Fifth Court of Appeals Denies Mandamus Relief in UCCJEA Jurisdictional Dispute
In re Aftab Mahmood, 05-25-01276-CV, February 23, 2026.
On appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court of Collin County
Synopsis
The Fifth Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to overturn a trial court’s interlocutory order regarding jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The Court held that the relator failed to carry the heavy burden of demonstrating that the trial court clearly abused its discretion or that an ordinary appeal would provide an inadequate remedy for the alleged jurisdictional error.
Relevance to Family Law
In high-stakes interstate custody disputes, the UCCJEA serves as the primary arbiter of subject-matter jurisdiction. This decision reinforces the significant procedural hurdles practitioners face when attempting to challenge a trial court’s jurisdictional determination via an original proceeding. While a trial court’s failure to correctly apply the UCCJEA can, in certain circumstances, be corrected by mandamus, the Dallas Court of Appeals here emphasizes that the relator must provide a record and argument sufficient to overcome the high bar of the Prudential standard. For family law litigators, this underscores the necessity of a meticulous trial record and a targeted strategy for proving why an eventual appeal from a final judgment would be insufficient to remedy a jurisdictional misstep.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator Aftab Mahmood filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion to stay proceedings in the 380th Judicial District Court of Collin County. The dispute arose from an August 21, 2025, “Order on UCCJEA Jurisdiction” issued by the trial court. While the memorandum opinion does not provide an exhaustive recitation of the underlying familial facts, the core of the litigation involved a contest over whether Texas possessed the requisite jurisdictional authority under UCCJEA to preside over the custody matters at issue. The Relator sought to stay the trial court proceedings while the appellate court reviewed whether the trial court had improperly asserted or retained jurisdiction.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether the relator established entitlement to mandamus relief by showing both a clear abuse of discretion in the trial court’s application of the UCCJEA and the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal.
Rules Applied
The Court applied the seminal standard for mandamus relief established in In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004), which requires a showing that the trial court’s ruling was so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear failure to correctly analyze or apply the law. Additionally, the Court relied on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a), which governs the summary disposition of a petition for writ of mandamus when the court determines that the relator is not entitled to the relief sought.
Application
The Court conducted a review of the relator’s petition and the record provided. In the context of the UCCJEA, jurisdictional determinations often hinge on factual findings regarding the child’s “home state” or “significant connections.” To prevail on mandamus, a relator must demonstrate that the trial court’s weighing of these factors—or its legal interpretation of the statute—was a clear abuse of discretion. The Fifth Court of Appeals concluded that the relator’s presentation failed to meet this threshold. The Court did not provide an extensive analysis of the merits of the jurisdictional dispute, but rather determined that the relator had not provided a sufficient basis to show that the trial court’s order was uncorrectable by a standard appeal or that the trial court had strayed so far from the law as to warrant the extraordinary intervention of an original proceeding.
Holding
The Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus. The Court held that based on the review of the petition and the record, the relator failed to demonstrate that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in issuing the August 21, 2025, jurisdictional order.
Furthermore, the Court implicitly held that the relator failed to show that an adequate remedy by appeal was unavailable. Consequently, the Court also lifted the stay previously issued on October 2, 2025, permitting the underlying litigation to proceed in Collin County.
Practical Application
For the practitioner, In re Mahmood serves as a reminder that mandamus is not a substitute for an interlocutory appeal, particularly in jurisdictional contests. When a trial court asserts jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, the Fifth Court of Appeals expects a robust record that leaves no doubt as to the trial court’s error. Litigators should focus on requesting specific findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the child’s residence, the timing of the filings, and any communication between the Texas court and courts of other states. Without a record that clearly negates the trial court’s discretionary findings, a petition for mandamus will likely face the same summary denial seen here.
Checklists
Perfecting the UCCJEA Mandamus Record
- Include the specific order challenged (the Order on UCCJEA Jurisdiction) as an exhibit to the petition.
- Provide a complete transcript of the UCCJEA evidentiary hearing, ensuring all testimony regarding the child’s residency is highlighted.
- Ensure the record includes any communications between the Texas judge and judges in other jurisdictions, as required by the UCCJEA.
- Request and include formal Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to pin down the trial court’s legal reasoning.
Demonstrating Inadequate Remedy by Appeal
- Articulate specific, irreparable harm that will occur if the case proceeds in an improper forum (e.g., conflicting orders from different states).
- Highlight the potential for “wasteful” litigation expenses that cannot be recovered if the jurisdictional issue is only addressed after a final trial.
- Contrast the current case with precedents where mandamus was granted in jurisdictional disputes to show a pattern of “clear abuse.”
Citation
In re Aftab Mahmood, No. 05-25-01276-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 23, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~b8da499e-4f12-443a-8e3d-c9b6a4272297~~
Share this content:
