PER CURIAM

On September 23, 2002, Relator Jude L. Vernor filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion to stay execution of the trial court's orders pending ruling in the mandamus proceeding. The Court is of the opinion that the motion for stay is well-taken and should be granted. The Court hereby orders the following:

1. The orders of the County Court at Law No. Two of Williamson County, Texas, in Cause No. 01-1194-FC2, styled: In the Interest of Casey Ray Leitch, a Child, rendered in open court on September 16, 2002, are stayed pending resolution of this mandamus proceeding in this Court.

2. The real-party-in-interest shall file with this Court a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before Friday, October 4, 2002.

3. The County Clerk of Williamson County shall file with this Court a complete Clerk's Record from the aforementioned cause on or before Friday, October 4, 2002.

4. Any court reporter who reported any of the proceedings in the county court at law in the aforementioned cause shall file a certified transcription of such proceedings, except for the previously transcribed portions entitled "Testimony of Jude Vernor," attached as Exhibit B to the petition for writ of mandamus, and "Judge's Ruling," attached as Exhibit A to the petition for writ of mandamus, on or before Friday, October 4, 2002.

5. Relator shall file with this Court on or before Friday, October 4, 2002, copies of all orders, decrees, notices, or writs pertaining to this child issued by the Commonwealth of Australia, or any province, region, authority or agency thereof, and authenticated copies of the documents on or before the scheduled oral argument in this case.

6. Oral argument on the petition for writ of mandamus is set in this Court for Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 1:30 o'clock p.m..

7. Both relator and real-party-in-interest are ordered to file written briefing and responses on or before Friday, October 4, 2002, on the following matters:

a. Under the Hague Convention, Article 3, was the removal of Casey Leitch from Texas to Australia "wrongful," that is, in breach of any rights of custody attributed to real-party-in-interest, Larry Carden? If so, append the judicial decision or agreement having legal effect under the laws of Texas that afforded him those rights. If not, under what authority was the Hague Convention order entered in Australia, and does that order continue to have any effect?

b. Is there currently any legal order recognizing Larry Carden as the biological father of Casey Leitch?

c. Are there any current orders, temporary or otherwise, governing Casey Leitch from any court or governmental authority, other than that issued by the County Court at Law No. Two of Williamson County on September 16, 2002?

d. Are there any current temporary or permanent orders regarding the conservatorship or custody of Casey Leitch in Williamson County? After the granting of the motion for new trial in Cause No. 01-1194-FC2, are there any orders, temporary or otherwise, granting any rights of conservatorship to real-party-in-interest Larry Carden?

e. Is Casey Leitch currently enrolled in and attending school in Australia? If so, identify the school, the level of classes the child attends, including proof of enrollment, and attach the school's complete calendar year, including any upcoming end-of-year or "summer" or holiday vacation periods or term breaks.

f. What authority allows the trial court to order a seven-year-old child to travel from his home in Australia to live in Williamson County? What authority allows the trial court to order relator to travel from her home in Australia to Williamson County if she wishes to maintain her parental relationship with her child?

g. What psychological tests and evaluations are contemplated from each of the parties and the child? Which of those could be conducted where each party resides? List any reason why this arrangement for local testing, pending final hearing in the Williamson County case, would be unsatisfactory?

h. Are there any emergency issues that support the trial court's decision to order immediate resolution of this issue without the usual time and procedures for discovery and without regard for the child's present living arrangements and school schedule?

It is further ordered that any other proceedings relating to these parties in the trial court are stayed pending resolution of this mandamus proceeding.

It is ORDERED this 24th day of September, 2002.

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Do Not Publish