fbpx

Commissioners Respond to ‘Extortion’ Complaints

HomeJusticeChild CustodyCommissioners Respond to ‘Extortion’ Complaints

But discuss only cost of Williamson County Domestic Relations Office, and claim need for judges to buy in

Part 3 in a Series
Posted Tuesday April 26, 2016 4:03pm

Lisa Birkman
Lisa Birkman

After months of hearing from parents who claim they are being ripped off by racketeering in the family courts of Williamson County, Precinct 1 Commissioner Lisa Birkman briefed the Commissioners Court about research she had done to explore the possibility of establishing a Domestic Relations Office (DRO). That is a goal advocated by the Texas Association for Children and Families (TACF).

Birkman described the duties of the professionals who are appointed by courts to assist in making decisions about child custody. The person appointed will interview the children, parents, and others and report to the judge, she said. In Williamson and most other Texas counties the person appointed would be an attorney or other licensed professional in private practice.

She noted that the Family Code allows the Commissioners Court to establish a DRO, such as the one operated by Travis County. Among other services provided by the Travis County DRO, it has employees qualified to be appointed as guardian ad litem to advise the court on the best interests of children.

“There’s only a few counties that do it that way and it’s expensive,” Birkman said. (Actually there are eight such counties in Texas, per the Texas Association of Domestic Relations Offices.)

Birkman cited cost figures for three DROs:

• Harris County (Houston) has 42 employees and a $3.3 million annual budget.

• Tarrant County (Fort Worth) has 83 employees and a $7.2 million budget.

• Travis County (Austin) has 51 employees and a $3.6 million budget.

“The way we do it in Williamson County, and most counties in Texas, is the parents bear the cost,” Birkman said.

Judges not yet responsive

Birkman said that she had contacted Judge Betsy Lambeth of the 425th District Court and Judge Suzanne Brooks of County Court at Law 1, “to ask if they were interested in this (establishing a DRO in Williamson County) and I have yet to receive a response. It’s been over a month and a half.”

A key point made by Birkman is that whoever is appointed to speak on behalf of the children should be neutral.

“Because obviously if they’re working for one parent or the other parent, they’re not going to be unbiased.”

One of the chief complaints from parents affiliated with TACF is that this neutrality—which is essential to achieving the best outcomes for families and children—falls prey to the profit motive. They allege that some parents have been offered the opportunity to purchase services from certain guardians ad litem, amicus attorneys, or others, who for money will slant their recommendations to the court and offer testimony that’s to the paying parent’s advantage.

Birkman emphasized that setting up a DRO in Williamson County would be pointless unless the judges who hear family law cases buy into it, and agree to use its services.

Cynthia Long
Cynthia Long

Precinct 2 Commissioner Cynthia Long said that obtaining the consent of judges is appropriate, given they are “independent elected officials.”

“This is their purview. We would set funding, but it is their purview and their decision, and these are issues coming out of their jurisdiction and not ours,” Long said.

Valerie Covey
Valerie Covey

Precinct 3 Commissioner Valerie Covey said she appreciated the information Birkman provided, “But I would need to have a more defined problem that we’re trying to solve, by the number of cases that we’re talking about, and the judges involved in that discussion to see what is actually happening.”

Birkman said, “I’m not denying there may be a need (for a DRO) … but we need to find out from the judges how much of a need it is. I don’t know.”

What is known, based on the latest statistics from the Texas Department of State Health Services, obtained by The Austin Bulldog, is that in 2013 there were 938 divorces in Williamson County and those divorces affected the lives of 985 children under the age of 18.

Reaction to commissioners discussion

Tom Mowdy
Tom Mowdy

Tom Mowdy, a retired U.S. Army major, is not a member of TACF. But he has been working for more than a year to assist the organization by publishing articles on his website that are highly critical of how parents and children have been treated. He was dismayed by the commissioners discussion.

Mowdy said, “Most notable for me was, until the comment by Valerie Covey, the absence of concern for the citizens being victimized by the corrupt court system. Their willingness to address, define, and understand the problem was preceded by a prohibitive foot-dragging philosophy of cost.

“The Commissioners Court ignored the effect and cost it has on citizens while enriching racketeers. The commissioners were defending the current system, which is a government-sanctioned transfer of wealth to the racketeers with no regard for the victims.

“There was no discussion of justice or fairness in our legal system and courts. It is what they did not say that stood out most.”

Marina Ginn
Marina Ginn

“The current system is a haven and a cash cow for corrupt individuals willing to commit honest-services fraud and extort families,” said Marina Ginn. She is one of the five parents who in letters submitted to the commissioners named four women who are allegedly part of a racketeering scheme.

“It is incorrect that the judges would have to approve the formation of a DRO. The statute allows commissioners to form it,” she said, referring to Family Code Section 203.002, which states, “A commissioners court may establish a domestic relations office.”

Ginn said, “It will not be judges who are forced to pay damages for the abundance of Federal civil rights litigation that will continue to be brought against the County if this system continues, for failing to supervise despite knowledge of this misconduct. It is not responsible to offer to place the decision in the judges’ hands.

“It is the commissioners job to protect the County from the cost of the litigation that will ensue for these abuses under color of law. The DRO will create jobs and allow for proper hiring and supervision of the employees, and I would be happy to prepare a more detailed cost/benefit analysis upon request.”

Individual parents and a TACF representative have been complaining, both publicly and privately, to the Williamson County Commissioners Court since December 1. They claim that a “racketeering enterprise” has been operating for years in family courts, right under the noses of judges who are dependent upon the recommendations made by court appointees.

They claim that certain professionals appointed by judges are neglecting their duty to look out for the best interests of children—whose welfare is at stake in child custody disputes—and instead are fleecing parents for maximum profit.

The complainants believe that a DRO, staffed with Williamson County employees qualified to serve as court-appointed guardians ad litem, would squash the profit motive. It would ensure that advice provided to courts about what is in the children’s best interest is not affected by ulterior motives.

With guardians ad litem provided by a DRO, parents could be charged a reasonable fee on a sliding-scale based on income, similar to the Travis County DRO. That would prevent parents from being forced into the waiting arms of private practitioners whose fees are substantially higher, and whose payment is guaranteed by judges who act as debt collectors by issuing court orders enforceable by threat of contempt of court.

Parents allege wrongdoing, accused claim innocence

Joseph Gale addresses the Williamson County Commissioners Court
Joseph Gale addresses the Williamson County Commissioners Court

TACF Executive Director Joseph Gale delivered a three-minute speech to the Commissioners Court during the Citizens Comment portion of the agenda Tuesday, April 19. (See link to text of speech below).

Gale noted that TACF had reached out to the Commissioners Court numerous times yet both County Judge Dan Gattis and Commissioner Birkman had stated they could not be of help. These elected officials said complaints could be filed with the appropriate state licensing agencies, but did not understand that many parents have been barred from filing complaints by court orders.

“These families care for their neighbors and have vowed to do their part to make sure the extortion racket, that bankrupted them and harmed their kids, doesn’t happen to a single other child in Williamson County,” Gale told the commissioners.

Gale presented letters from the TACF and from five parents. He said others who have been damaged could not speak out because of “their fear of being retaliated against by the individuals who are holding visitation with their children at ransom.”

Those letters accused four people: attorney Sara Naylor, licensed professional counselors Kelley Baker and Rachel Saenger, and Rhonda Hohmann, who owns Access, a company that provides services related to child custody cases.

Baker, Saenger, and Hohmann via e-mail told The Austin Bulldog that these allegations are untrue. Naylor did not respond to requests for comment.

Links:

Joseph Gale Speech to Williamson County Commissioners Court April 19, 2016 (2 pages) Agenda Item 4

Transcript of Williamson County Commissioners Court discussion, April 19, 2016, (Item 46Q), regarding a Domestic Relations Office (5 pages)

Video of Williamson County Commissioners Court meeting of April 19, 2016 (Scroll to Item 4 for Joseph Gale’s speech under Citizens Comment. He is the second speaker. Scroll to Item 46Q for the Commissioners Court discussion of a domestic relations office)

Related Bulldog coverage:

Parents Demand Halt to Extortion: Texas Association for Children and Families and parents demand reforms under threat of lawsuit, April 18, 2016

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, March 15, 2016

Congratulations. It looks like you’re the type of person who reads to the end of articles. Now that you’re informed on this topic we want your feedback.

Related Content

No Gun, No Self-Defense

Lewis Conway Jr.’s widely reported version of why he killed a man is at odds with public records and witness Corrected Friday October 26, 2018 8:50am...

Legal Battle Won But War Ahead

 Legal Battle Won But War Ahead

Victim got a copy of record sought, but a second
lawsuit looms over new public information request

by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2017
Part 9 in a Series
Posted Monday August 7, 2017 11:39pm
Updated Tuesday August 8, 2017 9:51am (to link to Settlement Agreement)

>David EscamillaThe public information request that gave rise to a lawsuit in which Travis County Attorney David Escamilla sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been withdrawn. And with it the litigation over whether the County Attorney must provide the document at issue, as ordered in the AG’s open records ruling.

>The matter was put to rest when a Settlement Agreement was reached today that allowed the requestor to have an unredacted copy of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) the County Attorney entered into with her abuser.

Bill AleshireEscamilla declined to comment until a copy of the Settlement Agreement is filed. The Austin Bulldog filed a public information request for a copy of the Agreement and it was not immediately received. (It will be linked at the bottom of this story when obtained.)“We settled,” Austin attorney Bill Aleshire of Aleshire Law PC, told The Austin Bulldog in a telephone interview late yesterday.

The agreement requires the requestor not to publish or assist anyone in publishing the DPA. “But she may give it to her attorneys, counselor, or therapist. And it can be entered into any official court proceeding,” he said.

>Tara CoronadoThe ability to enter a copy of the DPA into court proceeding is important because the requestor, Tara Coronado, is in a custody dispute with her abuser and former husband over whether one of her four children will be sent to an out-of-state boarding school.

>At the request of her attorney in that dispute, Coronado declined to personally comment on the Settlement Agreement.

One battle won, a war ahead

Must Deferred Prosecution Agreements be Secret?

 Must Deferred Prosecution Deals be Secret?

County attorney denies victim of domestic
violence right to see deal her abuser got

by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2017
Part 8 in a Series
Posted Wednesday July 5, 2017 1:59pm
Updated Wednesday July 5, 2017 2:55pm to add Coronado's statement about putting DPA online
Updated Wednesday July 5, 2017 3:40pm to strike incorrect sentence re: couldn't rely on previous determination
Updated Thursday July 6, 2017 10:08am to provide the correct blank form the county attorney uses for DPAs

The next stage in a legal battle over a prosecutor’s discretion to withhold certain records played out last Thursday in a state district court.

The Travis County Attorney’s Office and an intervenor in the county attorney’s lawsuit against the Texas Attorney General argued over which parts of the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) would govern arguments when the matter goes to trial August 8.

Lora Livingston“It’s prudent to give you a clear ruling on what’s going to trial,” Judge Lora Livingston of the 261st District Court told the attorneys at the conclusion of the hearing, after listening to nearly two hours of arguments.

On Friday, Livingston ruled that plaintiff Travis County Attorney must limit arguments in favor of withholding a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) to the same grounds the county stated when it asked the Attorney General for a ruling.

A DPA is an agreement signed by the prosecutor, the defendant and the defendant’s attorney. It sets forth conditions that if met will result in dismissal of criminal charges. (More details about DPAs later.)

In its request for a ruling from the Attorney General (AG), the county cited only what’s commonly called the “law enforcement exception” contained in Section 552.108(a)(1):

“Information held by a law enforcement agency or prosecutor that deals with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime is excepted from (release) if: release of the information would interfere with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime.”

Tim LabadieAt Thursday’s hearing, Assistant County Attorney Tim Labadie argued that the county had not cited other sections of the Act because previous determinations by the AG had allowed the very same DPA to be withheld.

He asked the judge for permission to claim several other exceptions set forth under Sections 552.108(a)(2), 552.103, and 552.107.

The judge denied his request.

Bill AleshireAttorney Bill Aleshire of Aleshire Law PC won the ruling by citing Section 552.326 which states, “the only exceptions to required disclosure … that a governmental body may raise in a suit filed under this chapter are exceptions that the governmental body properly raised before the attorney general in connection with a request for a decision regarding the matter….”

Why county sued the AG

Newsletter

What's really going on in government?

Keep up with the best investigative reporting in Austin.

* indicates required

Donate to the Bulldog

Our critical accountability journalism wouldn't be possible without the generous donations of hundreds of Austinites. Join them and become a supporter today!