In Re S.H v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: December 31, 2025
• Docket: 01-25-00782-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued December 31, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00782-CV ——————————— IN RE S.H., Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, S.H., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in connection with the

underlying suit affecting the parent-child relationship initiated by real party in

interest, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department).1

In the underlying proceedings, the Department seeks to terminate the parental rights

of relator to her two minor children. In her petition for writ of mandamus, relator

1 The underlying case is In the Interest of XXX and XXX, Children, Cause No. 2025-01483J, in the 314th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Michelle Moore presiding challenged the trial court’s July 31, 2025 “Order Removing the Harris County Public

Defender’s Office as Counsel for [Relator] and for Appointment of Counsel.”

Relator argued in her petition for writ of mandamus that the trial court abused

its discretion by disqualifying her “counsel of choice,” Christine Umeh, an Assistant

Public Defender with the Harris County Public Defender’s Office. Relator requested

that the Court grant the petition and “order the [r]espondent to vacate the order

purporting to disqualify Christine Umeh from representing [relator] in this cause.”

In connection with her petition for writ of mandamus, relator filed a motion

for temporary relief, requesting that the Court “stay all underlying proceedings while

her mandamus petition [was] pending.” The Court granted relator’s motion, stayed

the underlying cause, and requested a response to the mandamus petition. Real party

in interest, Margaret Lombardo, the attorney ad litem appointed by the trial court to

represent relator in the termination proceedings, filed a response to relator’s petition

for writ of mandamus. Relator also filed a reply in support of her mandamus petition.

We conclude that relator failed to establish she is entitled to mandamus relief,

and the Court therefore lifts the stay imposed by our September 25, 2025 order and

denies relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We dismiss any pending motions as

moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Caughey, and Dokupil.