“The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks”. Samuel Adams
There has not been a single piece of empirical evidence presented in any court hearing in our case as it was numbered FA-17-1605.
The Petition for Writ of Mandamus I submitted to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals explains the behavior of the Judges up until 04/09/2018. Here it is.
These screenshots taken January 2019 from the Odyssey System at the Sherman, Texas Law Library show the events as the 397th Court has entered them. It begins 10/12/2017 with the last event listed on 12/18/2018. There are 77 ENTRIES.
18 of the entries are dated after this court lost jurisdiction (October 15th, 2018) over our Termination of Parent-Child Relationship Suit brought by DFPS (CPS) under Texas Family Code.
Texas Family Code – FAM § 263.401. Dismissal After One Year; New Trials; Extension
(a) Unless the court has commenced the trial on the merits or granted an extension under Subsection (b) or (b-1), on the first Monday after the first anniversary of the date the court rendered a temporary order appointing the department as temporary managing conservator, the court’s jurisdiction over the suit affecting the parent-child relationship filed by the department that requests termination of the parent-child relationship or requests that the department be named conservator of the child is terminated and the suit is automatically dismissed without a court order. Not later than the 60th day before the day the suit is automatically dismissed, the court shall notify all parties to the suit of the automatic dismissal date.
(b) Unless the court has commenced the trial on the merits, the court may not retain the suit on the court’s docket after the time described by Subsection (a) unless the court finds that extraordinary circumstances necessitate the child remaining in the temporary managing conservatorship of the department and that continuing the appointment of the department as temporary managing conservator is in the best interest of the child. If the court makes those findings, the court may retain the suit on the court’s docket for a period not to exceed 180 days after the time described by Subsection (a). If the court retains the suit on the court’s docket, the court shall render an order in which the court:(c) If the court grants an extension under Subsection (b) or (b-1) but does not commence the trial on the merits before the dismissal date, the court’s jurisdiction over the suit is terminated and the suit is automatically dismissed without a court order. The court may not grant an additional extension that extends the suit beyond the required date for dismissal under Subsection (b) or (b-1), as applicable.
Texas Family Code – FAM § 263.402. Limit on Extension
The parties to a suit under this chapter may not extend the deadlines set by the court under this subchapter by agreement or otherwise.
I repeatedly brought up this very rule of law repeatedly both before and after October 15th, 2018 to my attorneys and CPS. Rick Dunn refused to submit a Motion to Dismiss to the court.
Over 2 months after being appointed to defend my parental ‘rights’ my Attorney Rick Dunn did submit his first document to the court. This is assuming he filed the request for jury trial on 7/24/2018 as the event line does not specify, and I’m not aware of an accompanying document. I had previously demanded of Dunn to have suit dismissed, and if not then demand our ‘right’ to a Jury Trial. This is almost 3 months before the mandatory dismissal date of 10/15/18.
Our ‘right’ to jury was deprived, and instead the 397th entered the following events regarding our ‘jury’ and ‘trial’, or lack thereof:
- 8/13/2018 – 397th held a second permanency hearing. Judge Gary ordered to extend case, set for trial, and ignored the dismissal date by setting our ‘Jury Trial’ for 11/26/2018, and before then a ‘Pretrial’ on 11/15/2018.
- 11/13/2018 – 397th files Mediated Settlement Agreement partial. After 2 months of no activity this MSA was signed the day prior (Veteran’s Day) while the court and most of downtown Sherman was closed. The agreement has Amanda giving our collective ‘rights’ to Permanent Managing Conservatorship of Audrie Elizabeth Sargent to Texas Department of Family Protective Services (CPS). Rick Dunn says he attended and Amanda ‘signed-away’. Here is the list of signatures on the document Rick Dunn’s does not appear.
Here is where DFPS is named PMC
This dire warning came right before the signature lines
- 11/13/2018 – 397th files Subpoena Issued for Neha Patel. This note is my only knowledge of this person ever. Here is the referenced document that was submitted by Grayson County ADA (a.k.a Attorney for CPS) Cheryl Vaughan.
This is a picture of the 397th civil docket from the door to the court posted on 11/15/18.
This is a close-up of our ‘pretrial’ information. Notice Amanda’s name is listed as a defendant. My name is not listed as a defendant or anywhere else. J Richard Dunn is listed as a defendant attorney..
This is Judge Brian Keith Gary’s note regarding the 11/15/18 pretrial hearing. Amanda was not in attendance as she was told she was done. I was there along with all 4 attorneys and some CPS and/or CASA people.
It states testimony begins 11/27/18 a day after trial scheduled date.
It also specifically gives jury trial time to CPS/ad litem.
- 11/21/2018 – 397th files attorney voucher received. This was the final bill of Audrie’s attorney ad litem for child Garland Cardwell. Garland’s last day representing Audrie and/or her ‘rights’ per his voucher was 11/12/2018.
- 11/26/2018 – 397th holds a hearing. I showed up to the ‘jury trial’ that would determine if me and Audrie’s ‘right’ to our parent-child relationship would be terminated by a jury of my peers. I was the only defendant in the court as Amanda was already told she signed her rights away and was finished with the courts. All of the attorneys showed up, but not a single jury member seemed to appear anywhere. Amanda’s attorney stated he needed an extension because he was not ready for a jury trial. The judge stated once again that the case would be extended, failed to provide a new jury trial date, and released us. It was the last I heard from my attorney or anyone else regarding the matter until I called the court coordinator regarding my right to participate in Democracy and to defend my ‘rights’ myself.