In re Nameah Helaire, 14-26-00121-CV, February 12, 2026.
On appeal from the 308th District Court of Harris County
Synopsis
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel a trial court to rule on an emergency motion to stay proceedings that had been pending for approximately three weeks. The Relator failed to provide a record demonstrating that the trial court was asked to rule, had a reasonable time to rule, and refused to do so, thus failing to establish a clear abuse of discretion.
Relevance to Family Law
In high-stakes family law litigation, such as custody disputes or complex property divisions, practitioners frequently encounter trial court delays on “emergency” requests. This case reinforces a critical appellate boundary: the “emergency” label does not exempt a practitioner from the requirement to develop a record of a trial court’s actual refusal to act. For family lawyers, this means that even when a trial setting is imminent or a child’s placement is at issue, mandamus relief to compel a ruling is unavailable unless the relator can prove the trial court was explicitly asked to rule and allowed a reasonable time to do so—a threshold that is rarely met within a mere twenty-one days.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator Nameah Helaire was a party to proceedings in the 308th District Court of Harris County. On January 21, 2026, Helaire filed an emergency motion to stay the trial court proceedings. Shortly thereafter, and before the trial court had issued an order on the request, Helaire filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. The Relator sought an order from the appellate court compelling the trial judge to rule on the pending stay. At the time the appellate court issued its opinion on February 12, 2026, the motion had been pending for approximately three weeks.
Issues Decided
Whether the Relator demonstrated a clear entitlement to mandamus relief to compel a trial court to rule on an emergency motion when the record did not establish a refusal to rule within a reasonable time.
Rules Applied
To obtain mandamus relief compelling a trial court to rule, a relator must establish that the trial court (1) had a legal duty to perform a ministerial act, (2) was asked to perform the act, and (3) failed or refused to do so. Texas law grants trial courts broad inherent power to control their own dockets. Consequently, a trial court is entitled to a “reasonable time” to rule on a motion. What constitutes a reasonable time is dependent on the specific circumstances of the case, the court’s schedule, and the nature of the relief sought.
Application
The Relator’s strategy rested on the assumption that the “emergency” nature of the motion necessitated an immediate ruling. However, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals focused on the procedural deficiencies of the mandamus record and the brevity of the timeline. The court noted that the motion had been on file for less than a month. Because the Relator failed to provide a record showing that the trial court was affirmatively asked to rule on the motion after it was filed, or that the trial court expressly refused to perform its ministerial duty, the appellate court could not find an abuse of discretion. The legal story here is one of premature escalation; without evidence of a “reasonable time” passing or a specific refusal by the bench, the appellate court will not interfere with a trial court’s management of its docket.
Holding
The court denied the petition for writ of mandamus. It held that the Relator failed to meet the heavy burden of demonstrating that the trial court violated a ministerial duty or committed a clear abuse of discretion.
The court specifically determined that the Relator did not establish that the trial court had been given a reasonable time to rule or that it had refused to act upon being requested to do so.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, this opinion serves as a cautionary tale against filing “reflexive” mandamus petitions when a trial court does not immediately respond to an emergency filing. To successfully compel a ruling, counsel must do more than just file the motion. You must create a paper trail: send a formal request for a ruling to the court coordinator, request a hearing on the record, and if necessary, file a “Request for Ruling” that highlights any impending deadlines or prejudice. If the court has not ruled within a window that accounts for the court’s typical docket load, only then is the issue ripe for mandamus.
Checklists
Establishing a Record for Mandamus to Compel a Ruling
- File the underlying motion with the clerk and ensure proper service on all counsel of record.
- Submit a written request for a hearing or a ruling directly to the trial court’s coordinator or staff.
- If the court does not set the matter, file a formal “Request for Ruling” or “Motion to Set Hearing” to ensure the request is part of the clerk’s record.
- Document any specific prejudice caused by the delay (e.g., a pending trial date or an imminent asset transfer).
- Obtain a reporter’s record of any status conference or hearing where the trial court declined to rule.
Avoiding Premature Mandamus Petitions
- Evaluate the trial court’s current “reasonable time” by reviewing its recent dockets or consulting with local counsel.
- Ensure the mandamus record includes all documents required by TRAP 52, including a certified or sworn copy of the motion and any evidence of the request for a ruling.
- Confirm that the “emergency” is supported by facts in the record rather than mere conclusory statements in the motion.
- Determine if a simpler procedural fix exists, such as a Motion for Continuance, before seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.
Citation
In re Nameah Helaire, No. 14-26-00121-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 12, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Click here for the full opinion.
~~e52a5c3e-d63f-457b-97c7-837152d4e70a~~
Share this content: