In Re Marcela Ponce v. the State of Texas, 08-25-00102-CV

After their 2022 divorce, Marcela Ponce and Bayona were joint managing conservators of their child, with Ponce having the right to designate the child’s residence.
In March 2024, Ponce filed to modify the parent-child relationship, alleging Bayona abused the child and seeking sole managing conservatorship.
Bayona responded with a general denial and motions accusing Ponce of violating interim orders, and he requested to be made the conservator with the right to determine the child’s residence.
The trial court’s November 20, 2024 hearing was noticed to Ponce only as a contempt hearing, but the court entered a Default Final Order making Bayona the sole managing conservator after Ponce failed to appear.
Ponce moved for a new trial, claiming lack of fair notice and deprivation of her jury trial right; the court only granted a new trial on possession, access, and child support, but not conservatorship.
This appeal arises from Ponce’s mandamus petition challenging the refusal to vacate the conservatorship portion of the default order.

Issue	Ponce's Argument	Bayona's Argument	Held
Did the trial court abuse discretion in failing to vacate conservatorship?	No fair notice for a conservatorship ruling; jury right violated	Relief was within pleadings; Ponce waived rights by no-show	Yes, court abused discretion – no fair notice or adequate trial setting notice given
Was Ponce deprived of her right to a jury trial on conservatorship?	She requested and paid for jury; no valid waiver if no notice	Nonappearance waived jury right	Ponce did not waive right because required trial setting notice was lacking
Did Bayona's pleadings support making him sole managing conservator?	Bayona only sought right to designate residence—not sole status	Motion referenced “material change” and child welfare	Bayona’s pleadings did not seek sole conservatorship—order went beyond pleadings
Is an appeal an adequate remedy for Ponce?	No; rights and child welfare require speedy resolution	Yes; trial court remedy available after new trial	No adequate remedy at law due to need for expeditious conservatorship issue resolution

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus relief appropriate where no adequate appellate remedy exists)
Cunningham v. Parkdale Bank, 660 S.W.2d 810 (Tex. 1983) (a judgment not supported by pleadings is erroneous)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus requires showing abuse of discretion and lack of adequate appellate remedy)