In Re T.R.B., 350 S.W.3d 227

T.R.B. is the adoptive and sole legal parent of Y.B. (16), K.B. (12), and T.B. (9).
D.S. filed a SAPCR in 2008 seeking conservatorship of the children; T.R.B. challenged D.S.’s standing and filed a general denial.
The trial court initially held D.S. had no standing, prompting an interlocutory appeal; this court reversed, finding a standing question required fact-finder resolution and remanded.
In 2009–2010, related termination cases and a mediation in 2010 led to a consolidated plan for a single jury trial, with D.S. and the Department seeking to reduce T.R.B.’s conservatorship.
On December 23, 2010, after substantial evidence, the court directed a verdict for the Department and D.S. based on a settlement, before T.R.B. could present her case.
Relator petitioned for mandamus, arguing improper directed verdict and denial of jury trial; the court granted mandamus relief conditionally and remanded for a jury trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus is available to secure a jury trial in this complex custody case	T.R.B. lacks an adequate appeal remedy and requires mandamus	An accelerated appeal suffices and mandamus is improper	Mandamus appropriate; no adequate remedy by appeal
Whether the directed verdict was appropriate when based on pleadings rather than evidence	Verdict premised on settlement-related pleading defect	Directed verdict permissible due to pleading deficiency	Directed verdict based on pleadings improper; abuse of discretion
Whether T.R.B.’s general denial was sufficient to raise conservatorship issues	General denial contesting any change in conservatorship	General denial did not raise a conservatorship issue	General denial sufficient to require burden on Department and D.S.
Whether the standing issue remains for resolution by the trier of fact	Standing is a fact issue that should be resolved by the jury	Standing moot after settlement; no jury issue	Standing remains a jurisdictional issue for the trier of fact

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standard; abuse must be clear and remedies inadequate)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (trial court abuse of discretion defined; inadequate remedy by appeal)
In re Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2006) (speedy resolution; appeal inadequate for children's rights)
In re Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 273 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2009) (appeal inadequate when Department custody persists)
In re Russell, 321 S.W.3d 846 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010) (pleading requirements in family-law cases; fair notice)
In re Z.A.T., 193 S.W.3d 197 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006) (instructional directed verdict authority; evidence sufficiency)
State Office of Risk Mgmt. v. Martinez, 300 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009) (directed verdict or rules; full opportunity to present case)