Justice

 Parents Demand Halt to ‘Extortion’

Texas Association for Children and Families and
parents demand reforms under threat of lawsuit

by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2016
Part 2 in a Series
Posted Monday April 18, 2016 9:12pm

Tomorrow morning the Williamson County Commissioners Court is scheduled to hear yet again from the Texas Association for Children and Families (TACF) about alleged corruption. The organization claims that for years a “racketeering enterprise” has been operating right under the noses of family law courts in Williamson County, wrecking the lives of children and parents, and ruining them financially.

The court-appointed professionals named by the TACF as being involved in the alleged scheme who were reached for comment have denied any wrongdoing.

This will be the fourth time representatives of the TACF and parents have appeared in person since last December 1 to complain about alleged injustices and plead for help. Previous appearances have yielded only disclaimers that these problems are beyond the power of the Commissioners Court to remedy.

This is a last-ditch attempt to get a so-far resistant Commissioners Court to establish a Domestic Relations Office, similar to one operated in Travis County for decades. This office would provide essential services focused solely on achieving the best outcomes for Williamson County parents going through divorce and child-custody disputes.

Joseph Gale, TACF’s executive director, will tell commissioners that parental rights are being abused and children are being damaged by a number of professionals involved in family law cases in Williamson County, who are allegedly more interested in extracting fees than achieving the best outcomes.

TACF and these parents seek the Commissioners Court’s cooperation in initiating a remedy. If that assistance is not forthcoming by June 1, TACF says Williamson County will be named as a defendant in a lawsuit.

Gale will deliver signed letters to the Commissioners Court on behalf of TACF, four mothers, and one father. These and possibly other parents are expected to be plaintiffs if a lawsuit is necessary. The parents claim their families and their children were and are being harmed by the failure of the Commissioners Court to supervise the judges and court appointed professionals.

‘Racketeering enterprise’ alleged

 A Tale of Two Counties

Child custody cases get help in Travis County but in
Williamson and most other counties you're on your own

by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2016
Part 1 in a Series
Posted March 15, 2016 1:22pm

In the State of Texas in 2013 there were 76,423 divorces involving 59,135 children, according to statistics provided by the Texas Department of State Health Services’ Center for Health Statistics. Some of those divorces resulted in amicable arrangements for child custody in which the parents rose above self-interest and focused on sharing their responsibility to shepherd happy and well-adjusted children into adulthood.

But there is all too much evidence of divorce cases in which the bitterness bestowed by bickering parents pervades every aspect of their children’s lives. In those cases, money may be the least of concerns in the combat for control and custody of children borne out of love and delivered into the war zone of a contentious divorce.

Divorces are emotionally exhausting and can leave parting parents drained, both emotionally and financially. When minor children are involved, the romance may have ended but the parents remain connected to jointly look after their custody, housing, education, medical care, and emotional well-being until they come of age.

Even long after the divorce is final, the ties that bind divorced parents together over issues of child custody may fray and grow contentious.

Divorced parents may continue to struggle for control over critical issues: Where will the children live? Where they will be educated? In which extracurricular activities will they participate? What kind of medical care will they will receive? Not the least of these stressful issues is which parent will pay for these and the myriad other expenses involved in raising children?

When one parent’s behavior appears to threaten or endanger the children—or for whatever reason becomes unacceptable to the other parent—the deadlocked former mates may jump to hire lawyers and seek to air their grievances in a court of law.

The children’s welfare—the thing that should be uppermost in the minds of deadlocked parents—may get shoved aside, become a casualty of family warfare. At that point the overriding goal of looking out for the children becomes a concern for the court. The judge may choose to appoint someone to look after the best interests of the children.

Whoever’s appointed has to come in and objectively examine the circumstances and then make an informed recommendation to the court about what’s best for the children. That person is usually an attorney ad litem or a guardian ad litem. Translated from the original Latin, ad litem means “for the lawsuit.”

The key difference between the two types of ad litems is explained in an informative guide for parents published online, along with a lot of other information important to divorcing couples, by the Travis County Domestic Relations Office:

The Guardian Ad Litem, who is often a licensed professional counselor, focuses on the child's best interests in making recommendations to the court, even if that is not what the child says he or she wants (emphasis added).

An Attorney Ad Litem is appointed by the court to represent the child's best interests and wishes. However, if the child's best interests are different from the child's wishes, the Attorney Ad Litem will represent the child's wishes (emphasis added).

Typically a given custody case would involve one or the other of these kinds of ad litems and not both.

Once appointed, the ad litem will investigate, complete written reports for the court, and testify in court hearings.

 Open Government Aids Defendants Too

Criminal cases opened through Michael Morton
Act makes big difference for prosecutors as well

by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2015
Part 3 in a Series
Posted Wednesday April 15, 2015 11:01pm

“Prosecutors could read to us what they wanted us to know,” said defense attorney Betty Blackwell in describing the old rules for discovery in criminal cases. “There were no depositions, no interrogatories, no witnesses. All we (defense attorneys) were entitled to ... was the indictment.

“It was a trial by ambush.”

Blackwell, of the Austin-based Law Office of Betty Blackwell, in 2001 served as the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association’s first female president. Last week she participated in a panel discussion on Litigation Developments at the City of Austin’s Open Government Symposium held April 9, 2015.

The discussion was moderated by Gary Cobb, who for 25 years has been with the Travis County District Attorney’s office and currently directs its Grand Jury and Intake Division. The panel also included Craig McDonald, executive director of Texans for Public Justice, whose criminal complaints resulted in the indictments of Governor Rick Perry and then-U.S. Representative Tom DeLay.

Blackwell and Cobb talked about the impact the Michael Morton Act (SB 1611) has had on the discovery rules governing criminal cases since it was signed into law by Governor Perry in 2013. The legislation, authored by State Senators Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock) and Rodney Ellis (D-Houston), was enacted in the wake of Morton’s exoneration after serving 25 years in prison for murdering his wife. Morton was convicted because prosecutors withheld key evidence. He was freed only after DNA testing pointed to another suspect.

New discovery rules boost criminal defense

Candidate Lost Custody Over Abuse

District 6 Council candidate Don Zimmerman
injured, alienated daughter, court records state

Investigative Report by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2014
Posted Thursday October 9, 2014 3:10pm
Updated Wednesday October 15, 2014 7:42pm

Editor’s note: Don Zimmerman, through his attorney Stephen Casey, on October 10, 2014, sent a letter to The Austin Bulldog stating this article published October 9 subjected Zimmerman to defamation and demanded retraction. There is no reason for The Austin Bulldog to retract its report about the judicial proceeding that Zimmerman was involved in earlier this year.

The Austin Bulldog does listen to criticism of its reports, in this case, like all others. Therefore, in the interest of making this report the best possible fair, true, and impartial account of information contained in court records, we have updated it with additions (shown in underlined text) and deletions (shown in text with strikethroughs).

The update also includes a link to the Docket Sheet, which is the Travis County District Clerk’s official record of every action taken in this District Court case. Examination of the Docket Sheet, along with the records already linked to this report, reflects the fact that The Austin Bulldog had already published and made accessible to readers every substantive court filing made this year, starting with Casey’s filing for client Zimmerman of the Respondent’s Motion to Enter Final Order on March 10, 2014. All of the remaining court records and orders that were the basis of the story are included in the links below.

District 6 candidate Donald Shelly “Don” Zimmerman, founder of the Travis County Taxpayers Union, is an aggressive leader who as president of a municipal utility district brought two lawsuits, one of which resulted in winning a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

But aggression in disciplining his then 12-year-old daughter, Marina Zimmerman, resulted in documented physical and emotional damage and permanent loss of parental rights through civil court action. Although by court order he remains a “parent possessory conservator,” with rights to certain information about his daughter, the order explicitly states that Don Zimmerman “shall have no possession of or access to” the minor child, who is now 15 years of age. Absent Zimmerman obtaining a new court order, such denial of access is permanent while the order is in effect.

The petition that led to the court order states, “Respondent (Zimmerman) has a history and pattern of physical and emotional abuse directed against M.Z. (daughter Marina Zimmerman).”

In response to the petition, an Agreed Order issued by the court June 16, 2014, states, “The Court finds that the material allegations in the petition to modify are true and the requested modification is in the best interest of the child. IT IS ORDERED that the requested modification is GRANTED.”

The court records of the proceedings in 2014 contain no evidence that Zimmerman contested the allegations of having a history and pattern of physical and emotional abuse of his daughter. In fact, Zimmerman signed the Agreed Order beneath this statement: “APPROVED AND CONSENTED TO AS TO BOTH FORM AND SUBSTANCE.”

Yet in an interview for this story as originally published Zimmerman repeatedly characterized the allegations as lies. His protestations are left intact in this update so that readers can judge the facts for themselves.

Three documented incidents

Austin Impact of Supreme Court Decision

Ruling on Section 5 of Voting Rights Act ends
need for federal approval of council districts

by Steve Bickerstaff
© The Austin Bulldog
Posted Tuesday June 25, 2013 5:50pm

Today, the United States Supreme Court by a vote of 5-4 effectively struck down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. For Austin, that means that federal approval of the 10 council districts being drawn by the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission will not be needed.

Technically, the Court left Section 5 in place, but unusable. The Court directly struck down the formula in Section 4(b) of the Act that determined which states and local jurisdictions nationwide were covered by the requirement of Section 5 that changes in election procedures and practices by those covered jurisdictions had to be submitted for preclearance. Section 5 was effectively left dangling inapplicable to any jurisdiction.