Supreme Court of Texas Issues Unanimous Ruling in Favor of Houston Mother in Landmark Parental Rights Case
AUSTIN, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Supreme Court of Texas has issued a unanimous opinion protecting parental rights in the landmark case of a Houston woman whose parental rights were effectively terminated via a lifetime protective order.
The ruling reverses a judgment handed down by a Harris County district court judge in 2020 that granted a lifetime protective order against Christine Stary on behalf of her three minor children. The order came about five months after Ms. Stary was accused of injuring her youngest child in an incident at her home, but criminal charges stemming from the incident were dismissed.
Holly Draper, CEO and managing partner of The Draper Law Firm, represented Ms. Stary before the state's highest court in tandem with former Texas Supreme Court Justice Eva Guzman, on behalf of the Family Freedom Project, which works on legislation and cases that impact the right of families to raise their children.
Ms. Draper argued that the order granted against Ms. Stary violated her client's constitutional rights because it prohibited her from having any contact with her children forever without meeting the required level of evidence. Ms. Stary also was barred from raising evidence of domestic violence committed by her ex-husband.
The Supreme Court's opinion delivered by Justice Jane Bland says in part, "We hold that constitutional due process requires clear and convincing evidence to support a protective order prohibiting contact between a parent and her children under the statute authorizing protective orders of longer than two years."
Ms. Draper said, 'My client lost almost five years of time with her children due to this unconstitutional protective order, and she can never get that back. She is thrilled with the court's ruling and looks forward to the opportunity to build back a relationship with her children. With this ruling, no parent will have their rights terminated without the constitutionally protected standard of clear and convincing evidence.'
You can read the Supreme Court of Texas opinion on this case here.
About The Draper Law Firm
The Draper Law Firm is a family law boutique in North Texas. Its attorneys handle family law cases in all DFW counties and represent family law clients in appeals statewide. The firm previously prevailed in the Supreme Court of Texas in one of the biggest parental rights cases in Texas history, In re C.J.C. To learn more, visit draperfirm.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Broward judge denies violating judicial conduct code over deepfake AI call
Broward County Judge Lauren Peffer in a new court filing Friday formally denied the ethics charges filed against her, stemming from her promotion of a scandalous book and a deepfake AI recording during her campaign last year. In the routine filing with Florida's Supreme Court, Peffer denied the Judicial Qualifications Commission's charges filed last month that she violated judicial ethics rules that govern 'inappropriate political activity.' Peffer, a first-time judicial candidate, won her seat in August and began her term in January. During her campaign, which centered on trustworthiness and ethics in the judiciary, Peffer referenced in an endorsement interview with the South Florida Sun Sentinel editorial board a book written and published by a former courthouse employee in the Orlando area called, 'The Ninth Circus Court of Florida, My 30-Year Job from Hell!' The book, written by someone who had been terminated, 'portrays the judiciary in the Ninth Judicial Circuit as corrupt and incompetent and attacks the character' of numerous judges, including current Chief Judge Lisa Munyon, according to the JQC's charging document. Peffer wrote in response to a Sun Sentinel editorial board questionnaire that the book's 'recent revelations' had 'highlighted an image crisis within Florida's judiciary,' according to the JQC's notice of formal charges. At the time Peffer cited the book in the Sun Sentinel interview, it lacked any published reviews and appeared to have generated no public discourse or impact, the Sun Sentinel previously reported. Asked by the Sun Sentinel about evidence of the book creating public mistrust, Peffer sent the newspaper a link to an 18-minute recording of what purported to be a phone call about the book between Munyon, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz and Justice Renatha Francis, according to the notice of charges. But the recording was fake, likely made with generative AI, and could be deemed so by 'any reasonable person,' the JQC said in its notice of charges. Broward judicial candidate drops Orlando author's self-published tell-all from her campaign stump speech Peffer was forwarded the link to the recording 'by another lawyer,' her response filed Friday said. Peffer in her response to the charges on Friday acknowledged that she had not 'carefully listened to the call but had a recollection that the judiciary was being criticized in the recording' and did not try to determine its veracity before providing it to the newspaper. 'Judge Peffer acknowledges that she should have more carefully listened to the recording before referencing it in her answers to the editorial board. In responding to these proceedings, Judge Peffer listened to the recordings without distraction, and it was immediately apparent that the purported phone call was a 'deep fake,'' her response said. However, she denied that she shared the recording 'despite clear evidence of its inauthenticity,' as the JQC alleged in its charges. In her response, Peffer also admitted that she never read the disgruntled employee's book before referencing it to the Sun Sentinel and did not research the claims the employee made. 'Judge Peffer did not intend to promote the validity of the book but instead, she intended to point to the book as an example of criticism of the judiciary,' her response said. She previously acknowledged issues with the book in a July interview with the Sun Sentinel and said she would stop citing it. Peffer denied that she 'ignored' the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee's training on campaign ethics as the notice of charges alleged and denied that she 'helped facilitate the former employee's farce,' according to her response.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
NY appeals court rejects bid to overturn Trump's convictions in E. Jean Carroll case
President Donald Trump has lost his latest bid to challenge a civil jury verdict holding him liable for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll in the 90s and then defaming her decades later when she went public with the allegations. On Friday the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York declined Trump's request for a court's full bench to rehear his case. The decision leaves in place a December 2024 ruling by a three-judge panel upholding the 2023 jury verdict, which ordered Trump to pay Carroll $5 million in damages. Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, welcomed the decision. 'E. Jean Carroll is very pleased with today's ruling,' she said. 'Although President Trump continues to try every possible maneuver to challenge the findings of two separate juries, those efforts have failed. He remains liable for sexual assault and defamation.' The case is one of two civil suits Carroll, now 81, has filed against Trump, both stemming from his public denials of her 2019 accusation that he sexually assaulted her in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman in Manhattan in 1996. In October 2022, Trump defamed Carroll on Truth Social by denying her claim as a hoax. Carroll's first lawsuit, related to Trump's 2019 statements, ended in January 2024 with an $83.3 million defamation verdict in her favor. Trump is also appealing that outcome. Oral arguments in that appeal are scheduled for June 24. The lawsuit at the center of Friday's ruling was filed in 2022 after New York temporarily lifted its statute of limitations for certain sexual assault claims. It included both defamation and battery claims related to Carroll's original allegations and Trump's more recent comments. Two judges—Steven Menashi and Michael Park, both appointed by Trump—dissented from Friday's decision, arguing the court should have reconsidered the case. Menashi accused the panel of deviating from precedent and criticized the trial judge for excluding key evidence and admitting 'stale witness testimony' from another woman who accused Trump of assault during an unrelated encounter. The majority of the appellate court rejected that view. Four judges countered the dissent, writing that the appeal did not meet the high bar required for review, which is typically reserved for cases involving significant legal questions or conflicts in appellate precedent. Judges Denny Chin and Susan Carney, who previously ruled against Trump in the December decision, issued a statement supporting the majority and directly refuting Menashi's arguments. 'Even on his own terms, our dissenting colleague fails to explain why any purported error warrants a retrial or full court review,' they wrote. Trump's final chance to overturn the verdict lies with the Supreme Court. His team has indicated that he will ask the highest court to hear his appeal, but the court is not obligated to do so. According to NBC News, in a statement Friday, a spokesperson for Trump described the lawsuit as a 'Democrat-funded Carroll Hoax' and said the former president 'will keep winning against Liberal Lawfare, as he is focusing on his mission to Make America Great Again.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil denied release by judge
Mahmoud Khalil was denied release on Friday by a judge who, earlier in the week, had rejected the Trump administration's main legal basis for seeking to deport and detain the pro-Palestinian activist. When he issued a preliminary injunction in Khalil's favor Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz said the government can't deport him under Secretary of State Marco Rubio's claim that the former Columbia University student's presence and activities put U.S. interests at risk. The New Jersey judge added that, since Khalil can't be deported on that basis, he can't be detained on that basis, either. But the Biden appointee said in a new order against Khalil on Friday that the Trump administration now says it's holding him on a separate basis, not the one Farbiarz preliminarily enjoined earlier in the week. The judge noted that he had previously said Khalil failed to successfully challenge that secondary basis and had never appealed that ruling. The judge noted in his order that Khalil still has 'a number of avenues' available to him, such as asking an immigration judge for bail. Khalil's case gained national attention in the administration's immigration and deportation crackdown, which has featured arrests followed by court-ordered releases upholding free speech rights. The lawful U.S. resident has argued that his March arrest at student housing in New York City was 'retaliation against his protected speech.' He said he's not a flight risk or danger to the community, and he cited family hardship during his detention in Louisiana; his wife gave birth in April. He was born in Syria and is a citizen of Algeria. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
