in Re: Michael Ramberansingh, 05-14-01566-CV

This is a mandamus petition by Michael Ramberansingh (father) arising from a long‑running suit affecting the parent–child relationship.
While enforcement proceedings were pending, father filed a timely motion to transfer venue to Denton County under Tex. Fam. Code § 155.201(b).
Before the transfer was heard and granted, the Collin County court concluded mother made a prima facie showing of a violation of community supervision tied to an earlier contempt judgment and ordered a warrant for father’s arrest and a writ of capias on a new enforcement motion.
On December 12, 2014 the trial court granted the transfer; father appeared, was arrested, and released on bond pending a December 16 hearing. Collin County transmitted the transfer to Denton County and the Denton clerk docketed the case by late December/early January.
Father sought mandamus relief to vacate the arrest warrant and capias, release his bond, stay further Collin County proceedings, and order prompt transfer to Denton County.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a mandamus stay and order to transfer is required when the transfer has completed	Ramberansingh asked the court to stay Collin proceedings and order transfer to Denton	Trial court had not acted on some enforcement matters when transfer was granted	Denied as moot because transfer was completed and no live controversy remained
Whether the transferring court can be ordered to vacate its arrest warrant/capias after transfer	Father sought court-ordered vacation of warrant/capias and release of bond from Collin court	Collin court asserted prior orders but the transfer had been effected	Mandamus denied: transferring court lacks jurisdiction to act after case docketed in transferee court; relief must be sought in Denton County
Whether mandamus should issue where denial would be futile or unavailing	Father argued mandamus necessary to prevent further enforcement and secure relief	Court noted mandamus will not be issued if relief would be useless and that transferring court lacks jurisdiction	Court declined to issue mandamus because it would be unavailing and the transferring court no longer had jurisdiction

In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2005) (mootness doctrine; controversy must remain live for justiciability)
State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding) (requires a real controversy for judicial relief)
Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia, 909 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (mandamus will not issue if relief would be useless)
Bigham v. Dempster, 901 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (transferring court loses jurisdiction when transferee court dockets the case)