In Re Amanda Barlow Henckel Appeal from 279th District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ___________________ NO. 09-20-00143-CV ___________________ IN RE AMANDA BARLOW HENCKEL _________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 279th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F-219,234-B _________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Amanda Barlow Henckel filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to set a hearing on temporary orders in a suit for modification of an order in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR). The real party in interest, Daniel Lamance, filed a response and a motion to dismiss for mootness. He argues this original proceeding is moot because the trial court has set the matter for a hearing on July 22, 2020. Henckel contends the matter is not moot because setting the hearing so far in the future deprives her of due process. 1 Mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no other adequate remedy by law. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). The criteria for determining whether a time period is reasonable include the trial court’s actual knowledge of the motion, the trial court’s overt refusal to act, the state of the court’s docket, and the existence of other judicial and administrative matters which must be addressed first. In re McAllen Hospitals, L.P., No. 13-20-00210-CV, at *5, 2020 WL 2611272 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi May 22, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (ordering judge to rule on motion to dismiss health care liability suit absent showing the pandemic affected the trial court’s ability to rule). After considering the mandamus petition, the response, the motion to dismiss and the reply to the motion to dismiss, we conclude that the original proceeding is not moot but the relator has not shown a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court. Accordingly, we deny the motion to dismiss for mootness and the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8. PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM 2 Submitted June 5, 2020 Opinion Issued June 25, 2020 Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ. 3
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.
