Case Review: Divorce, Child Custody, Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas Judge William Harris 233rd District CourtFamily Law Center 200 East Weatherford Street Fort Worth, TX 76196-0227 Associate Judge Diane Haddock Family Law Center 200 East Weatherford Street Fort Worth, TX 76196-0227 Case Background Married couple are separated, wife is staying with family in Dallas, Texas. March 2008 wife finds that she is pregnant with the couples first child and couple reconcile. Family follows progress of pregnancy, asking about doctor visits, etc. September 2008, wife says couple will be giving child up for adoption at birth. Maternal family members ask that they be allowed to adopt the child at some time after their return to Texas from outside the state (husband is in the military). Couple agrees, signs affidavit providing custody and medical consent, while acknowledging that child will be adopted by maternal family members. October, 2008 child is born in military hospital, father is deployed. Husband is redeployed to the U.S. for a short leave. Husband brings 2 dogs to Texas, leaving wifes family members to bring wife and new baby to Texas. Upon reaching Texas it is reaffirmed that couple will be leaving child with maternal family members and that child will be adopted by those family members. November 2008 - June 2, 2009 NO contact is made to maternal family members by husband, there are no phone calls, no letters, emails. June 2009 maternal family members are given sole managing conservatorship over 8 month old child. Maternal family member lost job in 2008 just before the birth of the child and couple were unable to move forward with the adoption at that time. July, 2009, father of child receives notice of conservatorship being awarded. Father had member of the Judge Advocate General Corp (Army) compose letter stating fathers understanding of legal proceeding in June 2009. July, 2009 - February, 2013, NO further contact was ever made or attempted by father with maternal family members who have conservatorship over the child. In the interim, husband/father has advised wife/mother of child not to be in their home when he returns or it will be bad for her (wife/mother). During his period of deployment he made many veiled threats to wife as substantiated by conversation logs between wife and husband. Wife/mother returns to family in Texas August 1, 2009. April, 2013 Husband (petitioner) files for divorce and sole custody of child. Wife/mother (respondent) is served, and a after a careful review of the documents the following inaccuracies were found: husband/father states wife has custody of child he has made numerous attempts to contact to visit child he wants wife to pay child support, health insurance, and have no visitation rights Husbands attorney fails to serve notice within a timely period and leaves wife (respondent) with less than 2 weeks to find an attorney, review the case and file an answer to the original petition for divorce. Both wife/mother and maternal family members/intervenors are now required to find representation in order to timely answer the orignal petition and correct information contained in the petition. Attorney is found that will represent both wife/mother and family members/intervenors in the case Answers are filed Respondent/Intervenors file answer and motion to transfer case from Tarrant County to Dallas County where child, intervenors and respondent reside. Tarrant County courts denied the motion to transfer and order mediation between parties. May 2013 - December 2013 No contact by husband/father regarding his child, no birthday cards, no Christmas cards or gifts for the child. January 2014 - April 2014 No contact by husband/father regarding his child. May, 2014 Court ordered mediation takes place, no agreements are reached. May 2014 - September 2014 No contact by husband/father regarding his child. A temporary orders hearing is rushed through and requested for October 23, 2014 in the Associate Judges Court of the 233rd District. Temporary Orders Hearing - October 23, 2014 Petitioner and his attorney of records, Respondent and her attorney of record and Intervenors and their attorney of record are present at the temporary orders hearing on October 23, 2014. Parties stood before the bench, none were sworn, no record made in this court. Judge Haddock presided. She asked no questions, parties were not allowed to make any statements, or offer any evidence to support their case. Judge Haddock stated father failed his duties, gave him an F then gave him supervised visitation on the 1st, 3rd and 4th Fridays of each month from 6 p.m. - 8 p.m. at the home of the intervenors. Judge Haddock ordered petitioner to pay $400 a month in child support and ordered Intervenors to maintain health insurance on the child. Neither respondent nor intervenors were allowed to state that he had according to statute abandoned this child with no intent to return. When intervenors attempted to provide the information that the childs therapist would volunteer to act in a supervisory capacity during visitation, Judge Haddock announced that no one would tell her how to run her court. Judge Haddock ridiculed and demeaned respondent attorney and intervenors attorney of record. Judge Haddock ordered that visitation was to begin the next day (Friday, Octoer 24, 2014) at 6 p.m. with Intervenors as supervisors of the visitation. No statement was ever issued by Judge Haddock that this ruling was in the best interest of the child, nor was any testimony allowed to support that it would not be in the best interest of the child. A Final Orders hearing was set for December 11, 2014. Final Orders Hearing - December 11, 2014 Petitioners attorney of record presented herself at the 233rd District Court and announced all parties had reached an agreed order status. Repondents attorney and Intervenors attorney of record agreed. Petitioner was not in attendance, his attorney stated that the order had been read, questions asked and answered and petitioner had signed the agreed order of divorce. Respondents attorney, Intervenors attorney along with the respondent and the intervenors were in attendance. Judge Harris asked all parties if they were in agreement with the order and all answered with an affirmative response. Judge Harris did not allow any parties to testify, nor was there any record of the proceedings as was stated by Judge Harris. Intervenors attorney made an attempt to get their names on the official court record and was reprimanded by the Judge as Judge Harris asked Counselor do you believe that I am going to go behind your back and change the items within the four corners of the document? Intervenors attorney stood in shock at the Judges response and Judge Harris then said Counselor the correct answer is NO at which time Intervenors attorney responded with a No. The order was signed by Judge Harris, then conformed by the Clerk. December 23, 2014 Intervenors attorney of record received notification that Petitioner wanted to have a reimbursement of medical insurance clause removed from the final order and demanded a response by the close of business. Intervenors were unable to make this decision within that time period as they had only just received the information on the change and that Petitioners attorney was wanting the response at end of day December 23, 2014.
Posted on: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 17:40:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015