East Texas beef comes to roost in Permian’s patch

Screen Shot 2015-09-21 at 7.02.18 AM

Midland – An oil patch  jury could potentially sit in judgment of the officials of a Big D media darling, Family Place, a combination shelter, counseling and supervised visitation center for troubled families much heralded as a safe place for women and kids in domestic danger.

Because of a provision in the Texas Family Code that allows a plaintiff to be heard in his home county, Stephen Warren, a litigant father denied access to his two daughters for seven and a half years in spite of court orders, contempt motions, and a paper trail as wide and deep as the Trinity Sands, updated his petition to sue Family Place of Dallas because officials there have resisted his efforts – all his efforts – to see his daughters.

When he appeared there for a court-ordered supervised visit on September 13, he was denied access by an official who had his youngest daughter read a statement that she and her sister don’t want to see him.

That’s not what visiting Judge Joe Leonard of Greenville ordered in April of this year in a Rockwall County District Court. He had previously given Warren and his attorneys 30 days to update all 13 allegations of complaint in a contempt against former wife, Leslie Bird due to a “lack of specificity” on 9/11.

At the center of the dispute is an “intake packet” that staff repeatedly said had either not been received, or had been filled incompletely. Discovery in a lawsuit turned up not one, but two of the intake packets, leading to a perjury suit.

Because the Family Place denied court-ordered access to Warren’s kids, the suit is seeking declaratory relief due to intentional infliction of emotional distress; “the Defendants’ conduct proximately caused the Plaintiff’s emotional distress; and no alternative cause of action would provide a remedy for the severe emotional distress caused by Defendants’ conduct.”

In addition to damages claimed, Warren is seeking punitive and/or exemplary damages because the defendants’ actions were committed  “knowingly, willfully, intentionally, with actual awareness, and with the specific and predetermined intention of disavowing this Plaintiff’s lawful rights to possession,” as well as attorney’s fees and expenses.

For an update on the dispute over visitation and the conduct of staff at FLP, see the article below.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


nine + = 16