Court Filings

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an Application for Discretionary Appeal filed by the father in a child-custody or juvenile case (LC No. 25JV0018) and denied the application on April 28, 2026. The order is brief and administrative: the court declined to exercise its discretionary review power and did not provide additional explanation or address the merits of the underlying juvenile-court proceedings. The denial leaves the lower-court action in place and does not create precedent on the substantive issues in the case.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for discretionary appeal filed by Marquez Hutchinson from a case involving the Georgia Department of Human Services (ex rel. Jordan Hutchinson). After review, the Court denied the application for discretionary appeal on April 23, 2026. No opinion or substantive reasoning is included in the entry; the document is a short entry from the Clerk certifying denial of the application and recording the case and lower-court number.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for discretionary appeal filed by Nathaniel Blackmon, III in case A26D0445 (LC 19FM3068) and denied the application on April 22, 2026. The order is a short administrative disposition: the court declined to grant permission for the case to be heard as a discretionary appeal. No opinion or reasoning is provided in the document beyond the denial itself.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for discretionary appeal filed by Robyn J. Monroe seeking review in case A26D0437 (LC No. 25A07465) against Rodney E. Monroe. After consideration, the court denied the application for discretionary appeal on April 20, 2026. The order is brief and does not state reasons; it is an administrative disposition declining to grant review by the appellate court.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an Application for Discretionary Appeal in the matter titled In re L. D. et al., Children (Mother) and on April 16, 2026 issued an order denying the application. The order is a short administrative disposition: the court declined to exercise discretionary review and did not reach the merits of the underlying juvenile or parental-rights proceedings. No opinion or reasoning is provided in the order beyond the denial itself.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an Application for Discretionary Appeal filed by Tyrone Pinkston, Sr. in case number A26D0449 arising from LC number 25DR02094 and denied the application on April 14, 2026. The court issued a brief administrative order without opinion, simply stating that the request for discretionary review is denied. No substantive reasoning or discussion of the underlying family-law dispute is provided in the order.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for discretionary appeal filed by Stephen Arthur Vance from a domestic-relations case (LC No. 24V0055). After review, the court denied the application for discretionary appeal on April 13, 2026. The order is a short procedural ruling and does not address the merits of the underlying dispute; it simply declines to grant permission for the case to proceed to the Court of Appeals for full appellate review.

The First Court of Appeals denied a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Ryen Michelle Staggers seeking to vacate and stay enforcement of a March 27, 2026 temporary order from a Harris County family-court case. The appellate court concluded Staggers failed to provide the mandatory mandamus record or appendix that includes a certified copy of the challenged trial court order, as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because the court could not review the order, it found she had not shown entitlement to mandamus relief and therefore denied the petition and dismissed pending motions as moot.

The Fourth Court of Appeals (San Antonio) denied Camoray Wathen-Escobar’s original petitions for a writ of mandamus and a writ of habeas corpus and denied as moot her emergency motion for temporary relief. The court explained mandamus requires showing a clear abuse of discretion and lack of an adequate appellate remedy, and that the intermediate appellate court lacks jurisdiction over family-code habeas petitions regarding return of a child. After reviewing the petition and record, the court concluded the relator did not meet the standards for relief and therefore denied the petitions.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for discretionary appeal in a child-related case styled In the Interest of M. B. (Mother). After review, the court denied the application for discretionary appeal, meaning it declined to hear the matter on appeal. The order is ministerial and contains no additional reasoning or discussion of the underlying juvenile or parental rights proceedings.