Dallas Court Denies Writ of Prohibition for Noncompliance With Rule 52 and Deficient Record in Child-Return Dispute

In re Malik Adonis Dartell Conyers, 05-26-00601-CV, May 04, 2026.

On appeal from 469th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas

Synopsis

The Dallas Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of prohibition in a child-return dispute because the relator did not satisfy basic Rule 52 requirements. The petition lacked the required certification, most supporting documents were neither sworn nor certified, emergency relief was denied as moot, and the court struck the filings for including unredacted sensitive data in violation of Rule 9.9.

Relevance to Family Law

For Texas family-law litigators, this opinion is a procedural warning shot. In fast-moving divorce, SAPCR, interstate custody, Hague-adjacent, UCCJEA, child-return, enforcement, and emergency-jurisdiction disputes, appellate relief often turns less on the underlying equities than on whether counsel strictly complies with the appellate rules governing extraordinary writ practice. A meritorious complaint about a return order, an enforcement order, or a jurisdictional ruling can be lost immediately if the petition omits the Rule 52 certification, relies on unsworn attachments, or discloses protected identifiers in violation of Rule 9.9. In other words, this case underscores that in family-law emergencies, procedural defects are often outcome-determinative.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The relator sought a writ of prohibition from the Dallas Court of Appeals to stop the trial court from enforcing an April 28, 2026 Order for Return of Child. He also asked the court to prevent effect from being given to an order issued by a Florida court and requested referral of the underlying matter to the Texas Office of the Attorney General, Child Support Division. Shortly thereafter, he filed a motion for emergency relief asking the appellate court to stay all trial-court orders.

The court’s analysis did not turn on the merits of the interstate child-return dispute. Instead, it focused on the threshold sufficiency of the writ papers. The petition did not include the certification required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52. The relator did attach a certified hearing transcript and a certified trial-court order on a motion to transfer venue, but the remainder of the materials appended to the petition were not sworn or certified. That left the court with an incomplete and legally insufficient record for extraordinary relief. The problem was compounded by the inclusion of unredacted sensitive data, which prompted the court to strike both the petition and the emergency motion under Rule 9.9.

Issues Decided

• Whether a relator seeking a writ of prohibition is entitled to relief when the petition omits the certification required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.
• Whether a relator meets his burden to establish entitlement to extraordinary relief when most of the supporting record consists of documents that are neither sworn nor certified.
• Whether a request for emergency relief should be denied as moot after denial of the underlying petition.
• Whether filings containing unredacted sensitive data should be struck for violating Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9.

Rules Applied

The court applied the basic procedural framework governing original proceedings in Texas appellate courts.

• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52 governs petitions for extraordinary relief, including writ practice such as mandamus and prohibition.
• Rule 52.3(k) requires the certification accompanying the petition.
• Rules 52.3(l)(1)(B) and 52.7(a) require a relator to support the petition with a record containing properly authenticated materials, including sworn or certified copies of relevant documents.
• Under Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding), the relator bears the burden to provide a record sufficient to establish entitlement to relief.
• The court cited In re Medhanealem Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, No. 05-24-00638-CV, 2024 WL 2717721, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 28, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.), for the proposition that a petition for writ of prohibition must comply with Rule 52.
• The court cited In re Integrity Mktg. Grp., LLC, No. 05-24-00922-CV, 2024 WL 3770377, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 13, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.), noting that lack of the Rule 52 certification alone can justify denial of extraordinary relief.
• The court cited In re Hamilton, No. 05-19-01458-CV, 2020 WL 64679, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 7, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.), for the mechanics of authenticated record practice: certified copies come from the clerk, and sworn copies may be established through affidavit or unsworn declaration.
• The court referenced Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 132.001(c)(2), which permits an unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury to authenticate attached copies as true and correct.
• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9 prohibits disclosure of unredacted sensitive data in court filings.

Application

The court took a strict procedural approach and never reached the substance of the requested prohibition. It began with the petition itself. Because a writ petition must comply with Rule 52, the absence of the required certification was an immediate defect. The court cited prior Dallas authority confirming that this omission alone can warrant denial of relief. That is an important point for practitioners: the court treated the certification requirement as mandatory, not technical or aspirational.

The court then turned to the record. In original proceedings, the relator carries the burden to furnish a record sufficient to prove entitlement to relief. Here, although the relator included a certified hearing transcript and a certified order on the motion to transfer venue, the balance of the attached documents lacked the authentication Rule 52 requires. They were not certified by the clerk and were not converted into sworn copies through an affidavit or compliant unsworn declaration attesting that the attachments were true and correct copies of originals. Because the court could not rely on those materials as competent record evidence, the record was incomplete. That evidentiary failure independently prevented the relator from obtaining extraordinary relief.

Finally, the court addressed two collateral matters flowing from the defective filing. First, once the petition was denied, the emergency stay request necessarily became moot. Second, the court struck both the petition and the emergency filing because they disclosed unredacted sensitive data. That feature of the opinion is especially important in family-law practice, where filings frequently contain children’s identifying information, birth dates, and other protected data. The court was willing not only to deny relief, but also to strike the papers themselves for a Rule 9.9 violation.

Holding

The court denied the petition for writ of prohibition because the relator failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52. Specifically, the petition omitted the required certification, a defect the court treated as sufficient in itself to defeat extraordinary relief.

The court also denied relief because the relator failed to provide a sufficient record. Although a small portion of the appendix was certified, most of the supporting documents were neither sworn nor certified, leaving the court without a proper mandamus record to evaluate the claimed entitlement to relief.

The court denied the relator’s request for emergency relief as moot in light of the denial of the petition.

Separately, the court struck the petition, its appendix, and the emergency-relief filing because they contained unredacted sensitive data in violation of Rule 9.9.

Practical Application

In family-law writ practice, this case should be treated as a filing-room case as much as a jurisprudential one. When counsel seeks emergency appellate intervention in a child-return order, a turnover of possession, a UCCJEA enforcement ruling, or a temporary order with immediate operational consequences, the first battle is document control. If the petition is missing the Rule 52 certification, the court may deny relief without reaching the merits. If the record includes screenshots, email chains, foreign orders, clerk printouts, proposed orders, exhibits from hearings, or filings downloaded from e-filing systems that are not certified or properly sworn, the court may disregard them and hold the record insufficient.

This matters acutely in interstate child-custody litigation. Family lawyers often move quickly when a child is ordered returned to another state, when a trial court enforces a sister-state custody directive, or when emergency jurisdiction is contested. But speed does not relax Rule 52. If anything, the urgency of the setting increases the need for a disciplined original-proceeding workflow. The appellate court needs a clean record showing exactly what order was signed, what evidence was before the trial court, what hearing occurred, and what jurisdictional or statutory basis is being challenged.

The Rule 9.9 aspect is equally significant. Family-law files are saturated with protected information. A petition can be substantively strong and still get struck if counsel files unredacted sensitive data. That creates delay, reputational cost, and sometimes practical prejudice when time-sensitive relief is sought. For practitioners, the lesson is straightforward: before any emergency filing goes up, someone must perform a final redaction review focused specifically on children’s names or initials, birth dates, social-security numbers, financial-account numbers, and other protected identifiers.

This opinion also has strategic value for respondents. When opposing a writ in a custody or return dispute, do not overlook threshold defects. A response can and should point out missing Rule 52 certification, unsupported appendices, missing reporter’s records, lack of certified orders, and Rule 9.9 violations. In some cases, the relator’s procedural failures may resolve the original proceeding without requiring a merits response.

Checklists

Original Proceeding Filing Checklist

• Confirm the form of relief sought is correctly styled and supported under Rule 52.
• Include the Rule 52 certification in the petition.
• Verify the certification language is complete and signed.
• Ensure the petition clearly identifies the challenged order or action.
• Confirm the petition requests relief the appellate court can actually grant in an original proceeding.
• Review all citations, record references, and appendix references for accuracy.

Mandamus or Prohibition Record Checklist

• Obtain certified copies of all operative trial-court orders from the district clerk.
• Obtain certified copies of all key pleadings if they are necessary to show the issue presented.
• Order and file the relevant reporter’s record for each hearing material to the requested relief.
• If certified copies are unavailable in time, authenticate documents through an affidavit or compliant unsworn declaration stating under penalty of perjury that the attached documents are true and correct copies.
• Include any foreign-state orders in certified form if they matter to the dispute.
• Include only documents necessary to establish entitlement to relief; omit clutter that obscures the key issue.
• Confirm each exhibit in the appendix is either certified or properly sworn.
• Cross-check the petition’s factual assertions against the authenticated record.

Family Law Emergency Writ Checklist

• Identify the immediate harm created by the child-return, custody, enforcement, or jurisdictional order.
• Confirm whether a stay is needed and whether it should be requested in a separate emergency motion.
• Attach the operative order and the hearing transcript supporting the emergency request.
• Explain why there is no adequate appellate remedy.
• Show precisely how the trial court allegedly abused its discretion or exceeded its authority.
• Address any interstate-jurisdiction framework implicated by the facts, including UCCJEA issues where relevant.
• Make sure the emergency motion and the petition rely on the same authenticated record.

Sensitive Data Redaction Checklist

• Review every page of the petition, appendix, motion, and exhibit for Rule 9.9 compliance.
• Redact children’s full names where required and use initials or other compliant identifiers.
• Redact dates of birth except where permitted in shortened form.
• Redact social-security numbers, driver’s-license numbers, passport numbers, and financial-account numbers.
• Review screenshots, text-message exhibits, medical records, school records, and foreign-court documents for embedded identifiers.
• Check metadata-generated captions or attached e-filings that may still display sensitive information.
• Conduct a final pre-filing review by someone other than the drafter.

Responding Party Checklist

• Examine the petition for the Rule 52 certification.
• Challenge any appendix documents that are not sworn or certified.
• Identify missing reporter’s records or missing operative orders.
• Raise Rule 9.9 defects if sensitive data was filed unredacted.
• Consider whether a threshold motion or response on procedural grounds can dispose of the writ without merits briefing.
• Preserve merits arguments as a fallback, but do not ignore procedural weaknesses.

Citation

In re Malik Adonis Dartell Conyers, No. 05-26-00601-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Dallas May 4, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~eacb6dcf-c4fc-4c76-a350-b1833efb0d63~~