In Re S.L.H. Appeal from 1A District Court of Tyler County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-19-00022-CV _________________ IN RE S.L.H. ________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 1A District Court of Tyler County, Texas Trial Cause No. 24,908 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator S.L.H., the mother of fourteen children under temporary managing conservatorship of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services pursuant to a petition filed by the Tyler County District Attorney on behalf of the State of Texas, seeks mandamus relief on the grounds that: (1) the trial court exceeded its authority and jurisdiction by ordering the Department to exercise its discretionary functions in a particular way; (2) the legal requirements had not been met for ordering the removal of the children from their home and ordering the Department to assume conservatorship of the children; and (3) the appointment of an amicus 1 attorney was prohibited by law. Relator requests that this Court order the trial court to vacate its prior orders and dismiss the case. We denied Relator’s motion for temporary relief and requested responses to the mandamus petition from the real parties in interest. A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion for which the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). After considering the petition and the responses, and after examining the supporting reporter’s records and documents filed by the parties, we conclude that the relator has not established that she is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on February 11, 2019 Opinion Delivered March 7, 2019 Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
