ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
The real party in interest father (RPI) filed a petition to modify the parent-child relationship and an application for a temporary restraining order. The RPI averred that the relator mother was planning to move to Florida to live with her boyfriend. He also averred that he wanted to prevent the relator from removing the children from their schools and family in Texas, including the RPI. The trial court granted the RPI a temporary restraining order, restricting the children’s residence to “Denton and contiguous counties within Texas.” At the hearing, the RPI asked that a social study be prepared and that the children not be allowed to move until the court rendered a final decision. The trial court ordered a social study and ordered the parties to remain in the area and not to move to any location where they will be unavailable to participate in the social study until it was completed. The relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The appellate court found that the RPI’s general allegations did not show that the children’s present circumstances would significantly impair their emotional development. Based on Family Code section 156.006(b), prohibiting the trial court from issuing a temporary order to change the designation of the person having the right to determine the primary residence of the child, and the absence of evidence triggering a statutory exception to this prohibition, the court concluded the trial court abused its discretion by ruling that the children must remain “in the area” pending the preparation of a social study. Accordingly, the court conditionally granted relief.