In In re Derzapf, 219 S.W.3d 327 (Tex. 2007), a doctor testified that the children had "lingering sadness" from lack of contact with the grandparents, that they would benefit from renewed contact, and that it may be harmful for the parent to cut off the grandparents' access. 219 S.W.3d at 330, 333-34. The supreme court held that his testimony did not overcome the statutory presumption and did not support awarding the grandmother access over the father's objection. Id. at 334. The father of children sought mandamus relief from a temporary order granting access to a grandmother and step-grandfather of the children. After concluding the trial court abused its discretion by ordering access, the supreme court considered whether the father had an adequate remedy by appeal. Id. at 334. En route to its conclusion the father had no adequate remedy by appeal and thus was entitled to mandamus relief, the supreme court cited the Daggett cases on which relator relies. If relator's premise were correct, and temporary orders were automatically challengeable by mandamus because they cannot be immediately appealed, the supreme court would simply have said so and its analysis would have stopped at that point. The court did not stop with noting the unavailability of interlocutory appeal, however, but found the divestment of a fit parent of possession of his children violated principles recognized in Troxel v. Granville, and was "irremediable," making mandamus relief appropriate. 219 S.W.3d at 335.