In re Nicholas David Kiselov, 05-26-00390-CV, March 24, 2026.
On appeal from 303rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Synopsis
The Fifth Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief where the relator sought to compel the trial court to hear a renewed plea to the jurisdiction. The court held the relator did not carry the mandamus burden to show a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy under Prudential. A related request to compel preparation of an omitted reporter’s record was denied as moot.
Relevance to Family Law
Texas family cases routinely present “jurisdiction” flashpoints—UCCJEA home-state disputes, UIFSA/child support jurisdiction, standing in SAPCRs, and post-decree enforcement or modification fights where parties frame defects as jurisdictional to accelerate appellate review. In re Kiselov is a reminder that even if you believe the trial court is wrong to refuse to entertain a renewed jurisdictional challenge, mandamus is not automatic: the relator must build a record and analysis that satisfies both prongs of mandamus (clear abuse + no adequate remedy). For family litigators, the decision underscores the strategic cost of treating mandamus as a “reset button” when a jurisdictional theory is repackaged and presented again—particularly late in the case, after prior rulings, or without a complete record showing why ordinary appeal is inadequate.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
This original proceeding arose out of a Dallas County family docket (303rd Judicial District Court), in a case identified by trial court cause number DF-19-23225. The relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus (and an amended supplement) asking the Fifth Court to order the trial judge to vacate a refusal to hear the relator’s renewed plea to the jurisdiction.
The mandamus record also included a motion asking the court of appeals to direct preparation and filing of an omitted reporter’s record from a March 5, 2026 hearing. The Fifth Court’s memorandum opinion is short, but the posture is familiar to family practitioners: a party attempts to re-urge jurisdiction through a “renewed” plea and, when the trial court declines to hold a hearing or revisit the issue, seeks emergency appellate intervention.
Issues Decided
- Whether the relator established entitlement to mandamus relief compelling the trial court to vacate its refusal to hear a renewed plea to the jurisdiction (i.e., whether the relator showed a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy).
- Whether the court of appeals should direct preparation and filing of an omitted reporter’s record from March 5, 2026.
Rules Applied
Mandamus standards drove the outcome:
- Mandamus requires the relator to show (1) a clear abuse of discretion and (2) no adequate remedy by appeal.
- The court cited In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding), for the governing framework.
- The court also cited Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a) (denial of petition).
Although the underlying jurisdictional doctrine is not analyzed in the opinion, the procedural takeaway is that mandamus is a record-driven remedy: the relator bears the burden to provide a record and argument demonstrating both prongs under Prudential.
Application
The Fifth Court did not reach the merits of the renewed plea to the jurisdiction (i.e., whether jurisdiction truly was lacking). Instead, it addressed the threshold question: whether this was an appropriate case for mandamus.
Applying Prudential, the court concluded the relator “failed to show his entitlement to mandamus relief.” That conclusion necessarily reflects a failure on one or both mandamus prongs—either the record and authorities did not demonstrate that the trial court’s refusal to hear the renewed plea was a clear abuse of discretion, or the relator did not demonstrate why ordinary appellate review would be inadequate (or both). In other words, even if the jurisdictional argument might ultimately have force, the mandamus presentation did not justify extraordinary relief at this stage and on this record.
Because the petition was denied, the requested relief regarding the omitted reporter’s record was denied as moot—procedurally signaling that the court was not going to invest in reconstructing or supplementing the mandamus record when the petition already failed at the entitlement stage.
Holding
The court denied mandamus relief because the relator did not carry the burden to show a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy under Prudential. The denial was issued under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a).
The court also denied the relator’s motion to direct preparation and filing of an omitted reporter’s record as moot in light of the denial of mandamus relief.
Practical Application
For Texas family law litigators, In re Kiselov is best read as a “mandamus packaging” decision: if you want extraordinary relief tied to a jurisdictional dispute, you must do more than assert jurisdictional error—you must prove mandamus entitlement with a disciplined record and an appellate-remedy analysis that speaks to Prudential’s practicalities.
Common family-law scenarios where this matters:
- UCCJEA disputes (home state, exclusive continuing jurisdiction, inconvenient forum): If the trial court refuses to hear (or re-hear) a jurisdictional challenge, mandamus is only as strong as your record showing the refusal, the legal duty to act, and why waiting for final judgment is inadequate (e.g., imminent trial, irreparable jurisdictional harm not curable on appeal).
- Standing and SAPCR jurisdictional framing: Litigants often label standing defects as “jurisdictional” to seek immediate appellate intervention. This opinion reinforces that the “jurisdictional” label alone will not substitute for a developed mandamus showing.
- Post-decree modifications/enforcement: When jurisdiction is challenged mid-stream (often after an adverse ruling), a “renewed plea” can look like a second bite. If the trial court declines to revisit it, you need a compelling justification why mandamus—rather than appeal from final orders—should be available.
- Record-dependent complaints (refusal to set a hearing): If your complaint is that the court refused to hear something, you must meticulously prove that refusal and the context (requests, settings, correspondence, docket entries, hearing transcripts). A thin record is a predictable mandamus loss.
Strategically, this decision should push family litigators to treat mandamus like a merits brief plus an evidentiary package: you are proving up entitlement, not merely arguing you are right.
Checklists
Mandamus-Ready Record for “Refusal to Hear” a Plea to the Jurisdiction
- Include the filed renewed plea to the jurisdiction with file-stamp and any amended versions
- Include written requests for hearing/setting and the trial court’s written refusal (order, email directive, coordinator response adopted by court, docket sheet entries)
- Include transcripts of any relevant hearings where the court refused to take up the plea
- Provide a clerk’s record excerpt showing the procedural history (prior pleas, prior rulings, timing relative to trial)
- Attach a sworn authentication where required by TRAP 52 (properly assembled mandamus appendix/record)
Proving “Clear Abuse of Discretion” (Not Just Disagreement)
- Identify the specific act you want compelled (e.g., “hold a hearing,” “rule on the plea,” “vacate refusal”)
- Cite authority establishing the trial court’s duty in the procedural posture you are in (including whether the court must hear/rehear a renewed plea)
- Address why this is not a discretionary docket-management decision (or, if it is, why discretion was exceeded)
- Explain the effect of any prior rulings (law of the case, waiver, changed circumstances) and why renewal is procedurally proper
Showing “No Adequate Remedy by Appeal” in a Family Case
- Tie inadequacy to concrete, case-specific harms (not generalized delay)
- Explain why a final appeal cannot cure the alleged jurisdictional injury (or why waiting is impractical under Prudential)
- Identify imminent deadlines (trial settings, temporary orders with significant consequences, possession changes, transfer/registration issues)
- Address whether interlocutory appeal is available and why it is not (or why it is inadequate)
Avoiding the Non-Prevailing Party’s Pitfall: “Renewed Plea” Without a Mandamus Theory
- If renewing a plea, clearly articulate what changed (new facts, new law, new jurisdictional event)
- Request a ruling in writing and preserve the refusal with a clean record
- Do not assume “jurisdictional = mandamus”; brief both prongs explicitly and thoroughly
- If you need a reporter’s record, secure it early and confirm it is filed; build redundancy with written orders and docket entries
Citation
In re Nicholas David Kiselov, No. 05-26-00390-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 24, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~30a0f03e-dcae-4563-bbe8-de49dc0c6a9a~~
Share this content: