-contact order. According to Taylor, any concerns
about his behavior could have been addressed by lesser restrictions, such as family
therapy or supervised visitation, and by enjoining Taylor from recording the child or
disparaging other family members in the child’s presence. The Real Party in Interest,
Heather Rose Tice, contends that the trial court had already imposed restrictions on
Taylor’s visitation following a temporary hearing held one year earlier. Tice argues
the trial court properly considered the expert testimony from the February 2020
hearing in addition to the witnesses’ descriptions of the child’s extreme anxiety
following her recent visits with her father, and she contends the record supports the
findings of the trial court in the temporary orders.
We must defer to the trial court’s factual determinations that are supported by
the record, and we find support in the record for the trial court’s findings. We also
2
note that the trial court will reconsider the temporary orders when the court-
appointed expert completes the custody evaluation.
After examining and fully considering the petition for writ of mandamus, the
response filed by the Real Party in Interest, and the applicable law, we conclude that
Relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny
the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on June 10, 2021
Opinion Delivered July 15, 2021
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
3