Opinion issued March 18, 2004

In The

Court of Appeals

For the

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01–04–00187–CV

____________

IN RE DEAN EDWARD ELLIOTT, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINIONRelator Dean Edward Elliott has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus complaining of Judge Hufstetler’s January 23, 2004 order on a petition to modify the parent–child relationship. Elliott contends Judge Hufstetler wrongfully increased Elliott’s child–support obligations. Elliott has also filed a motion for temporary relief.

          A court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus, “agreeable to the principles of law regulating those writs,” against a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b)(1) (Vernon 2004). We may grant mandamus relief to correct a clear abuse of discretion or a violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304, 305 (Tex. 1994); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992); Johnson v. Honorable Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985).

          Elliott claims he has no adequate remedy by appeal due to the allegedly excessive increase in his child–support obligations. Even if that were true, Elliott has another remedy available to him. He can refuse to pay the ordered child support, and if the trial court holds him in contempt and confines him, Elliott can file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(d) (Vernon 2004); Tex. R. App. P. 52. This is the established remedy for challenging child–support orders.

          We deny both the petition for a writ of mandamus and the motion for temporary relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Taft and Higley.