In Re Camoray Wathen-Escobar v. the State of Texas
Docket 04-26-00245-CV
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Family
- Disposition
- Denied
- Docket
- 04-26-00245-CV
Original proceeding reviewing a petition for writ of mandamus and petition for habeas corpus arising from a pending family-court child custody matter in the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County.
Summary
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.
Issues Decided
- Whether the relator established entitlement to mandamus relief by showing the trial court clearly abused its discretion and there is no adequate remedy by appeal.
- Whether the intermediate court of appeals has jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus in a Family Code action concerning return of a minor child.
Court's Reasoning
The court relied on the established two-part mandamus standard requiring proof of a clear abuse of discretion and the absence of an adequate appellate remedy, and found the relator did not satisfy those requirements. It also noted statutory limits on the court of appeals' habeas jurisdiction under the Family Code, which confines such habeas petitions to the continuing jurisdiction court or a court in the county where the child is found. Because the relator failed to show entitlement to relief and jurisdictional requirements were not met, relief was denied.
Authorities Cited
- Walker v. Packer827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)
- Texas Family Code § 157.371TEX. FAM. CODE § 157.371
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a)TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a)
- Texas Government Code § 22.221(d)TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d)
Parties
- Petitioner
- Camoray Wathen-Escobar
- Judge
- Raul Perales
Key Dates
- Opinion filed
- 2026-04-08
- Relator filed petitions
- 2026-03-25
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult family-law counsel
Talk to an attorney experienced in family law to identify whether to seek relief in the court of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction or in the county where the child is located.
- 2
Consider filing in proper court
If pursuing habeas relief regarding return of a child, file the petition in the court of continuing jurisdiction or in a court with jurisdiction where the child is found, as required by the Family Code.
- 3
Evaluate appellate options
If mandamus was denied for lack of the required showing, consider whether an appeal or other permissible post-judgment remedies to the trial or appellate courts are available and timely.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court denied the requests for mandamus and habeas corpus and found the emergency temporary relief moot.
- Why was the writ of mandamus denied?
- Because the relator did not show the trial court clearly abused its discretion or that there was no adequate appellate remedy, which are required for mandamus.
- Why was the habeas petition denied?
- The intermediate court noted it lacks jurisdiction over Family Code habeas petitions concerning the return of a child and therefore denied the petition.
- What happens next?
- The relator can pursue available remedies in the appropriate court of continuing jurisdiction or file an appeal or other relief in the proper forum as allowed by statute.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-26-00245-CV
IN RE Camoray WATHEN-ESCOBAR
Original Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Adrian A. Spears II, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 8, 2026
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED; PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
DENIED; EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF DENIED AS MOOT
On March 25, 2026, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, petition for habeas
corpus, and an emergency motion for temporary relief. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy,
available only when the relator can show (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion or violated
a duty imposed by law; and (2) there is no adequate remedy by way of appeal. Walker v. Packer,
827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Intermediate courts of appeal have limited
jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus. This original jurisdiction does not encompass habeas
corpus cases arising under the Family Code pertaining to the return of a minor child. See TEX.
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2024-PA-01069, styled In the Interest D.W. and A.W., Children, pending in
the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Raul Perales presiding.
04-26-00245-CV
FAM. CODE § 157.371 (requiring a petition for writ of habeas corpus to be filed “in either the court
of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction or in a court with jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus
in the county in which the child is found”).
After considering the petition and the record, this court concludes relator has not shown
that she is entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Her petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. See TEX. GOV'T
CODE ANN. § 22.221(d). Relator’s motion for temporary relief is DENIED AS MOOT.
PER CURIAM
-2-