# In re Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs. Supreme Court of Texas, No. 25-0663 **In re Tex. Dep't of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 25-0663, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: Did a probate court abuse its discretion by sua sponte ordering that a private forensic examiner search the State's confidential abuse-and-neglect database for records the Department of Family and Protective Services says were purged, without the analysis In re Weekley Homes requires?** Practice areas: civil procedure, administrative law ## Key issues - Did a probate court abuse its discretion by sua sponte ordering that a private forensic examiner search the State's confidential abuse-and-neglect database for records the Department of Family and Protective Services says were purged, without the analysis In re Weekley Homes requires? - Does Human Resources Code ยง 48.101 let a judge delegate in camera review of confidential investigatory records, and does the Department lack an adequate remedy by appeal? ## Factual History The underlying case is a probate action over the estate of Dr. Stanley Seaton, in which the trustee, Chris Kinkaid, sued over alleged mismanagement of a trust (Brief on the Merits (Real Parties in Interest), PDF p. 5). In 2022 the defendants, Sarah Graziano (now Denny) and Doc's Drive-In Theatre, served the Department of Family and Protective Services (Adult Protective Services) with a subpoena for all documents about any APS report or investigation concerning Seaton, which they say would support a limitations defense (Brief on the Merits (Real Parties in Interest), PDF p. 5). The Department says it follows a state-approved records-retention policy that required keeping closed APS investigations for five years, that it fully complied with the 2022 subpoena, and that the remaining records were purged under that policy (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF pp. 14-15). The defendants say the Department never responded for years and that at least one investigation's records were purged in violation of the policy (Brief on the Merits (Real Parties in Interest), PDF pp. 6-7). ## Procedural History Denny moved on August 5, 2024 to compel and to disclose confidential information under section 48.101, and at the hearing the Department said it did not oppose the motion generally but had no responsive records because they were no longer in its IMPACT system (Brief on the Merits (Real Parties in Interest), PDF p. 6; Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF p. 17). The probate judge then injected forensic examiner Craig Ball into the case on his own initiative and, in an order signed less than a month later, directed the Department to allow Ball to conduct a diligent search through the APS files and records and retrieve the entire file on Seaton, to produce records for in camera review, and to serve a detailed account of the search (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF pp. 18-19). The court denied the Department's motion to reconsider on November 12, 2024, and the Third Court of Appeals denied mandamus (Brief on the Merits (Real Parties in Interest), PDF p. 7). The Supreme Court heard the Department's petition and requested briefing. ## Issues Presented - The Department (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF p. 11): (1) whether the probate court abused its discretion by ordering the Department to let Ball search all of its IMPACT files, when no party requested that relief, uncontroverted evidence showed the information was purged under a retention policy, and no *Weekley Homes* analysis was done; and (2) whether the Department has an adequate remedy by appeal. - Denny (Brief on the Merits (Real Parties in Interest), PDF p. 8): whether the trial court exceeded what the discovery rules allow; she argues it did not, and that Ball would act on the judge's behalf as part of the section 48.101 process rather than as a member of the public. ## Standard(s) of Review Mandamus requires an abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy by appeal, and the Department's petition also argues the probate court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing a void order (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF p. 10). ## Legal Arguments **Whether the order was an abuse of discretion.** **The Department (Relator):** The Department's investigatory information is statutorily confidential, and the judge, with no party asking, directed a private third party to have unrestricted access to IMPACT, ignoring the protections of section 48.101, the rules on subpoenas and sanctions, and controlling precedent (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF pp. 24, 27-29). The order violates Rules 176.2, 205 and 215, and the judge never considered the *Weekley Homes* factors before allowing access to a party's electronic records system; the Department says it did not default on its duty to search (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF pp. 32-35). In reply, it says section 48.101's text forbids delegating the in camera review, that *Weekley Homes* bars fishing expeditions into confidential electronic systems, and that the judge cannot grant relief nobody requested (Brief on the Merits (Relator's Reply Brief), PDF p. 2). **Denny and the other real parties in interest:** The Department's point that the records are confidential is undisputed, which is why the defendants moved to disclose them under section 48.101, and the trial court did not order discovery beyond what the rules allow because Ball acts on behalf of the judge in the statutory process, not as a member of the public (Brief on the Merits (Real Parties in Interest), PDF p. 8). They add that the records were purged in violation of the retention policy and that the Department's evidence on this was unreliable (Brief on the Merits (Real Parties in Interest), PDF p. 7). ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case The Department argued that the probate court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing a void order, that it has no adequate remedy by appeal, and that it is entitled to mandamus relief (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF p. 10). It framed the dispute as a judge, without any party asking, giving a private third party unfettered access to a statutorily confidential database to retrieve documents that had already been purged (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF p. 9). ## Practice Area Tags civil-procedure, administrative-law ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle Original proceeding (petition for writ of mandamus) from the Third Court of Appeals' denial of relief. Oral argument: November 4, 2026. ## Amicus Involvement None noted --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/25-0663. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.