S.W.3d 393, 396 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied)). Thus where, as here, an abuse-of-discretion standard applies, we must engage in a two-pronged inquiry, asking (1) whether the trial court had sufficient information on which to exercise its discretion; and, if so, (2) whether the trial court erred in its application of discretion based on that information. See id. at 587-88. Assuming a clear abuse of discretion in a temporary order in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, mandamus may lie on the basis that there are no appellate remedies that are considered adequate. See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 105.001(e) (“Temporary orders rendered under this section are not subject to interlocutory appeal.”); Little v. Daggett, 858 S.W.2d 368, 369 (Tex.1993) (orig. proceeding) (<HOLDING>). ANALYSIS Christopher argues that the district
holding that mandamus is an appropriate remedy because the trial courts issuance of temporary orders is not subject to interlocutory appeal holding that mandamus is appropriate to challenge temporary orders because they are not subject to interlocutory appeal holding that mandamus was appropriate remedy because temporary order granting visitation is not appealable holding that mandamus is appropriate to challenge temporary orders holding that a temporary order granting emergency relief and temporary child custody under the domestic violence act is not immediately appealable