From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re M.H. & K.H

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District
Sep 10, 2021
No. 14-21-00459-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 10, 2021)

Opinion

14-21-00459-CV

09-10-2021

IN RE M.H. AND K.H, Relators


ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 311th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021-11726

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Spain, and Wilson.

MEMORANDUM MAJORITY OPINION

Randy Wilson Justice

On August 18, 2021, relators K.H. (mother) and M.H (presumed father) filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Frank Pierce, presiding judge of the 311th District Court of Harris County, to vacate its order dated June 9, 2021, granting Jonathan Hersh's motion and ordering genetic testing of relators' child, H.N.H.

Relators have not established that they are entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relators' petition for writ of mandamus.

MEMORANDUM DISSENTING OPINION

Charles A. Spain, Justice, dissenting.

Persisting in my view that our duty as judges is to reach a decision on the merits based on a proper record and that due process and due course of law require that this court give notice when the original-proceeding record does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, I would give relators ten-days notice of involuntary dismissal for failure to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a) requiring (1) a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relators' claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding and (2) a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained. Tex.R.App.P. 52.7(a); see In re Kholaif, 624 S.W.3d 228, 231 (order), mand. dism'd, 615 S.W.3d 369 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2020) (orig. proceeding); see also Tex. R. 52.3(k)(1) (necessary contents of petition) Tex. Civ. Prac. & Crim. Code Ann. § 132.001 (authorizing unsworn declarations).

And while the court may well believe with the best of intentions that an expedient denial better serves justice than allowing the parties to make their best argument based on a proper record, I would give the parties that opportunity by providing notice and an opportunity to cure.

I therefore dissent and express no opinion on the merits of the petition for a writ of mandamus.


Summaries of

In re M.H. & K.H

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District
Sep 10, 2021
No. 14-21-00459-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 10, 2021)
Case details for

In re M.H. & K.H

Case Details

Full title:IN RE M.H. AND K.H, Relators

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District

Date published: Sep 10, 2021

Citations

No. 14-21-00459-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 10, 2021)