What did the appeals court decide?

The court dismissed the mandamus petition because the trial court had partially vacated the TRO, leaving no live issue for the appellate court to decide.

Who is affected by this decision?

The immediate effect is on the relator, Zachary Brice Knox, and the parties in the underlying parent-child case because the appellate court will not review the vacated TRO provisions.

What happens next in the trial court?

The trial court set a hearing for temporary orders; the parties will proceed there to resolve temporary possession and access issues.

Can this dismissal be appealed?

A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is a final ruling on the mandamus petition; further relief would generally require seeking appropriate relief in the trial court or filing a new petition only if circumstances change.

In Re Zachary Brice Knox v. the State of Texas

Docket 03-26-00325-CV

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

FamilyDismissed

Filed: Apr 24, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Family
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: 03-26-00325-CV

Original mandamus proceeding challenging a trial court's temporary restraining order in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals dismissed a mandamus petition by Zachary Brice Knox challenging a temporary restraining order that denied him possession and access to a child. After the petition was filed, the trial court modified and partially vacated the TRO and set a hearing for temporary orders. Because the complained-of provisions were vacated, the appellate court found Knox’s complaints moot and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction under the appellate rules.

Issues Decided

Whether the relator's mandamus petition challenging a trial court's temporary restraining order remains justiciable after the trial court partially vacated and modified the TRO
Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to decide the mandamus petition once the complained-of provisions are vacated

Court's Reasoning

The court explained that because the trial court's April 6, 2026 order vacated and modified the provisions of the TRO that the relator challenged and set a temporary-orders hearing, there was no longer a live controversy for the appellate court to resolve. Without a live controversy, the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief under the appellate rules, so dismissal was required as the petition was moot.

Authorities Cited

Texas Rules of Appellate ProcedureTex. R. App. P. 52.8(a)

Parties

Petitioner: Zachary Brice Knox
Judge: Chari L. Kelly

Key Dates

TRO entered: 2025-03-27
Trial court modified/vacated TRO order: 2026-04-06
Appellate decision filed: 2026-04-24

What You Should Do Next

1
Proceed to the temporary-orders hearing
Both parties should prepare evidence and arguments for the hearing the trial court set to resolve temporary possession and access.
2
Monitor the trial court's orders
After the temporary-orders hearing, review and, if necessary, timely challenge any adverse orders through the proper trial-court procedures or appropriate appellate remedies.
3
Consult an attorney
Relator should consult family-law counsel to evaluate options at the trial level and to ensure procedural protections and deadlines are met.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the appeals court decide?: The court dismissed the mandamus petition because the trial court had partially vacated the TRO, leaving no live issue for the appellate court to decide.
Who is affected by this decision?: The immediate effect is on the relator, Zachary Brice Knox, and the parties in the underlying parent-child case because the appellate court will not review the vacated TRO provisions.
What happens next in the trial court?: The trial court set a hearing for temporary orders; the parties will proceed there to resolve temporary possession and access issues.
Can this dismissal be appealed?: A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is a final ruling on the mandamus petition; further relief would generally require seeking appropriate relief in the trial court or filing a new petition only if circumstances change.

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

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN


                                     NO. 03-26-00325-CV




                                   In re Zachary Brice Knox




                      ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM IRION COUNTY



                            MEMORANDUM OPINION


               Relator has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of a temporary

restraining order (TRO) entered by the trial court on March 27, 2025, denying relator possession

and access to the subject child in the underlying suit affecting the parent-child relationship.

After relator filed his petition, however, the trial court on April 6, 2026, entered an order on

relator’s then-pending motion to vacate the TRO vacating in part and modifying in part the

complained-of order and setting a hearing for temporary orders in the underlying suit. Because

the April 6, 2026 order vacated the complained-of provisions of the TRO, relator’s complaints

about are now moot. Accordingly, we dismiss his petition for writ of mandamus for lack of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
                                           __________________________________________
                                           Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Ellis

Filed: April 24, 2026




                                              2