in Re Connie Harrison

ACCEPTED
14-15-00273-CV
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
3/27/2015 8:30:39 AM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK

14-15-00273-CV
NO. ______________
FILED IN
14th COURT OF APPEALS
__________________________________________________________________
HOUSTON, TEXAS
3/27/2015 8:30:39 AM
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
FOR THE FIRST OR FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS Clerk
_________________________________________________________________

IN RE: CONNIE V. HARRISON
__________________________________________________________________

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
__________________________________________________________________

Lana Shadwick
State Bar No. 00784951
2210 Norfolk, Suite 920
Houston, Texas 77098
Telephone: (713) 392-8222
Telecopier: (713) 622-6334
Lana@LanaShadwick.com
Attorney for Relator, Connie V. Harrison
 Preamble

COMES NOW Connie V. Harrison, Relator herein, who respectfully files

this, her Petition for Writ of Mandamus. In this Petition, Ms. Harrison will be

referred to as “Ms. Harrison,” and her ex-husband Cliff Harrison, will be referred to

as “Mr. Harrison.”

2
 Identity of Parties and Counsel

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. Pro. 52.2, Ms. Harrison identifies the following

parties and counsel:

Relator and her Counsel:
Connie V. Harrison
Represented by: Lana Shadwick
State Bar No. 00784951
Respondent:
Judge Alicia K. Franklin
Presiding Judge, 311th District Court
201 Caroline, 8th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 274-4580
Real Parties in Interest and his Counsel:
Cliff Harrison
Represented by:
Schlanger, Silver, Barg & Paine LLP
Patricia A. Wicoff
State Bar No. 21422500
Amy Harris
State Bar No. 2401057
109 North Post Oak Lane, Suite 300
Houston, Texas 77024
Telephone: (713) 735-8514
Telecopier: (713) 351-4514

Amicus Attorney:
Heather Hughes
State Bar No. 00796794
952 Echo Lane, Ste. 475
Houston, Texas 77024
Telephone: (713) 463-5505
Telecopier: (713) 463-5213

3
 Table of Contents

Preamble......................................................................................................................i

Identity of Parties and Counsel ................................................................................ iii

Table of Contents .................................................................................................. iv-v

Index of Authorities ................................................................................................... 6

Statement of the Case................................................................................................. 7

Statement of Jurisdiction............................................................................................ 8

Sole Issue Presented ................................................................................................... 8

The Honorable Judge Franklin committed a clear abuse of discretion in
refusing to render judgment based on the parties’ mediated settlement
agreement found in Appendix 1 which dealt with all issues involving the
children save and except management of their college funds.

Statement of Facts ...................................................................................................... 8

Arguments and Authorities ...................................................................................... 12

Sole Issue Presented ................................................................................................. 12

The Honorable Judge Franklin committed a clear abuse of discretion in
refusing to render judgment based on the parties’ mediated settlement
agreement found in Appendix 1 which dealt with all issues involving the
children save and except management of their college funds.

I. Introduction............................................................................................13

II. The Standard Of Review………………….…………………………..14

III. Texas Family Code Section 153.0071(e) Entitles Relator To A
Judgment On the Mediated Settlement Agreement…………………15

4
 A. Texas Family Code Section 153.0071………………………..………..16

B. The Texas Supreme Court Settled The Issue In In re Stephanie Lee –
Mediated Settlement Agreements Are To Be Enforced……………17

C. Texas Family Code 153.001(a) Expresses Public Policy of Texas That
Parents Should Be Able To Make Decisions About Their
Children..................................................................................................22

IV. Conclusion – Ms. Harrison Is Entitled To Entry Of The MSA Order
And A Stay Of The March 27, 2015 9 a.m. Entry Of The Trial Court’s
Rendition That Does Not Adopt The MSA...........................................22

Conclusion and Prayer ............................................................................................. 24

Certificate of Conference ......................................................................................... 25

Certification ............................................................................................................. 25

Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 26

Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................ 26

Appendix………………………………………………………………………27-28

5
 Index of Authorities

Cases

Acker v. Texas Water Comm’n,
790 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. 1990)………………………………………………………16

Am. Zurich Ins. Co. v. Samudio,
370 S.W.3d 363 (Tex. 2012)………………………………………………………16

City of DeSoto v. White,
288 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. 2009)……………..………………………………………..16

In re Gonzalez,
981 S.W.2d 313 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied)…………………….26

In re Stephanie Lee,
411 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. 2013)……………...…………………………………..passim

Molinet v. Kimbrell,
356 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. 2011)………………...…………………………………….16

Perkins v. City of San Antonio,
293 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, no pet.)………………………..25

Texas Dep’t of Protective & Reg. Srvcs v. Mega Child Care, Inc.,
145 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. 2004)………………………………………………………16

Texas Statutes

Tex. R. Civ. P. 21………………...……………………………………………….25

Tex. Fam. Code sec. 157.0071………………………………...……………..passim

Tex. Fam. Code sec. 153.001(a)…………………………………………………..24

Tex. Gov’t Code sec. 311.026……………………………………………………16

6
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

Relator, Ms. Connie V. Harrison, files this petition for writ of mandamus. Ms.

Harrison asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to Judge Alicia Franklin,

Presiding Judge of the 311th Judicial District Court of and for Harris County, Texas,

compelling Judge Franklin to enter judgment based upon the mediated settlement

agreement found in Appendix 1 to this petition for writ of mandamus, and to stay the

entry of judgment on March 27, 2015 at 9 a.m., based on the Judge Franklin’s

rendition of February 13, 2015 found in Appendix 2. In support of her prayer,

Relator, Ms. Harrison would respectfully show this Honorable Court as follows.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Petitioner is Mr. Harrison, referred to here as (“Mr. Harrison”) and

Respondent is Connie Harrison, referred to here as (“Ms. Harrison”). The parties

reached a Mediated Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) on all matters dealing with their

children on January 29, 2014. Appendix 1 (MSA). In the MSA, Ms. Harrison has

joint custody with Mr. Harrison. According to the MSA, Ms. Harrison is the primary

care parent and the children live with Ms. Harrison in Harris County, Texas. Ms.

Harrison and Mr. Harrison, along with their counsel signed and agreed to all

provisions of the MSA.

7
 Relator, Ms. Harrison, seeks relief from Judge Franklin’s entering judgment

on March 27, 2015 at 9 a.m. based on her February 13, 2015 rendition (Appendix 2)

that fails to incorporate the parties’ MSA as to parent-child issues.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The basis of this Court’s jurisdiction is section 22.002(a) of the Texas

Government Code. This section confers jurisdiction on this Court to issue writs of

mandamus agreeable to the principles of law regulating those writs, against a district

judge.

SOLE ISSUE PRESENTED

The Honorable Judge Franklin committed a clear abuse of discretion in
refusing to render judgment based on the parties’ mediated settlement
agreement found in Appendix 1 which dealt with all issues involving the
children save and except management of their college funds.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background Overview: The divorce action was filed in 2006. The case was

tried to a jury beginning in March 2010 and ending in April 2010. Respondent

appealed the final order in September 2010. In December 2012, the Fourteenth

Court of Appels reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial,

with the exception that the appellate court affirmed the divorce between the parties

as of June 2010. The parties participated in mediation and signed a mediation

8
agreement on January 29, 2014. Appendix 1. On April 10, 2014, the Court signed

an order to comport with the mediated settlement agreement. Appendix 2. Trial was

conducted in January 2015 wherein Ms. Harrison was forced to proceed pro se. Ms.

Harrison has repeatedly motioned for attorney’s fees, and even though the

community estate is sizable, she has not been awarded attorney’s fees. On January

16, 2015, Ms. Harrison was ordered to pay the Amicus Attorney over $14,000.00.

The Court also awarded on October 24, 2014 that monies in the registry of the Court

in the amount of $14,421.31 be awarded to the Amicus Attorney.

 Jan. 29, 2014: Mediated Settlement Agreement Signed - Appendix 1

Mr. Harrison and Ms. Harrison reached a Mediated Settlement Agreement

(“MSA”) on all matters dealing with their children on January 29, 2014. Appendix

1 (MSA of January 29, 2014). In the MSA, Ms. Harrison has joint custody with Mr.

Harrison. According to the MSA, Ms. Harrison is the primary care parent and the

children live with Ms. Harrison in Harris County, Texas. Ms. Harrison and Mr.

Harrison, along with their counsel signed and agreed to all provisions of the MSA.

The MSA addressed all issues involving the children save and except management

of their college funds. See Appendix 1. ). The MSA contained all the statutorily

required language for a valid and enforceable MSA.

 March 7, 2014 – Emergency Motion For Enforcement of MSA Filed
By Mr. Harrison - Appendix 5

9
  March 12, 2014 – Emergency Motion To Enter Order Filed By Amicus
Attorney - Appendix 6

 April 4, 2014 – Mr. Harrison filed Motion to Enter MSA – Appendix 8

 April 10, 2014 – MSA incorporated into Agreed Order on Parent-Child
Issues and it was signed by the Court – Appendix 3 & 4

On April 10, 2014, the 311th Court entered the MSA and incorporated the

MSA into the Agreed Order on Parent-Child Issues and the parties operated under

this Order. See Appendix 3 (Agreed Order) & 4 (transcript of hearing).

 May 30, 2014 – Hearing on Motion to Enforce MSA – Appendix 9.

On May 30, 2014 in a hearing before the Court, counsel for Ms. Harrison

stated to the Court “We are asking this Court to enforce the MSA as written as I

argued during my opening summary.” Appendix 9, pg. 6 (Hearing transcript of

5/30/14). Mr. Harrison was questioned about “prior acts or criminal factors” and “a

criminal conviction for family violence” but Mr. Harrison replied that there was not,

“There was a dismissal. Deferred adjudication and a dismissal.” He also testified

that he received deferred adjudication on an assault and battery charge and the charge

was dismissed. Id. at pg. 7.

 September 3, 2014 – Hearing Before Associate Judge Without Notice
To Ms. Harrison Resulting In Mr. Harrison Being Appointed SMC
and Ms. Harrison Having Supervised Visitation – Appendix 10

10
 On September 3, 2014, a hearing was heard and the Associate Judge ordered

that Ms. Harrison be “immediately, instanter removed as a joint managing

conservator” and ordering that Mr. Harrison “immediately, instanter appointed the

temporary sole managing conservator.” The order further provides that Mr. Harrison

was to have “the exclusive right to all periods of possession and access with the

children,” and that Ms. Harrison “shall not have any periods of possession and/or

access to the children until further order of the Court or by written agreement of the

parties and the attorneys.” The order also terminated Mr. Harrison’s obligation to

pay child support. Ms. Harrison was not represented by counsel. Appendix 10. Ms.

Harrison tells Counsel she was not given notice and she was not served concerning

the matters conducted during the September 3, 2014 hearing.

 September 8th, October 24th, 2014 – Respondent Requested a De Novo
Hearing and Appeal of the Associate Judge’s Ruling – Appendix 12 &
13

On September 8th and October 24th, 2014, Respondent timely filed a Request

For De Novo Hearing And Appeal To The District Court appealing the September

3, 2014 hearing and Order of the Associate Judge. Although there is a notice of

hearing in the district court records, Ms. Harrison tells counsel she did not receive a

de novo hearing of the Associate Judge’s order.

 January 14th and January 16, 2015 - Ms. Harrison Asked The Court
To Enter MSA But Was Denied An Opportunity To Present Evidence
– Appendix 14 January 16th, 2014 Trial Transcript

11
 On January 16th, Ms. Harrison asked the trial court to enforce the MSA and

the trial court denied her request. Appendix 14.

 January 20, 2015 – Ms. Harrison filed Emergency Motion To Enforce

MSA – Appendix 16.

On the morning of January 20, 2015, Ms. Harrison filed another motion to

enforce the MSA, she told the Court that she had filed the Motion and wished to urge

the motion and her Motion was perfunctorily denied. See Appendix 15, pg. 4 (Trial

transcript excerpt). The trial court continued the court trial and did not allow Ms.

Harrison to put on evidence as to the MSA. Ms. Harrison also filed an Emergency

Motion for Continuance.

 February 13, 2015 – Trial Court’s Rendition Giving Mr. Harrison

SMC – Appendix 2.

On February 13, 2015, the Judge's Rendition gave sole managing

conservatorship (“SMC”) to Mr. Harrison and gave possessory conservatorship

(“PC”) to Ms. Harrison with only supervised visitation.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

SOLE ISSUE PRESENTED

Honorable Judge Franklin committed a clear abuse of discretion in refusing
to render judgment based on the parties’ mediated settlement agreement
found in Appendix 1 which dealt with all issues involving the children save and
except management of their college funds.

12
 I. Introduction

The parties in this case were ordered to mediation and concluded the

mediation by reaching a mediated settlement agreement and signing off on that MSA

(all parties and counsel). The MSA contained all the statutorily required language

for a valid and enforceable MSA.

The first page of the mediated settlement agreement contains the following

sentence, which appears in bold, capitalized and underlined print:

“THIS MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS BINDING AND
IS NOT SUBJECT TO REVOCATION.”
Appendix 1 at pg. 1.

The parties, their counsel, and the amicus attorney signed the MSA after
reading the following admonishment:
“I HAVE READ, UNDERSTAND, AND I CONSENT TO ALL OF THE
TERMS OF THIS BINDING AND IRREVOCABLE MEDIATED
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. I UNDERSTAND I HAVE THE RIGHT TO
CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE SIGNING THIS
DOCUMENT.”
Appendix 1 at pg. 3.

The MSA contains all of the necessary terms as it relates to parent-child issues

save and except management of the children’s college fund. Appendix 1 at pg. 2-3

and Exhibit A attached to the MSA.

13
 II. The Standard Of Review

The issue in this case involves the statutory interpretation of Texas Family Code

section 153.0071 governing mediated settlement agreements. The Texas Supreme

Court has held that questions of statutory construction are reviewed de novo.

Molinet v. Kimbrell, 356 S.W.3d 407, 411 (Tex. 2011). The fundamental objective

in interpreting a statute is “to determine and give effect to the Legislature’s intent.”

Am. Zurich Ins. Co. v. Samudio, 370 S.W.3d 363, 368 (Tex. 2012). The Statutory

Construction Act mandates that courts give effect to the clear meaning of the words

in a statute. Tex. Gov’t Code sec. 311.026. The primary objective of statutory

interpretation when a statute is unambiguous is to determine legislative intent by

examining the statute’s plain language. City of DeSoto v. White, 288 S.W.3d 389,

394 (Tex. 2009). A statute is presumed to have been enacted by the legislature with

complete knowledge of the existing law and with reference to it. Acker v. Texas

Water Comm’n, 790 S.W.2d 299, 301 (Tex. 1990). If the statutory text is

unambiguous, a court must adopt the interpretation supported by the statute’s plain

language unless that interpretation would lead to absurd results. Texas Dep’t of

Protective & Regulatory Services v. Mega Child Care, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 170, 177

(Tex. 2004).

14
 III. Texas Family Code Section 153.0071(e) Entitles Relator To A
Judgment On the Mediated Settlement Agreement

Section 153.0071(e) entitles Relator, Ms. Harrison, to judgment on the

mediated settlement agreement. In its wisdom, the Texas Legislature provided a

solution for resolution of family law matters and empowered individuals to make

decisions that are in the best interest of them and their children. In enacting section

153.0071 of the Texas Family Code, the Legislature not only empowered

individuals to make decisions for themselves and their children, but also provided

a way whereby they could come to agreements without protracted litigation and its

concomitant expense. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. sec. 153.0071. Other Texas

statutes also reflect the general public policy of the state “to encourage the

peaceable resolution of disputes, with special consideration given to disputes

involving the parent-child relationship, including the mediation of issues involving

conservatorship, possession, and support of children, and the early settlement of

pending litigation through voluntary settlement procedures.” Tex. Civ. Prac. &

Rem. Code sec. 154.002. In accordance with that policy, the Legislature enacted

Texas Family Code section 153.0071 to address the resolution of suits affecting

the parent-child relationship.

15
 A. Texas Family Code Section 153.0071

Entitled “Alternate Dispute Resolution Procedures,” section 153.0071 of the

Texas Family Code provides in pertinent part:

(a) On written agreement of the parties, the court may refer a suit affecting the
parent-child relationship to arbitration. The agreement must state whether the
arbitration is binding or non-binding.

(b) If the parties agree to binding arbitration, the court shall render an order
reflecting the arbitrator's award unless the court determines at a non-jury hearing
that the award is not in the best interest of the child. The burden of proof at a
hearing under this subsection is on the party seeking to avoid rendition of an order
based on the arbitrator's award.

(c) On the written agreement of the parties or on the court's own motion, the court
may refer a suit affecting the parent-child relationship to mediation.

(d) A mediated settlement agreement is binding on the parties if the agreement:

(1) provides, in a prominently displayed statement that is in boldfaced type or
capital letters or underlined, that the agreement is not subject to revocation;

(2) is signed by each party to the agreement; and

(3) is signed by the party's attorney, if any, who is present at the time the
agreement is signed.

(e) If a mediated settlement agreement meets the requirements of Subsection (d), a
party is entitled to judgment on the mediated settlement agreement
notwithstanding Rule 11, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, or another rule of law.

(e–1) Notwithstanding Subsections (d) and (e), a court may decline to enter a
judgment on a mediated settlement agreement if the court finds that:

(1) a party to the agreement was a victim of family violence, and that circumstance
impaired the party's ability to make decisions; and
(2) the agreement is not in the child's best interest.

16
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. sec. 153.0071(a)-(e-1) (emphasis added).

Subsection (d) provides that an MSA is binding on the parties if it is signed

by each party and by the parties’ attorneys who are present at the mediation and

states prominently and in emphasized type that it is not subject to revocation. Id.

sec. 153.0071(d). Subsection (e) goes even further, providing that a party to an MSA

is “entitled to judgment” on the MSA if it meets subsection (d)’s requirements. Id.

sec. 153.0071(e). Subsection (e-1) provides a narrow exception to subsection (e)’s

mandate, allowing a court to decline to enter judgment on even a statutorily

compliant MSA if three conditions are met: (1) a party to the agreement was a victim

of family violence; (2) the violence impaired the party’s ability to make decisions;

and (3) the agreement is not in the best interest of the child.

B. The Texas Supreme Court Settled The Issue In In re Stephanie Lee –
Mediated Settlement Agreements Are To Be Enforced

In In re Stephanie Lee, the Texas Supreme Court had before it on petition for

writ of mandamus, the issue of “whether a trial court abuses it discretion in refusing

to enter judgment on a statutorily compliant mediated settlement agreement (MSA).”

See In re Stephanie Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. 2013). The trial court had refused

to enter the MSA on best interest grounds. The Relator in the case argued that she

was “entitled to judgment on the [MSA] because it met the statutory requirements

under section 153.0071 of the Family Code. The Judge had denied enforcement on

the MSA on the basis that a registered sex offender was living in her home.
17
 The Texas Supreme Court noted that the issue before the Court was one of

first impression. There was a split among the intermediate appellate courts. Id. at

450, fn.6. The Court also cited Alvarez v. Reiser from the Eastland Court of Appeals

for the proposition that “even if one party withdraws its consent to the MSA, the trial

court is required to enter judgment on the agreement.” Id. (citing Alvarez v. Reiser,

958 S.W.2d 232, 233 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1997, pet. denied)).

The Court conditionally issued the writ of mandamus stating:

We hold that this language means what it says: a trial court may not
deny a motion to enter judgment on a properly executed MSA on such
grounds.

Id. at 457.

In its opinion, the Court found that:

Encouragement of mediation as an alternative form of dispute
resolution is critically important to the emotional and psychological
well-being of children involved in high-conflict custody disputes.
Indeed, the Texas Legislature has recognized that it is “the policy of
this state to encourage the peaceable resolution of disputes, with special
consideration given to disputes involving the parent-child relationship,
including the mediation of issues involving conservatorship,
possession, and support of children, and the early settlement of pending
litigation through voluntary settlement procedures.”

Id. at 449 (citing TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE sec. 154.002)
(emphasis the Court’s own).

The Court noted in detail, the high financial and emotional cost, and the

harmful effect on children, of high-conflict litigation. The Court stated “The

Legislature has thus recognized that, because children suffer needlessly from
18
traditional litigation, the amicable resolution of child-related disputes should

be promoted forcefully.” Id. at 449-50.

The Texas Supreme Court in In re Stephanie Lee held that:

Section 153.0071(e) unambiguously states that a party is ‘entitled to
judgment’ on an MSA that meets the statutory requirements
‘notwithstanding Rule 11, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, or another
rule of law.’ By its plain language, section 153.0071 authorizes a court
to refuse to enter judgment on a statutorily compliant MSA on best
interest grounds only when the court also finds the family violence
elements are met. Stated another way, ‘[t]he statute does not authorize
the trial court to substitute its judgment for the mediated settlement
agreement entered by the parties unless the requirements of subsection
153.0071(e-1) are met.’ Subsection (e-1), enacted after subsection (e),
makes it absolutely clear that the Legislature limited the consideration
of best interest in the context of entry of judgment on an MSA to cases
involving family violence.

Id. at 453 (citations omitted).

The Court noted the distinction between section 153.0071(b) and section

153.0071(e) saying:

Section 153.0071(b), governing arbitration of child-related disputes, is
also instructive. In stark contrast with subsection (e), subsection (b)
explicitly gives trial courts authority to decline an arbitrator’s award
when it is not in the best interest of the child. (citations omitted). This
distinction between arbitration and mediation makes sense because the
two processes are very different. Mediation encourages parents to work
together to settle their child-related disputes, and shields the child from
many of the adverse effects of traditional litigation. On the other hand,
arbitration simply moves the fight from the courtroom to the arbitration
room. If the Legislature had intended to authorize courts to inquire into
the child’s best interest when determining whether to render judgment
on validly executed MSAs, as it did in section 153.0071(b) with respect
to judgments on arbitration awards, it certainly knew how to do so.

19
Id. at 453-54.

The Texas Supreme Court in In re Stephanie Lee held that “section 153.0071(e)

reflects the Legislature’s determination that it is appropriate for parents to determine

what is best for their children within the context of the parents’ collaborative effort

to reach and properly execute an MSA.” The Court opined that “[t]his makes sense

not only because parents are in a position to know what is best for their children, but

also because successful mediation of child-custody disputes, conducted within

statutory parameters, furthers a child’s best interest by putting a halt to potentially

lengthy and destructive custody litigation.” The failure of the trial court in this case

to enforce the MSA has caused or enabled, the very things that the Texas Legislature

was trying to address when it enacted section 153.00071(e). Id. at 454.

The Texas Supreme Court opined that “we hold that section 153.0071(e)

encourages parents to peaceably resolve their child-related disputes through

mediation by foreclosing a broad best interest inquiry with respect to entry of

judgment on properly executed MSAs, ensuring that the time and money spent on

mediation will not have been wasted and that the benefits of successful mediation

will be realized. Allowing courts to conduct such an inquiry in contravention of the

unambiguous statutory mandate in section 153.0071 has severe consequences that

will inevitably harm children. The decisions below ignore clearly expressed

legislative intent, undermining the Legislature’s goal of protecting children by

20
eroding parents’ incentive to work collaboratively for their children’s welfare. This

frustrates the policies underlying alternative dispute resolution in the custody

context, which are firmly grounded in the protection of children.” Id. at 455.

The Court concluded that a trial court may not deny a motion to enter

judgment on a properly executed MSA under section 153.0071 based on a broad best

interest inquiry. The Court held that in cases of abuse or neglect, section 261.101 of

the Family Code provides a mandatory duty to report. Moreover, it noted that there

were numerous other statutes authorizing protective action by the trial court, and

said that the safeguards inherent in the mediation process fulfill the need to ensure

that children are protected. Id. at 458.

The State Bar of Texas Family Law Council had submitted an amicus curiae

brief in support of Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. The Court noted that the

Council argued that:

that a strict interpretation of section 153.0071 fulfills the state policy
favoring amicable resolution of disputes and suggests that holding as
the courts below did could lead to a loss in confidence in mediation and
an increase in litigation over the best interest of the child. The Council
argues that rules of statutory construction make clear that the
Legislature intended to remove the best interest determination in the
context of an MSA, instead deferring to parents to determine the best
interest of the child, except where family violence is involved. The
Council urges that to hold otherwise would ‘gut the legislative intent
favoring alternative dispute resolution of family law matters by
mediation,’ increasing both the cost of the proceedings and the stress
on families forced to resolve ‘their disputes in the adversarial venue of
the courts, rather than the cooperative environment of mediation. The

21
 Council contends that ‘[t]his result is certainly not in a child’s best
interest.’

Id. at 453 (citations in amicus brief omitted).

As is clear by the mandate set by the Texas Supreme Court in In re Stephanie

Lee, a trial court abuses its discretion in denying a motion to enter judgment on an

MSA and in setting a case for trial based on the court’s conclusion that the MSA

is not in the child’s best interest.

C. Texas Family Code 153.001(a) Expresses Public Policy of Texas
That Parents Should Be Able To Make Decisions About Their
Children

Moreover, section 153.001(a) of the Texas Family Code provides that:
In suits affecting the parent-child relationship, it is the public policy of the State

of Texas to:

(1) assure that children will have frequent and continuing contact with parents who
have shown the ability to act in the best interest of the child;
(2) provide a safe, stable, and nonviolent environment for the child; and
(3) encourage parents to share in the rights and duties of raising their child after the
parents have separated or dissolved their marriage.

Tex. Fam. Code sec. (a).
IV. Conclusion – Ms. Harrison Is Entitled To Entry Of The MSA Order
And A Stay Of The March 27, 2015 9 a.m. Entry Of The Trial Court’s
Rendition That Does Not Adopt The MSA

Ms. Harrison is entitled to entry of the MSA order as to parent-child issues. As

evidenced by the record, and the exhibits filed in the Appendix to this writ of

mandamus, the parties intended that the MSA would be enforced. They signed on

22
January 29, 2014, and the trial court incorporated it into an Interim Agreed Order on

April 10, 2014. Appendix 1, 3, 4. Moreover, the Petitioner and Respondent/Relator,

and the Amicus Attorney, all urged that the MSA would be entered. Appendix 5, 6,

8, 9, 12, 16. Relator urged the MSA again at trial but the trial court judge refused to

entertain her presentation of the issue. Appendix 14, 15.

The trial court abused its discretion in its rendition by not adopting the provisions

of the mediated settlement agreement as to parent-child issues, including not

allowing Relator, Ms. Harrison to put on evidence of the mediated settlement

agreement during trial of this matter in January of this year. See Appendix 14, pg. 4-

5 & 15, pg. 4 (January 16th & 20th trial excerpts). Moreover, the trial court denied

hearing the matter saying Relator had not given 3 days notice. The trial in chief

began on January 20, 2015. Relator asked the trial court judge on January 16th, 2015

when pre-trial matters and other items were discussed, to entertain her motion but

the court would not saying Relator did not give the requisite notice. The motion was

dispositive on the parent-child issues, and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21

specifically excepts trial matters from the notice requirement. See Perkins v. City of

San Antonio, 293 S.W.3d 650, 654-55 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, no pet.); Tex.

R. Civ. P. 21. The trial court abused its discretion in not entertaining the motion,

and in not incorporating the MSA into its rendition.

23
 The trial court signed an “Interim Agreed Order On Parent-Child Issues” and the

MSA was adopted during the April 10, 2104 hearing. See Appendix 3 (Agreed

Order) & 4 (transcript of hearing).

Ms. Harrison is entitled to entry of the MSA order, as well as a stay of the March

27, 2015, 9 a.m. entry of the trial court’s rendition that does not adopt the MSA.

Relator, Ms. Harrison has filed a Motion to Stay concurrently with the filing of this

writ of mandamus in the appellate court.

Counsel is also filing, and urging before the trial court at 9 a.m., that it agree to

stay the proceedings in the trial court until the appellate court has an opportunity to

rule on the writ of mandamus. As in an order that is being appealed, the trial court

has the authority to suspend an order that is being urged at the appellate court. See

In re Gonzalez, 981 S.W.2d 313, 314 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied).

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

Ms. Harrison is entitled to entry of the MSA order, as well as a stay of the

March 27, 2015, 9 a.m. entry of the trial court’s rendition that does not adopt the

MSA. Ms. Harrison prays for any other and further relief, general or special, in law

or in equity, to which she may show herself to be justly entitled.

24
 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Lana Shadwick
Lana Shadwick
State Bar No. 00784951
2210 Norfolk, Suite 920
Houston, Texas 77098
Telephone: (713) 392-8222
Lana@LanaShadwick.com

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Respondent has notified all counsel. Petitioner has not responded to an

inquiry about the undersigned counsel’s filing a writ of mandamus or a motion to

stay but has responded to another email correspondence. The amicus attorney is

opposed.

/s/ Lana Shadwick

CERTIFICATION

I certify that I have reviewed the Petition and Writ and concluded that every

factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the

Appendix or the Record.

/s/ Lana Shadwick

25
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

In accordance with Tex. R. App. Pro. 9.5(a), the undersigned hereby certifies

that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent to Patricia A. Wicoff, lead

counsel of record for Mr. Harrison, c/o Schlanger, Silver, 109 North Post Oak Lane,

Suite 300, Houston, Texas 77024 and to Heather Hughes, counsel for J.E.H. and

V.M.H., 952 Echo Lane, Suite 475, Houston, Texas 77024 through electronic email,

and to Alicia K. Franklin, Judge of the 311th District Court, 201 Caroline, 8th Floor,

Houston, Texas 77002 by hand-delivery, and postage prepaid certified mail, return

receipt requested, on this, the 27th day of March, 2015.

/s/ Lana Shadwick

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. Pro. 9.4(i)(3), the undersigned hereby certifies that

according to the word count function of the computer program used to generate the

document, the portions of the foregoing document subject to the rule contain contain

less than 4200 words total and that the text thereof is in 14 point Times New Roman

font.

/s/ Lana Shadwick

26
________________________________________________________________

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST OR FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
_________________________________________________________________

IN RE: CONNIE V. HARRISON
__________________________________________________________________

RELATOR’S APPENDIX
__________________________________________________________________

 APPENDIX 1 - Jan. 29, 2014: Mediated Settlement Agreement Signed

 APPENDIX 2 - February 13, 2015 – Trial Court’s Rendition Giving
Mr. Harrison SMC

 APPENDIX 3 - April 10, 2014 – MSA incorporated into Agreed Order
on Parent-Child Issues and it was signed by the Court

 APPENDIX 4 – April 10, 2014 Transcript of Hearing

 APPENDIX 5 - March 7, 2014 – Emergency Motion For Enforcement
of MSA Filed By Mr. Harrison

 APPENDIX 6 - March 12, 2014 – Emergency Motion To Enter Order
Filed By Amicus Attorney

 [NO APPENDIX 7]

 APPENDIX 8 - April 4, 2014 – Mr. Harrison filed Motion to Enter
MSA

 APPENDIX 9 - May 30, 2014 – Transcript of Hearing on Motion to
Enforce MSA

 APPENDIX 10 - September 3, 2014 – Hearing Transcript
27
 APPENDIX 11 – September 3, 2014 Order

 APPENDIX 12 -- September 8th – Respondent Requested a De Novo
Hearing and Appeal of the Associate Judge’s Ruling

 [NO APPENDIX 13]

 APPENDIX 14 - January 16, 2015 Trial Transcript

 APPENDIX 15 - January 20, 2015 – Trial Transcript

28
Un
of
fic
ial
C
op
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
tC
ler
k
Un
of
fic
ial
C
op
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
tC
ler
k
Un
of
fic
ial
C
op
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
tC
ler
k
Un
of
fic
ial
C
op
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
tC
ler
k
Un
of
fic
ial
C
op
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
tC
ler
k
Un
of
fic
i al
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
C
o py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
C
opy
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
i al
Cop
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
i al
Cop
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
i al
Cop
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
i al
Cop
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
 1
April 10, 2014

1 REPORTER'S RECORD
VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUME
2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2006-68864

3 IN THE INTEREST OF ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT
)
4 J.E.L.H., II, )
AND ) HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
5 V.M.H., )
)
6 MINOR CHILDREN ) 311TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
7

8

9 _____________________________________________

10

11 REQUESTED EXCERPTS OF REPORTER'S RECORD
12 _____________________________________________

13

14

15 On the 10th day of April, 2014, the following

16 proceedings came on to be held in the above-titled
17 and numbered cause before the Honorable Tom

18 Stansbury, Judge Presiding, held in Houston, Harris

19 County, Texas.

20 Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype

21 machine.

22
23

24

25
 2
April 10, 2014

1 APPEARANCES

2 PATRICIA A. WICOFF
SBOT NO. 21422500
3 AMY HARRIS
SBOT NO. 24041057
4 Attorneys-at-Law
SCHLANGER, SILVER, BARG & PAINE, L.L.P.
5 109 North Post Oak Lane, Suite 300
Houston, Texas 77024
6 Telephone: (713) 785-1700
Counsel for Clifford Harrison
7

8

9 DAVID M. MEDINA
SBOT NO. 00000088
10 Attorney-at-Law
5300 Memorial, Suite 890
11 Houston, Texas 77007
Telephone: (713) 653-3147
12 Counsel for Connie Vasquez Harrison

13

14 HEATHER HUGHES
SBOT NO. 00796794
15 Attorney-at-Law
952 Echo Lane, Suite 475
16 Houston, Texas 77024
Telephone: (713) 463-5505
17 Amicus Attorney for the Minor Children

18

19 HEATHER C. DANIELS
SBOT NO. 24065115
20 Attorney-at-Law
LILLY, NEWMAN & VAN NESS, L.L.P.
21 3355 W. Alabama, Suite 444
Houston, Texas 77098
22 Telephone: (713) 966-4444
Appearing for Bobby Newman, Attorney-at-Law
23

24

25
 3
April 10, 2014

1 INDEX

2 VOLUME 1

3 REQUESTED EXCERPTS OF REPORTER'S RECORD

4 April 10, 2014

5 PAGE VOL.

6 First Excerpt of Reporter's Record .......... 4 1
7 Start of Second Excerpt ..................... 6 1

8 Ruling on Motion to Set Aside Rendition ..... 6 1

9 Ruling on Mediated Settlement Agreement .... 19 1

10 Start of Third Excerpt ..................... 26 1

11 Reporter's Certificate ..................... 33 1
12

13

14

15

16
17

18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25
 4
April 10, 2014

1 (REQUESTED EXCERPTS OF REPORTER'S RECORD)

2 THE COURT: Okay. Counsel, if you

3 will, tell me who represents Petitioner.

4 MS. WICOFF: Your Honor, Patricia A.

5 Wicoff and Amy Harris represent Mr. Clifford Layne

6 Harrison, and we are the Petitioner in the underlying
7 divorce. We're also the party that has the motions

8 before the Court today.

9 THE COURT: Okay. The Respondent?

10 MR. MEDINA: I'm David Medina on

11 behalf of Connie Harrison. Texas Bar Number 88.
12 MS. HUGHES: Your Honor, I'm Heather

13 Hughes, the amicus attorney for the children.

14 THE COURT: Thank you.

15 MS. DANIELS: And my name is Heather

16 Daniels, and I'm here for Bobby Newman on the limited
17 issue of his interest in the Judge's current order.

18 THE COURT: In what?

19 MS. DANIELS: He has a -- they're

20 trying to set aside the Judge's rendition, and he

21 has -- he was awarded attorney's fees in that. So he

22 has an interest in that order.
23 MS. WICOFF: Well, Your Honor, he's

24 not the attorney of record. I don't know why anyone

25 that's not the attorney of record would be addressing
 5
April 10, 2014

1 the Court with regard to any of these issues. If he

2 has an interest in the order, then perhaps he should

3 file an intervention like everyone else would; but I

4 would object to anyone addressing the Court that is

5 not an attorney of record for one of the parties in

6 this matter, whether they have an interest or not.
7 It's inappropriate.

8 THE COURT: What motions do you have,

9 Counsel? Ms. Wicoff?

10 MS. WICOFF: Your Honor, I have a

11 Motion to Set Aside an Alleged Rendition. I have --
12 that was file marked March 31st by the clerk in this

13 matter. I have a Motion to Enter a Mediated

14 Settlement Agreement. I have a Motion for

15 Preferential Trial Setting. I also have set for

16 today a Motion for Severance; but I'm not moving
17 forward on that severance today, Judge.

18 THE COURT: Are there any other

19 motions set for today by anyone else or any other --

20 MS. WICOFF: No, sir, there are not.

21 THE COURT: Okay. We've got a Motion

22 to Set Aside Rendition, a Motion to Enter an MSA and
23 a Motion for Preferential Trial Setting; and I guess

24 they need to go in that order probably. Correct?

25 MS. WICOFF: I think that's probably
 6
April 10, 2014

1 correct, Judge.

2 THE COURT: All right. Please

3 proceed, ma'am.

4 MS. WICOFF: Your Honor, I'm going to

5 provide you a timeline which will be a summary of my

6 argument; and I'm providing a copy to Mr. Medina.
7 I've provided a copy to Ms. Hughes.

8 The rendition in question, Judge, is

9 a result of a hearing on February the 12th and

10 February the 14th. It was conducted before Judge

11 Pratt.
12 (CONCLUSION OF FIRST REQUESTED EXCERPT)

13 *****

14 (START OF SECOND REQUESTED EXCERPT)

15 THE COURT: Let's stand in recess for

16 five minutes. Y'all stay close.
17 (Recess taken)

18 THE COURT: The Motion to Set Aside

19 the Rendition of March 31st, 2014 is granted. Well,

20 I had March 31st on my notes here.

21 MS. WICOFF: That's the file date,

22 Judge.
23 THE COURT: It was filed that date,

24 and the stamp date on the signature line for Judge

25 Pratt is March 26th. That is the rendition that is
 7
April 10, 2014

1 set aside.

2 MS. WICOFF: Thank you, Judge.

3 MR. MEDINA: Thank you, Judge.

4 MS. WICOFF: May I pursue, then, at

5 this point, Judge, our next motion, which would be a

6 Motion to Enter the Mediated Settlement Agreement?
7 And, Judge, by way of just

8 chronological, this case was mediated in January.

9 MS. HARRIS: 29th.

10 MS. WICOFF: Actually, I'll have

11 Ms. Harris do it because she was at the mediation.
12 So I'll have her address the entry and the Lee case.

13 MS. HARRIS: Judge, actually, Judge

14 Pratt had ordered the parties to mediation back in

15 September. I was actually the only lawyer that

16 objected at that time because we had previously
17 mediated this case two or three or possibly even four

18 times. The Judge ordered us to mediate anyway, and

19 so we did. We scheduled mediation.

20 We mediated this case, I believe, on

21 January 29th, earlier this year.

22 At that mediation Ms. Harrison was
23 there with her counsel at the time, Mr. Newman.

24 Mr. Harrison and I were there. The amicus attorney

25 was there. And, Judge, we signed off on a Mediated
 8
April 10, 2014

1 Settlement Agreement that day. We have prepared an

2 order that complies with the provisions of the

3 Mediated Settlement Agreement; and, Judge, we just

4 want to get that entered. It only pertains to the

5 children's issues, with the exception of one thing.

6 There's only one issue that's not resolved by that
7 Mediated Settlement Agreement, and that is the right

8 or the duty to manage the children's college

9 accounts, which we reserved to try at a later time.

10 Other than that, every provision that deals with the

11 children is -- is within that Mediated Settlement
12 Agreement, and we have an order in that regard.

13 THE COURT: Mr. Medina.

14 MR. MEDINA: Judge, the -- the MSA

15 should be set aside because case law provides --

16 MS. HUGHES: Your Honor, I'm going to
17 object. I don't know that that's before the Court

18 today.

19 MS. WICOFF: There's no motion --

20 MR. MEDINA: Excuse me.

21 MS. WICOFF: -- to set aside before

22 the Court today, Judge.
23 MR. MEDINA: Judge, I had the

24 privilege of sitting on the Texas Supreme Court for

25 eight years; and during that period of time, counsel
 9
April 10, 2014

1 is given 20 minutes on one side, 20 minutes on the

2 other side without interruption. I would expect the

3 same courtesy here at this bar. I'm responding to --

4 THE COURT: I'll endeavor in that

5 direction, Mr. Medina.

6 MR. MEDINA: Thank you.
7 THE COURT: At this point, I'm taking

8 what you're saying as a background as to why the

9 motion to enter should be denied.

10 MR. MEDINA: Thank you. Thank you,

11 Judge.
12 It should be denied because my client

13 was subjected to domestic violence, and that's --

14 that alone is enough to set aside these agreements;

15 and quite frankly, Judge, that should have been

16 conveyed to her before all of everybody's time and
17 resources were wasted.

18 THE COURT: Conveyed to your client?

19 MR. MEDINA: Yes, sir. She should

20 have known that going into that; but, you know --

21 Excuse me, please.

22 But that aside, the case law allows
23 these to be set aside. Now this agreement, as I

24 understand it, in speaking with her counsel, lead

25 counsel, it's substantially agreed to. There's some
 10
April 10, 2014

1 part that she doesn't agree to; but, you know, either

2 we set it aside or we go back to arbitration and try

3 to get -- get the details worked out. That's my

4 response to that.

5 In regarding the ad litem, Judge, I

6 didn't want to raise this here; but there is a motion
7 to remove the ad litem, and that -- that motion needs

8 to be heard at some point in the future. And my --

9 THE COURT: When was that motion

10 filed? Do you recall?

11 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: April.
12 MR. MEDINA: April of last year,

13 Judge.

14 THE COURT: Okay.

15 MR. MEDINA: For whatever reason,

16 that motion is still pending; but that needs to be
17 reurged, and I think the lead counsel in this case

18 will reurge that at some time.

19 Judge, in the Texas Rules of Civil

20 Procedure 153.0071(e-1) supports -- supports that.

21 THE COURT: I apologize. Give me

22 about two minutes. I'll be right back.
23 MR. MEDINA: Thank you, Judge.

24 (Recess taken)

25 THE COURT: I apologize.
 11
April 10, 2014

1 Mr. Medina, did you answer me on when

2 that was filed? Yeah, we did. We got that one.

3 Where were we after the motion to remove the ad

4 litem -- or the amicus?

5 MS. HUGHES: 2013, I believe.

6 THE COURT: Okay.
7 MS. HARRIS: Judge, I can respond.

8 First of all, the motion to remove

9 the amicus, Judge, was filed by Ms. Harrison's now

10 lead counsel who was her appellate counsel; but the

11 two family law lawyers that represented Ms. Harrison
12 after that point have both declined to go forward on

13 that motion. That's why it's not been urged before

14 the Court.

15 Secondly, Judge, I think Mr. Medina

16 was arguing that the Court should consider setting
17 aside the Mediated Settlement Agreement because they

18 allege that she was the victim of family violence.

19 Judge, 153.0071(e-1) and (e-2) specifically say that

20 a party to the agreement was a victim of family

21 violence, and that circumstance impaired the party's

22 ability to make decisions; and the agreement is not
23 in the best interest.

24 Further, Judge, I would argue that at

25 this point in time, they can't ask the Court to set
 12
April 10, 2014

1 aside the Mediated Settlement Agreement. There was

2 no objection to mediation. I was the only lawyer

3 here. I think there was one, two, three, four, five

4 lawyers here that day. I was the only lawyer that

5 objected to mediation. Ms. Harrison nor any of her

6 counsel objected to mediation. We went to mediation,
7 an order was signed. I think they have now waived

8 the right to ask the Court to now set it aside. And

9 that, Judge, would be further 153.0071 beginning with

10 (f).

11 MR. MEDINA: There could be no waiver
12 on domestic violence.

13 THE COURT: What is the effect? Is

14 granting relief contained or pursuant to the Mediated

15 Settlement Agreement automatic if the Mediated

16 Settlement Agreement is entered today?
17 MS. WICOFF: Oh, it's already been

18 filed with the Court, Judge.

19 THE COURT: Well, what does Motion to

20 Enter the MSA mean?

21 MS. WICOFF: We need an order, and

22 maybe Ms. Hughes can address why we need an order.
23 THE COURT: An order adopting the

24 contents --

25 MS. WICOFF: That's correct.
 13
April 10, 2014

1 THE COURT: -- of the MSA?

2 MS. WICOFF: That's correct.

3 THE COURT: Ms. Hughes.

4 MS. HUGHES: That is correct, Your

5 Honor. They had filed a motion to enter -- they

6 meaning Mr. Harrison's -- some time ago and then
7 there were issues developing at the children's school

8 with who was to pick up on what days and it was

9 becoming an issue with the school. So I filed an

10 emergency motion to enter as the amicus to try and

11 narrow that down; and so that's what we appeared on,
12 on March 26th. And the Court gave us a very limited

13 order on possession and access to get us through the

14 school year, so-to-speak. It doesn't address

15 holidays or summer because my immediate concern was

16 so that we could tell the school this is what you
17 follow.

18 THE COURT: And that was pursuant to

19 a hearing in open court on March 26th?

20 MS. HUGHES: Yes.

21 THE COURT: Why didn't she -- why did

22 she limit the contents of the MSA that she adopted?
23 Why did she adopt only part of it?

24 MS. HUGHES: My understanding was

25 because there had been a motion filed contesting the
 14
April 10, 2014

1 MSA by Ms. Harrison, and she said we'll get into all

2 of that later.

3 THE COURT: Is that motion still

4 pending?

5 MS. HUGHES: My understanding is it's

6 pending. I don't know that it's been set.
7 MS. WICOFF: It's never been set,

8 Judge.

9 MS. HARRIS: It's not been set,

10 Judge.

11 And, Judge, I just -- I also want to
12 let the Court know that this alleged family violence

13 argument that they attempt to make today is from an

14 alleged incident that happened well over eight years

15 ago. These people have not lived under the same roof

16 in eight years. They've been divorced for well over
17 four years.

18 Further, Judge, I would just provide

19 to the Court a copy of the Supreme Court case In Re:

20 Lee which says that, Judge, when there is a Mediated

21 Settlement Agreement that a Trial Court may not deny

22 a Motion to Enter the Judgment on a properly executed
23 Mediated Settlement Agreement.

24 MR. MEDINA: Judge, that's a very

25 good case. The concurrence is on point. The
 15
April 10, 2014

1 concurrence was written by my law school friend and

2 former colleague Justice Guzman. It addresses

3 essentially all issues that weren't addressed in

4 majority opinion, and I think that's a good start to

5 look for guidance for this type of assistance.

6 And, Judge, that's not an allegation
7 on this violence. That man was arrested.

8 And I -- this is not evidence, Judge;

9 but I want to hand to you a part of the text messages

10 that -- that just is consistent with the type of

11 language and behavior that goes on from
12 Mr. Harrison --

13 MS. HARRIS: Judge, and I would --

14 MR. MEDINA: -- to Ms. Harrison.

15 MS. HARRIS: -- object to anything.

16 We've not been provided that. It's not been
17 introduced. I'm not even sure what it is.

18 THE COURT: What's the date of this?

19 Is it all on the same date?

20 MR. MEDINA: Judge, it is on the same

21 date. It's 5:40 a.m. This was part of an exhibit on

22 February the 14th.
23 THE COURT: 2014?

24 MR. MEDINA: Yes, sir.

25 THE COURT: After the mediation?
 16
April 10, 2014

1 MR. MEDINA: It's marked CH --

2 MS. HARRIS: It's after the

3 mediation, Judge.

4 MR. MEDINA: It's marked CH135.

5 I just add that, Your Honor, for this

6 domestic violence issue -- and we're not talking
7 about, you know, Saint Paul here.

8 MS. HARRIS: Judge, they're talking

9 about an incident that happened before January of

10 2006. That's how long ago they're talking about.

11 How in the world can they come in today and say we're
12 a victim of domestic violence and because of an

13 alleged incident that happened more than eight years

14 ago that's prevented me from entering into a properly

15 executed Mediated Settlement Agreement even though I

16 was there with counsel being advised?
17 THE COURT: Mr. Medina, it sounds to

18 me that the -- that the Movant's arguments and

19 requests are directly in line with Justice Guzman.

20 MR. MEDINA: They're not, Judge.

21 THE COURT: Tell me why they are not.

22 MR. MEDINA: They are not. Justice
23 Guzman's concurrence -- the majority of that opinion

24 was written by Justice Lehrmann. Justin Guzman's

25 concurrence analyzes the -- the majority's opinion
 17
April 10, 2014

1 and finds instances where a -- a motion like this can

2 be set aside based on domestic violence and some

3 other issues, and I believe the concurrence supports

4 our position.

5 THE COURT: Okay.

6 MS. HARRIS: Judge, a part of the
7 opinion that I think Mr. Medina is talking about, let

8 me just read to you exactly what it says. It says:

9 Finally Subsection (e-1), added in 2005, provides a

10 narrow -- a narrow exception to Subsection (e)'s

11 mandate, allowing a Court to decline to enter
12 judgment on even a statutorily compliant Mediated

13 Settlement Agreement if a party to the agreement was

14 a victim of family violence, comma, the violence

15 impaired the party's ability to make decisions; and,

16 Judge, that the agreement is not in the best interest
17 of the child.

18 How can they say that an alleged

19 incident that may or may not have happened more than

20 eight years ago impaired her current ability to make

21 a decision to sign a Mediated Settlement Agreement?

22 MR. MEDINA: Judge, what that does is
23 give the Trial Court broad discretion, broad

24 discretion, if you find it not in the best interest

25 of the children. Now while that incident may --
 18
April 10, 2014

1 leading to his arrest may have happened years ago,

2 this man continues to threaten her through text

3 messages. He's threatened her the day before the

4 mediation. He continues to threaten her, and that's

5 what all this is about, and it's a shame that we are

6 still here arguing about this seven years later.
7 MS. HARRIS: Judge, that -- none of

8 that has ever been introduced into evidence at any

9 point in time. I've never heard that until just

10 right this very second.

11 And Mr. Medina, unfortunately, is
12 wrong. It's not -- it's not broad discretion, Judge.

13 The opinion specifically says it provides a narrow

14 exception, not broad discretion.

15 THE COURT: Anything further on this

16 motion?
17 MR. MEDINA: No. Thank you, Judge.

18 MS. HARRIS: Judge, I would just

19 argue that we really need to get an order entered.

20 There have been numerous problems with the drop off

21 and pick up of the children, with denial of periods

22 of possession and access.
23 And, Judge, the children have now

24 been asked to leave their private school that they

25 have been enrolled in since they began their school
 19
April 10, 2014

1 careers. And, Judge, it's imperative that we get an

2 order in place protecting the children.

3 MR. MEDINA: And the children -- that

4 is all true, but that incident was caused by the

5 husband. The police were called to remove him from

6 the campus because he was being hostile.
7 MS. HARRIS: Judge, that is not true.

8 That is absolutely not true.

9 THE COURT: The Court adopts the

10 contents of the Mediated Settlement Agreement as the

11 order of this Court.
12 MS. WICOFF: Your Honor, we have the

13 order to submit, and I also have an order on vacate

14 that I would tender to the Court. It is signed by

15 myself.

16 And here is a copy of it, Mr. Medina.
17 THE COURT: Ms. Harris, Ms. Wicoff,

18 did y'all give me this?

19 MS. HUGHES: I did, Your Honor.

20 THE COURT: Can I make a copy of it?

21 MS. HUGHES: You can have it.

22 MS. HARRIS: We have an extra copy.
23 MS. HUGHES: Judge, and in this order

24 you will see some handwritten interlineations that I

25 did that conform with the order that Judge Pratt
 20
April 10, 2014

1 entered on March 26th that address the same issues.

2 THE COURT: Have all counsel seen

3 that?

4 MS. HUGHES: I know they've not seen

5 my interlineations.

6 THE COURT: Can y'all -- can y'all
7 recess to counsel table --

8 MS. HARRIS: Yes, Judge.

9 THE COURT: -- and if you've got a

10 problem with it, Mr. Medina, I want you to address

11 that on the record; but otherwise let me type in my
12 docket sheet.

13 MS. HARRIS: Yes, Judge.

14 (Recess taken)

15 THE COURT: We're on the record.

16 Mr. Medina?
17 MR. MEDINA: I need some guidance

18 here, Judge. I understand your decision. My client

19 is telling me that she understands that this was not

20 scheduled for today, this hearing to set aside. And

21 I also understand that she was going to bring a

22 witness to help her support the allegation on the
23 psychological part.

24 Is that correct?

25 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: Yes.
 21
April 10, 2014

1 MR. MEDINA: And while I think I know

2 a little bit about family law, I am not a family law

3 expert. I practice civil trial law and appellate

4 law. That's where my experience is, and I certainly

5 don't want to be in a position where she's not

6 getting the best counsel she needs for this hearing.
7 And if you would indulge me, Your Honor, for a brief

8 continuance, I don't --

9 THE COURT: Let me see if that was

10 set for today, number one.

11 MR. MEDINA: Okay.
12 THE COURT: Stephanie, can you verify

13 for me?

14 MS. HARRIS: What exactly are we

15 talking about was not set?

16 THE COURT: The motion to adopt the
17 MSA.

18 MS. HARRIS: Okay.

19 THE COURT: Is that what you're

20 saying, Mr. Medina?

21 MR. MEDINA: Yes. Yes, Your Honor.

22 THE CLERK: Today it was Clifford
23 Harrison and Connie Harrison was set -- set aside

24 judgment. It was set for set aside.

25 MS. HARRIS: That was the very first
 22
April 10, 2014

1 thing that we heard.

2 THE COURT: Right.

3 MS. HARRIS: But there were many

4 others.

5 THE CLERK: To specify, it's a motion

6 to enforce and then a set aside judgment and other
7 motions.

8 MS. HARRIS: Right. Judge, and it

9 was actually file stamped on April the 4th, Judge,

10 2014; and it was noticed that same date, Judge, for

11 April 10th, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. And it was sent via
12 e-mail, Judge, to Mr. Christopher Martin at Martin,

13 Disiere, Jefferson & Wisdom; by e-mail to Mr. David

14 Medina; and by e-mail to the amicus attorney,

15 Ms. Heather Hughes.

16 THE COURT: It appears to be correct,
17 Mr. Medina, from what Ms. Hughes is showing me. I

18 think it was properly set for today.

19 MR. MEDINA: Okay. Thank you, Judge.

20 May I have a moment, Judge?

21 THE COURT: Sure.

22 (Brief recess taken)
23 MR. MEDINA: Judge, may I make an

24 inquiry --

25 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
 23
April 10, 2014

1 MR. MEDINA: -- to the clerk of the

2 court if she has any documentation of this hearing,

3 this part of the hearing being canceled by Judge

4 Pratt? Do you have any notation?

5 THE COURT: Do you have any

6 indication that the hearing --
7 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: On April the

8 26th.

9 MS. HUGHES: I believe I know what

10 Ms. Harrison is referring to, Your Honor, if --

11 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: On March.
12 MS. HUGHES: -- the Court would like

13 me to fill in.

14 THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.

15 MS. HUGHES: When we were down here

16 on March 26th, at the conclusion of that hearing in
17 the afternoon, Judge Pratt had asked the attorneys

18 and Ms. Harrison to appear down here on today at 8:30

19 in the morning to get with her coordinator to get a

20 pref setting on various motions. That kind of went

21 away when she resigned that Friday.

22 MS. HARRIS: Why we weren't here at
23 8:30 this morning.

24 MS. HUGHES: And then I received

25 notice of a handful of motions set for today at 1:30.
 24
April 10, 2014

1 MS. HARRIS: In fact, Judge, I -- I

2 would say that I believe we filed originally a motion

3 back on -- probably on or about March 21st, and so I

4 want to say that our hearing -- that this hearing has

5 been set since about that time.

6 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: May I say
7 something, Judge?

8 THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.

9 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: Judge, we --

10 Bobby Newman had withdrawn. He hadn't been paid his

11 fees and so I had to represent myself on that
12 afternoon and Judge Pratt canceled. She said -- she

13 looked at her documentation -- I have 40 cases. I

14 cannot hear you on April the 10th. On April the 10th

15 I cannot hear the motion to set aside or the motion

16 to enter.
17 THE COURT: So come down here at 8:30

18 to get a new date?

19 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: So she said

20 come here at 8:30; and so then my attorney,

21 Mr. Martin, took it off of his calendar as -- as to

22 us having the hearing and then my two witnesses that
23 were going to show up took it off of their calendar

24 because we were going to get a new date at 8:30 in

25 the morning, as Ms. Hughes said, where everybody
 25
April 10, 2014

1 could attend at a future time.

2 THE COURT: Ma'am, I'm sure if you

3 discussed that with Mr. Medina and with Mr. Martin,

4 they have remedies available; but what I have before

5 me today, it hadn't been canceled. It hadn't been

6 reset. I understand what you're saying as a
7 practical matter, but it hadn't been changed from

8 1:30 this afternoon. And based on that, I've made

9 the ruling, and that ruling must stand at this time.

10 MR. MEDINA: Thank you, Judge.

11 THE COURT: Okay. Thank y'all.
12 MS. HARRIS: Judge, the only further

13 motion that we have is our Motion for a Preferential

14 Trial Setting.

15 And, Judge, I -- I understand that --

16 that we're in kind of a weird situation at this
17 moment, but if I could just give the Court a flavor

18 of kind of what we're dealing with.

19 Judge, this case was originally filed

20 back in 2006. It was tried to a jury over the course

21 of about two weeks in front of the Honorable Judge

22 Doug Warne in March and then in April of 2010. We
23 did get a rendition, ruling, an order signed in June

24 of 2010. It went up on appeal. It's been back down

25 for well over a year, Judge. It's been on remand for
 26
April 10, 2014

1 well over a year.

2 We attempted to get Temporary Orders

3 in place in this matter immediately following the

4 remand in January and February of 2013. Judge, we

5 couldn't get anything heard until we got a Mediated

6 Settlement Agreement a year later. My point, Judge,
7 is that we have got to get a trial setting in this

8 case.

9 (CONCLUSION OF SECOND REQUESTED EXCERPT)

10 *****

11 (START OF THIRD REQUESTED EXCERPT)
12 THE COURT: Y'all have a seat, if you

13 will. The coordinator is checking right now. I'm

14 going to give you a trial setting date before you

15 leave here.

16 MS. WICOFF: All right. Thank you.
17 MR. MEDINA: Thank you.

18 MS. HARRIS: Thank you, Judge.

19 MS. WICOFF: I'm sorry?

20 MR. MEDINA: Here is a copy of the

21 Fourteenth Court of Appeals opinion. Do you have any

22 objection?
23 MS. WICOFF: Oh, in this case?

24 MR. MEDINA: Yes.

25 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: It's my copy.
 27
April 10, 2014

1 Would you like a copy, Judge?

2 THE COURT: Not necessarily. Whoever

3 had it can have it back.

4 MR. MEDINA: Thank you, Judge.

5 THE COURT: Thank you.

6 MS. WICOFF: All right. And did both
7 of those other orders get signed, Judge? I didn't --

8 where did we end up on the --

9 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: Mr. Medina, do

10 you have the order?

11 MS. WICOFF: -- MSA order? We need
12 that MSA entered, the Temporary Orders.

13 MS. HARRIS: It's not a Temporary

14 Order.

15 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: Oh, we were --

16 MS. WICOFF: Is that done?
17 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: The order has

18 not been --

19 THE COURT: We're off the record.

20 (Discussion off the record)

21 THE COURT: We're back on the record.

22 MS. WICOFF: Judge, what the MSA
23 says, very boilerplate language, if there are

24 drafting disputes, those drafting disputes go back

25 to --
 28
April 10, 2014

1 THE COURT: Who was your mediator?

2 MS. WICOFF: -- Mr. Millard. I'm

3 sorry?

4 THE COURT: Who was your mediator?

5 MS. WICOFF: John Millard, appointed

6 by Judge Pratt.
7 THE COURT: Okay.

8 MS. WICOFF: And -- and we submitted

9 an order to the other side weeks ago. We've never

10 heard a peep about any drafting dispute, not a peep.

11 So at this point, Judge, we've got to get an order
12 entered for the benefit of these children so if

13 there's any hope of their staying at Second Baptist

14 we have a firm order signed by the Court moving

15 forward.

16 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: Your Honor,
17 the language is very clear. Mr. Newman -- Mr. Newman

18 withdrew on March 14th.

19 MS. HARRIS: 24th.

20 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: On March 14th.

21 MS. WICOFF: 24th.

22 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: Okay. Well, I
23 have not had a family attorney to help me go

24 through -- these orders would affect my children and

25 myself --
 29
April 10, 2014

1 THE COURT: Uh-huh.

2 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: -- for, you

3 know, 10, 20 years.

4 THE COURT: Or at least until your

5 trial date coming up.

6 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: Yes, Your
7 Honor. And so I only ask that if you -- if you did

8 decide to not set aside the MSA, to give us the

9 opportunity to go through that with a family law

10 attorney, as Justice Medina have recommended, so

11 that -- and if -- and -- and I already see several
12 drafting that they've put words in there that are not

13 even in the MSA.

14 And so -- and so I just -- I plead

15 with the Court that -- that that -- for me to be

16 given the opportunity to have an attorney to go
17 through that, and if we can't discuss it amongst --

18 if they can't -- if we can't agree to something, to

19 go back to Mr. Millard.

20 THE COURT: I understand. I

21 understand.

22 Ms. Hughes.
23 MS. HUGHES: I have a suggestion,

24 Your Honor, that may accomplish both ends.

25 What if we enter this as an Interim
 30
April 10, 2014

1 Temporary Order? If Ms. Harrison does submit

2 drafting disputes and we can't work them out, then

3 we're ordered back to Mr. Millard, but at least there

4 is a governing order that covers everything moving

5 forward.

6 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: Judge, I
7 ask -- I mean this is -- that -- that would not be --

8 I have sole. Your Honor, I have sole custody.

9 They're wanting an interim order as to joint custody.

10 MS. HUGHES: That's what the MSA --

11 THE COURT: Ms. Harrison, I'm going
12 to have to interrupt you and make this statement.

13 Change that order to read "interim,"

14 as Ms. Hughes suggests. Everybody approve that order

15 unless there's some specific objections to the form,

16 and I'll sign those orders as presented to me today.
17 Y'all have a seat and wait for

18 your -- for your trial date. Oh, let me ask one

19 other question before you do.

20 Ms. Hughes, were you there for the

21 duration of the mediation?

22 MS. HUGHES: Absolutely, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: Were there issues

24 mediated other than the issues you were involved in?

25 MS. HUGHES: No. Initially there
 31
April 10, 2014

1 were some property discussion, but then the focus

2 shifted entirely to the children.

3 THE COURT: I don't want to invade

4 anything, but I'd like to know has property been --

5 property issues been mediated.

6 MS. HUGHES: It was discussed --
7 THE COURT: Ms. Wicoff, were you at

8 the mediation -- no. Ms. Harris, you were there.

9 MS. HUGHES: -- but not the focus.

10 MS. HARRIS: No. I was, Judge.

11 THE COURT: Was property mediated?
12 MS. HARRIS: Property was discussed.

13 I wouldn't -- I couldn't say to the Court that we

14 actually mediated those issues.

15 THE COURT: Okay.

16 MS. HARRIS: It was discussed, but
17 probably not negotiated very well, Judge; but it had

18 been mediated numerous times prior to then.

19 THE COURT: All right. You agree, it

20 was talked about?

21 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: They were

22 discussed and I understand that children's issues,
23 SAPCR issues and property, that type of bifurcation,

24 is not allowed.

25 (CONCLUSION OF THIRD REQUESTED EXCERPT)
 32
April 10, 2014

1 (Conclusion of requested

2 transcriptions)

3

4

5

6
7

8

9

10

11
12

13

14

15

16
17

18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25
 33
April 10, 2014

1 STATE OF TEXAS

2 COUNTY OF HARRIS

3 I, Marilee M. Anderson, Deputy Official Court

4 Reporter in and for the 311th District Court of

5 Harris County, State of Texas, do hereby certify that

6 the above and foregoing contains a true and correct
7 transcription of all portions of evidence and other

8 proceedings requested in writing by counsel for the

9 parties to be included in this volume of the

10 Reporter's Record in the above-styled and numbered

11 cause, all of which occurred in open court or in
12 chambers and were reported by me.

13 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of

14 the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the

15 exhibits, if any, offered by the respective parties.

16 I further certify that the total cost for the
17 preparation of this Reporter's Record is $ and

18 was paid/will be paid by .

19 WITNESS MY HAND this the ____________ day of
__________________________, 2015.
20 Marilee M. Marilee M. Anderson
2015.03.25 12:36:48
21 Anderson -05'00'
_

22 Marilee M. Anderson, CSR
Texas CSR 3271
23 Deputy Official Court Reporter
P.O. Box 6459
24 Kingwood, Texas 77325
Telephone: (281) 705-9268
25 Expiration: 12/31/2016
 3/7/2014 3:58:40 PM
Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 660878
By: Stephanie Garcia

k
ler
tC
ric
ist
lD
nie
Da
is
hr
C
of
e
ffic
yO
op
C
ial
fic
of
Un
Un
of
fic
ial
C
op
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
tC
ler
k
Un
of
fic
ial
C
op
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
tC
ler
k
Un
of
fic
ial
C
op
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
tC
ler
k
Un
of
fic
ial
C
op
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
tC
ler
k
Un
of
fic
ial
C
op
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
tC
ler
k
 3/12/2014 8:40:20 AM
Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 689843
By: Monica Caballero

k
er
Cl
t
ric
ist
lD
nie
Da
is
hr
C
of
e
ffic
O
py
Co
al
i
fic
of
Un
Un
offic
ial
C
opy
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
 4/4/2014 4:45:00 PM
Chris Daniel - District
4/4/2014Clerk
4:45:14 PM
Harris County
Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 913999
By: ANNIE GARCIA

k
ler
tC
ric
ist
lD
nie
Da
is
hr
C
of
e
ffic
yO
op
C
ial
fic
of
Un
Un
of
fic
ial
C
op
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
tC
ler
k
Un
of
fic
ial
C
op
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
tC
ler
k
Un
of
fic
ial
C
op
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
tC
ler
k
Un
of
fic
ial
C
op
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
tC
ler
k
Un
of
fic
ial
C
op
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
tC
ler
k
 1

1 REPORTER'S RECORD

2 VOLUME 1 OF 1

3 COURT CAUSE NO. 2006-68864

4

5 IN THE MATTER OF * IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE MARRIAGE OF *
6 *
CLIFFORD LAYNE HARRISON *
7 AND * HARRIS COUNTY, T E X A S
CONNIE VASQUEZ HARRISON *
8 *
AND IN THE INTEREST OF *
9 JOHN EARNEST LEE *
HARRISON, II., AND *
10 VICTORIA MADELINE *
HARRISON, *
11 MINOR CHILDREN * 311TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

12

13 ********************************************************

14 REPORTER'S RECORD

15 ********************************************************

16

17 On the 30th day of May, 2014, the following

18 proceeding came to be heard in the above-titled and

19 numbered cause before the Honorable Thomas Stansbury,

20 presiding, held in Houston, Harris, Texas:

21 Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype

22 machine.

23

24

25 (Excerpt of Pages 53 through 56.)

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 2

1 A P P E A R A N C E S

2
Patricia A. Wicoff Christopher W. Martin
3 SBOT: 21422500 SBOT: 13057620
Amy R. Harris 808 Travis St., 20th Floor
4 SBOT: 24041057 Houston, Texas 77002
109 N Post Oak Ln, Ste 300 Telephone: 713.632.1700
5 Houston, Texas 77024 Attorney for Respondent
Telephone: 713.785.1700 Connie Vasquez Harrison
6 Attorneys for Petitioner
Clifford Layne Harrison
7

8
Heather M. Hughes
9 SBOT: 00796794
952 Echo Lane, Suite 475
10 Houston, Texas 77024
Telephone: 713.463.5505
11 Amicus Attorney

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 3

1 VOLUME 1 OF 1

2 CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX

3

4 May 30, 2014 Page Vol.

5

6 Appearances...................................2 1

7 Chronological Index...........................3 1

8 Proceedings...................................4 1

9 Court Reporter's Certification................72 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 53

1 MS. WICOFF: Objection, Your Honor. What is

2 the relevance for this other than trying to persuade the

3 Court that this is a bad person?

4 MR. MARTIN: It's directly relevant under

5 the code with respect to possession issues concerning

6 the children. The code makes it specifically relevant

7 with respect to the transfer of presumptions or whether

8 there is a repetitive course of conduct, which the law

9 indicates that one criminal conviction is directly

10 relevant to these exact kind of issues.

11 THE COURT: Okay. And you're saying or are

12 you about to assert that whatever action, activity,

13 court orders, convictions that occurred in 2007 or

14 earlier were directly related to Ms. Harrison's

15 abilities to adequately mediate these issues in January

16 of this year?

17 MR. MARTIN: No, sir.

18 THE COURT: So for what reason is it

19 relevant to this proceeding?

20 MR. MARTIN: To the extent the Court

21 believes that the MSA is not binding, which is our

22 primary argument that we think the MSA resolves all of

23 this and we don't even need to be here, but it's an

24 alternative argument in the event the Court disagrees

25 with that and we just consider the merits, the family

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 54

1 code indicates that it's a factor in Ms. Harrison's

2 favor.

3 MS. WICOFF: I renew my objection, Your

4 Honor.

5 THE COURT: As a factor how, please? I just

6 don't follow, Mr. Martin.

7 MR. MARTIN: Well if -- hypothetically if

8 there were no Mediated Settlement Agreement, Family Code

9 Section 153.004 indicates that the Court has to consider

10 the commission of family violence in resolving issues

11 like this. Since we wanted the record to be clear for

12 the Court that to the extent that the Court is complying

13 with 153, that that evidence was in the record.

14 MS. WICOFF: May I respond, Judge?

15 THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.

16 MS. WICOFF: You know, they're damned if

17 they do; they're damned if they don't. In one breath

18 they say they want to enforce the MSA, in the other

19 breath they say they don't. If they don't think she has

20 the mental capacity, which they have made a judicial

21 admission that she does not have in order to make the

22 best decisions for these children -- a judicial

23 admission, it's in their pleadings. They filed it with

24 this court, she does not have the mental capacity to

25 make decisions in the best interest of these children.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 55

1 We can either accept that judicial admission as a

2 stipulation, or we can rely on what was filed recently

3 that says -- and the representation before the Court

4 that everybody recognizes this MSA is signed, sealed,

5 delivered before the Court, signed off on and everybody

6 should follow it. I don't know on any given minute what

7 their position is going to be with regard to this MSA.

8 One minute we have one, the next minute we don't.

9 So Judge, I renew my objection. Either

10 you've got to find based on her judicial admission she

11 doesn't have the capacity to do the right thing for

12 these children or on any other thing that you may have

13 heard during the testimony of this case, particularly

14 from Ms. Gallagher. But anyway, that's my objection.

15 MR. MARTIN: Well, despite the

16 unprofessionalism of the last diatribe, which I object

17 to, I don't know what you're talking about in terms of

18 stipulation. But for the record our position is the MSA

19 is binding and fully enforceable. Mr. Newman filed a

20 motion to set it aside. It's never been set for

21 hearing, it's never been ruled on by the Court. We're

22 asking this Court to rule on that previously-filed

23 motion by prior counsel. We are asking this Court to

24 enforce the MSA as written as I argued during my opening

25 summary.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 56

1 MS. WICOFF: Then I would renew my

2 objection.

3 MR. MARTIN: And I simply was pointing out

4 an alternative to the extent the Court disagrees with

5 that. I just simply wanted to establish the record.

6 THE COURT: Overruled, and I will accept the

7 testimony as given with regard to prior acts or criminal

8 factors.

9 Q. (BY MR. MARTIN) And just so the record is clear,

10 there is a criminal conviction for family violence --

11 A. No.

12 Q. -- against you and Ms. Harrison?

13 A. No, sir, there is not.

14 Q. You pled guilty, didn't you, sir?

15 A. No, I did not.

16 Q. How was it resolved?

17 A. There was a dismissal. Deferred adjudication and

18 a dismissal.

19 Q. Okay. And you got deferred adjudication on the

20 assault and battery charge; correct?

21 A. Whatever the charge was, it was dismissed, yes,

22 sir.

23 Q. Okay. Well, it's your position with respect to

24 the proposed order before the Court that you be allowed

25 to e-mail the Court as much as you want -- I'm sorry --

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 72

1 STATE OF TEXAS

2 COUNTY OF HARRIS

3

4 I, Angela N. McBride, Deputy Court Reporter in

5 and for the 311th District Court of Harris, State of

6 Texas, do hereby certify that the foregoing contains a

7 true and correct transcription of all portions of

8 evidence and other proceedings requested in writing by

9 counsel for the parties to be included in this volume of

10 the Reporter's Record, in the above-styled and numbered

11 cause, all of which occurred in open court or in

12 chambers and were reported by me.

13 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of

14 the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the

15 exhibits, if any, admitted, tendered in an offer of

16 proof or offered into evidence.

17 I further certify that the total cost for the

18 preparation of the Reporter's Record is $100.00 and was

19 paid by Ms. Connie Vasquez Harrison.

20 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 26th day of

21 March, 2015.

22 ___/s/ Angela N. McBride______
Angela N. McBride, CSR
23 Texas CSR 7026
Deputy Court Reporter
24 7818 West Road
Houston, Texas 77064
25 Telephone: (713) 849-5084
Expiration: 12/31/15

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 1

1 REPORTER'S RECORD

2 VOLUME 1 OF 2

3 COURT CAUSE NO. 2006-68864

4

5 IN THE MATTER OF * IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE MARRIAGE OF *
6 *
CLIFFORD LAYNE HARRISON *
7 AND * HARRIS COUNTY, T E X A S
CONNIE VASQUEZ HARRISON *
8 *
AND IN THE INTEREST OF *
9 JOHN EARNEST LEE *
HARRISON, II., AND *
10 VICTORIA MADELINE *
HARRISON, *
11 MINOR CHILDREN * 311TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

12

13 ********************************************************

14 REPORTER'S RECORD

15 ********************************************************

16

17 On the 3rd day of September, 2014, the following

18 proceeding came to be heard in the above-titled and

19 numbered cause before the Honorable Robert Newey,

20 presiding, held in Houston, Harris, Texas:

21 Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype

22 machine.

23

24

25

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 2

1 A P P E A R A N C E S

2
Patricia A. Wicoff Christopher W. Martin
3 SBOT: 21422500 SBOT: 13057620
Amy R. Harris 808 Travis St., 20th Floor
4 SBOT: 24041057 Houston, Texas 77002
109 N Post Oak Ln, Ste 300 Telephone: 713.632.1700
5 Houston, Texas 77024 Attorney for Respondent
Telephone: 713.785.1700 Connie Vasquez Harrison
6 Attorneys for Petitioner
Clifford Layne Harrison
7

8
Heather M. Hughes
9 SBOT: 00796794
952 Echo Lane, Suite 475
10 Houston, Texas 77024
Telephone: 713.463.5505
11 Amicus Attorney

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 3

1 VOLUME 1 OF 2

2 CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX

3

4 September 3, 2014 Page Vol.

5

6 Appearances...................................2 1

7 Chronological Index/Examination Index.........3 1

8 Exhibit Index.................................4 1

9 Proceedings...................................5 1

10 Court Reporter's Certification................37 1

11

12 EXAMINATION INDEX

13 DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

14 CLIFFORD L. HARRISON

15 By Ms. Wicoff 8

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 4

1 EXHIBIT INDEX

2

3 OFFERED BY THE PETITIONER

4 NO. DESCRIPTION OFFERED ADMITTED VOL.

5 34 Handwritten Letter 21 21 1

6

7 50 Motion to Set Aside 23 23 1

8 Purported Mediated

9 Settlement Agreement

10 On Parent Child Issues

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 5

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 THE COURT: The Court calls Cause No.

3 2006-68864, Clifford Harrison, Connie Harrison.

4 Counsel, identify yourselves for the record,

5 please.

6 MS. WICOFF: Your Honor, I'm Patricia A.

7 Wicoff together with Amy Harris representing Movant in

8 the habeas corpus, the Movant in the enforcement action,

9 and the Movant for mental examination, Mr. Clifford

10 Layne Harrison.

11 MS. HUGHES: Your Honor, I'm Heather Hughes,

12 amicus attorney for the two children John and Victoria.

13 MR. MARTIN: And I'm Christopher Martin,

14 previous counsel for Connie Harrison. As of this

15 morning we've filed a motion to withdraw myself and my

16 law firm as counsel of record for Ms. Harrison and a

17 motion to continue this hearing based upon our

18 withdrawal.

19 THE COURT: I'm curious about something.

20 Yesterday the Court signed an order to appear on 9-25-14

21 at 9:00 a.m. What is that?

22 MS. HARRIS: That's an additional contempt,

23 Judge.

24 THE COURT: Okay. So that's another

25 enforcement.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 6

1 MS. HARRIS: It's an additional enforcement,

2 Judge.

3 MS. WICOFF: It's another enforcement,

4 Judge.

5 MR. MARTIN: I haven't seen it.

6 THE COURT: So you want to deal with your

7 motion to withdraw first?

8 MR. MARTIN: Yes, sir.

9 THE COURT: Okay. So how do you as -- I

10 understand it you filed it last night?

11 MR. MARTIN: Early this morning.

12 THE COURT: Early this morning.

13 MR. MARTIN: Yes, sir.

14 THE COURT: You had a telephone conversation

15 with your client last night?

16 MR. MARTIN: At 11:00 p.m., yes, sir.

17 THE COURT: And you advised her that you

18 were filing a motion to withdraw?

19 MR. MARTIN: Yes.

20 THE COURT: So if I grant it now, is that --

21 has she had enough notice? I mean, she might not like

22 the language that's included in the motion. I don't

23 know.

24 MR. MARTIN: Without waiving my

25 attorney-client privilege, Your Honor, I can say that I

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 7

1 do not have any consent from Ms. Harrison to be here to

2 represent her, to speak on her behalf.

3 THE COURT: Today.

4 MR. MARTIN: Today.

5 THE COURT: Regardless of whether you

6 withdraw or not.

7 MR. MARTIN: Correct. In fact there have

8 been discussions about walking out of court and not

9 appearing, and I have my client's consent to do that.

10 THE COURT: All right. What I'm going to do

11 is allow you to do whatever you need to do, but I'm

12 going to reset your motion to withdraw until Friday to

13 give you an opportunity to give her appropriate notice.

14 MR. MARTIN: Of course.

15 THE COURT: You can then choose to stay or

16 leave. That's up to you.

17 MR. MARTIN: Today you mean or as of Friday?

18 THE COURT: Right now.

19 MR. MARTIN: I won't stay just too long, but

20 I'm not here to represent her.

21 THE COURT: All right. So you're not going

22 to ask any questions, take any position -- take any

23 position?

24 MR. MARTIN: No. I'm not here to represent

25 her.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 8

1 THE COURT: Any objection to that?

2 MS. WICOFF: No objection.

3 MS. HUGHES: No, Your Honor.

4 THE COURT: That leaves us now with the

5 emergency motion to change custody.

6 MS. WICOFF: Correct. And I have

7 Mr. Harrison here.

8 THE COURT: Let's hear some evidence on

9 that.

10 MS. WICOFF: Mr. Harrison, can you come up?

11 THE COURT: Raise your right hand, please.

12 (Oath administered.)

13 THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

14 MS. WICOFF: Your Honor.

15 DIRECT EXAMINATION

16 BY MS. WICOFF:

17 Q. State your name.

18 A. Clifford Layne Harrison.

19 Q. You are the father of John Harrison and Victoria

20 Harrison?

21 A. I am.

22 Q. You are a joint managing conservator pursuant to

23 temporary orders; is that correct?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. Sir, you have filed a motion asking this Court to

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 9

1 immediately designate you as the sole -- temporary sole

2 managing conservator of these two minor children or as

3 the joint managing conservator who establishes the

4 residence of these children; is that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Sir, can you tell me briefly what has occurred

7 since January of 2014 which you believe has been

8 injurious to the welfare, emotional or physical welfare

9 of your children at the direct supervision and

10 instruction of Connie Harrison?

11 A. It is probably not possible to tell you briefly.

12 Q. Well, tell the Court why you are asking for an

13 immediate change of custody.

14 A. There have been many, many occasions where she

15 has unilaterally decided to withhold the children, not

16 turn them over. She has violated court orders, she has

17 violated Mediated Settlement Agreements, she has then

18 violated the order that implemented the Mediated

19 Settlement Agreement. She has gotten the kids kicked

20 out of school by causing disruptions at the school in

21 violation of the Mediated Settlement Agreement.

22 Q. Let me stop you a minute with regard to the

23 school issue. Your children were life-long attendees at

24 Second Baptist School; is that correct?

25 A. That's correct.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 10

1 Q. And when you say she unilaterally got them kicked

2 out, the children were prohibited from returning to

3 Second Baptist; correct?

4 A. Right.

5 Q. And we were -- had a temporary hearing before the

6 Honorable Tom Stansbury in June of 2014 of this year; is

7 that correct?

8 A. That's right.

9 Q. And at that time, the principal from Second

10 Baptist came and testified; correct?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. And in that testimony which we have reduced to a

13 court reporter's transcript, did the Second Baptist

14 principal state that but for the actions of Connie

15 Harrison that the children would still be back at Second

16 Baptist?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. All right. Did Judge Stansbury make a ruling

19 that you were to have the right to enroll the children

20 either in Briar Grove or -- Victoria in Briar Grove

21 Elementary School and enroll John in Grady Middle

22 School?

23 A. First of all, it was a ruling that gave me the

24 exclusive right to try and enroll them in First Baptist

25 Academy which was --

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 11

1 THE COURT: Was an official order entered?

2 MS. HARRIS: Yes.

3 MS. WICOFF: Yes. I have that order, Judge,

4 if you would like a copy of it.

5 THE COURT: Let me see if I can find it.

6 Give me the date of the order.

7 MS. WICOFF: While she's pulling that, you

8 want me to wait?

9 THE COURT: That occurred in May?

10 MS. WICOFF: I believe in June, Judge.

11 MS. HARRIS: The hearing was May 27th.

12 MS. WICOFF: Oh, was it? I'm sorry. Here

13 is a copy of it, Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: I think I have it, but then

15 Judge Stansbury signed an order on May 30th.

16 MS. HARRIS: That's it, Judge.

17 MS. WICOFF: Here is a hard copy, Judge.

18 THE COURT: I think that's it.

19 MS. WICOFF: Actually there may be two

20 there.

21 THE COURT: It is. I have it. I found it

22 on the screen.

23 MS. WICOFF: May I proceed?

24 THE COURT: You may.

25 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) Mr. Harrison, so you were

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 12

1 initially authorized to try and get the children into

2 First Baptist Academy; is that correct?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. The children were not admitted to First Baptist

5 Academy after they spoke with Second Baptist; is that

6 accurate?

7 A. That is correct.

8 Q. And the order further provided that the children

9 were to go to the public school if they were not

10 admitted to First Baptist Academy, that they were to go

11 to the public school to which you, your residence, is

12 zoned; is that correct?

13 A. That is correct.

14 Q. That is Briar Grove?

15 A. Briar Grove Elementary.

16 Q. And that is Grady Middle School; is that correct?

17 A. And Grady, yes.

18 Q. And additionally you have since found out that

19 Connie Harrison has violated that order; is that

20 correct?

21 A. That's correct.

22 Q. Your son is not enrolled in Grady Middle School,

23 is he?

24 A. I found that out on Thursday when I went to pick

25 him up that he was not even enrolled.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 13

1 THE COURT: Okay. Hold on a minute. As I'm

2 reading this order on May 30th, you were given

3 permission to enroll the children at First Baptist

4 Academy.

5 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

6 THE COURT: And she was not to interfere

7 with that in any way.

8 THE WITNESS: That's correct.

9 THE COURT: I wasn't listening carefully

10 enough to what you just told me. What happened then?

11 THE WITNESS: Well, I went to First Baptist.

12 It was a process. I submitted everything, and they

13 interviewed us, they interviewed the kids, took the kids

14 up there, took a tour, met with the principals of both

15 the lower school and the middle school, submitted the

16 test scores, the transcripts, letters of recommendation

17 from Second Baptist. Did everything that we needed to

18 do. Unfortunately --

19 THE COURT: At First Baptist or Second

20 Baptist?

21 THE WITNESS: They were at Second, and so

22 Second Baptist teachers had to write letters of

23 recommendation to First Baptist where I was trying to

24 get them -- where I was trying to get them admitted.

25 And then some time in June they sent me an e-mail saying

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 14

1 they would not be offering a contract of attendance.

2 THE COURT: Did they offer any explanation?

3 THE WITNESS: No.

4 THE COURT: They just said no?

5 THE WITNESS: They just said no.

6 THE COURT: So we don't know what role, if

7 any, Ms. Harrison played in that decision?

8 THE WITNESS: Judge, all I can tell you is

9 the very first question they ask is the very first

10 question any private school would ask, and that is have

11 these kids ever been basically kicked out of any of --

12 or denied admittance to any other schools, and I had to

13 tell them yes.

14 THE COURT: So you think First Baptist

15 denied the request to enroll because they were out of

16 Second Baptist?

17 THE WITNESS: I don't think there's any

18 other reason for it. Yes, sir. I think that's the only

19 conclusion to be drawn.

20 THE COURT: All right. Continue.

21 MS. WICOFF: Thank you.

22 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) So pursuant to the order signed

23 by Judge Stansbury on May 30th, when your children were

24 not able to go to First Baptist Academy, did you enroll

25 both children, or did you enroll Victoria in Briar Grove

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 15

1 and did you enroll John at Grady?

2 A. Yes.

3 THE COURT: All right. Now, under what

4 authority were you doing that?

5 THE WITNESS: This order that says if they

6 don't go to First Baptist then -- as I think it's down

7 toward the bottom, then they would be --

8 THE COURT: All right. You got that they

9 could go to a school where you were zoned?

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

11 THE COURT: All right. That's the last

12 paragraph of the May 30th order signed by Judge

13 Stansbury.

14 MS. WICOFF: Correct.

15 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

16 THE COURT: All right.

17 A. I couldn't --

18 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) Did you find out -- so you did

19 what you were supposed to do pursuant to the temporary

20 order; is that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And sir, have you since learned that Connie

23 Harrison has not taken the children -- has not taken

24 John to Grady Middle School?

25 A. Yes.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 16

1 Q. Okay. When did you find out that he was not

2 enrolled at the school that he was ordered to be

3 enrolled in pursuant to Judge Stansbury's order?

4 A. Well, if I can back up just a second. I enrolled

5 him in early August. I went up there, I filled out all

6 the forms, gave them the utility bills, my driver's

7 license showing my residence. I enrolled him. I got

8 the packet -- the summer packet of assignments he had to

9 do in several different subjects. I bought his school

10 supplies, got some uniforms for him. He was --

11 Q. Ready.

12 A. He was enrolled. And I e-mailed Connie, told her

13 I had this stuff, told her she needed to pick up this

14 packet of summer assignments that he needed to do, that

15 he had some required reading he had to do. Never heard

16 a word. It was not until last -- the last Tuesday we

17 were here, and my understanding was that the Court

18 ordered her to allow me to pick up the kids from school

19 on Thursday, last Thursday because it was my weekend.

20 Great. The first time I'd seen them in six weeks. So

21 first I go to -- it's a long answer and I apologize.

22 Q. All right. Shorten it.

23 A. I go to Briar Grove to pick up Victoria and they

24 said she was absent. I left Briar Grove and I went to

25 Grady Middle School, and I drove through the carpool. I

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 17

1 had been to orientation a few weeks earlier, and they

2 told me I had to --

3 Q. Was John there?

4 A. I got up there, he was not there.

5 Q. Did you find out he wasn't even attending Grady

6 as ordered by the Court?

7 A. My first thought was that whether --

8 THE COURT: Is that a yes or a no?

9 THE WITNESS: It's a yes.

10 THE COURT: Stay with us. I know this is a

11 troubling time for you, but if you'll just answer

12 Ms. Wicoff's questions, we will get through this a lot

13 quicker.

14 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) Mr. Harrison, up until the

15 amicus attorney informed you, did you even know where

16 your son was in middle school?

17 A. No. I found out through her that he was not

18 enrolled at Grady and that she didn't know where he was.

19 Q. And did you also find out that you -- even though

20 the Court ordered Ms. Harrison for you to have your

21 visitation commencing this last Thursday, Ms. Harrison

22 pulled Victoria out of school that day so you could not

23 see her?

24 A. I found that Victoria was absent Thursday and

25 Friday, yes.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 18

1 Q. So she's missed two days out of the first week of

2 school; is that correct?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. Do we know whether she's in school today?

5 A. I have no idea.

6 Q. Sir, you have filed three contempts against

7 Connie Harrison in three years; is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. We have a fourth contempt that has been filed

10 with a process server here today to serve her; is that

11 correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Can you tell the Court approximately how many

14 times, how many days you have missed of visitation just

15 this summer -- well, just since the first of the year?

16 A. January 27th --

17 Q. How many days?

18 A. 21.

19 Q. Sir, and am I correct -- now, there was some kind

20 of physical altercation in June; is that correct?

21 A. July.

22 Q. July? All right.

23 THE COURT: Of this year?

24 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

25 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) And had you gone to get your

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 19

1 children?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Did Connie Harrison get out of her car and attack

4 the lady that you were with?

5 A. She did.

6 Q. Did she take your cell phone from you?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Were the police called?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. The police did not want charges filed; is that

11 correct?

12 A. That's correct.

13 Q. Ms. Harrison has pursued relentlessly the DA's

14 office to get this matter moving forward; is that

15 correct?

16 A. That is correct.

17 Q. And you're aware of that?

18 A. I am.

19 Q. And you're aware of the activities that she has

20 engaged in; is that correct?

21 THE COURT: Yes or no?

22 A. I think I've just seen the tip of the iceberg of

23 what she's been engaged in.

24 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) Mr. Harrison, do you believe --

25 you got a letter from your son John -- you got a letter

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 20

1 from your son John; is that correct?

2 A. It looks likes it was in his handwriting. It was

3 a -- it was e-mailed to me from an Office Depot.

4 Q. All right, sir. Is the letter --

5 THE COURT: It was an attachment to an

6 e-mail?

7 THE WITNESS: It was an attachment to an

8 e-mail that I received from an Office Depot.

9 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) Sir, the letter -- and we're

10 getting the letter. The letter that you received, did

11 it sound like something that your son would have

12 composed?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Do you believe that Connie Harrison has engaged

15 in consistently ever since you filed for divorce back in

16 2006 a conscientious effort to alienate you from your

17 children and your children from you?

18 A. I do.

19 Q. Let me hand you Petitioner's Exhibit No. 34. Is

20 this a copy of the letter that allegedly John Harrison

21 sent to you?

22 A. Yes. It looks like it's his handwriting except

23 the date is in Connie's handwriting.

24 Q. All right. So it's partly in Connie's

25 handwriting and partly in your son's?

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 21

1 A. It appears to be, yes.

2 MS. WICOFF: Your Honor, I would tender

3 Exhibit 34.

4 MS. HUGHES: No objection, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: All right. 34 will be admitted.

6 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) Is this the kind of emotional

7 abuse that you think both of these children are

8 undergoing under the hands of Connie Harrison?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Do you think this is damaging to your children?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Are you concerned about their ongoing emotional

13 wellbeing?

14 A. Absolutely.

15 Q. Do you believe that Connie Harrison is mentally

16 deranged at this point?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Do you think her judgment is impaired with

19 regards to these children?

20 A. Absolutely.

21 Q. In fact she even acknowledged in her own motion

22 to set aside an MSA that she could not make decisions

23 with regard to the best interest of these children, did

24 she not?

25 A. She did.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 22

1 Q. And that's in a pleading in the court; correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Okay. That is in her motion to set aside

4 Mediated Settlement Agreement; is that accurate?

5 A. Yes.

6 THE COURT: When was that filed?

7 MS. WICOFF: Your Honor, I have a copy for

8 you.

9 THE COURT: Just tell me when it was filed.

10 MS. WICOFF: Well, I don't know that mine is

11 file marked.

12 MS. HARRIS: Probably March or --

13 THE COURT: What's the certificate of

14 service?

15 MS. HARRIS: March 13th, Judge.

16 MS. WICOFF: I can submit a hard copy,

17 Judge.

18 MS. HARRIS: It was filed by Mr. Newman,

19 Judge.

20 MS. WICOFF: Mr. Bobby Newman filed it when

21 he was representing her.

22 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) Sir, I'm going to hand you

23 what's been marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 50. Is this

24 the motion that Ms. Harrison filed by and through her

25 attorney Bobby Newman?

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 23

1 A. Yes.

2 MS. WICOFF: Judge, here is a hard copy if

3 you would like to see it.

4 THE COURT: That would be helpful. Thank

5 you.

6 MS. WICOFF: And I would direct your

7 attention, Judge, to Page 2, Paragraph No. 3 where

8 Connie Harrison states a judicial admission, Connie

9 Harrison has been a victim of family violence and that

10 circumstances surrounding the family violence -- now

11 this is something that she would have been referring to

12 that occurred in 2006, eight years ago -- impaired her

13 ability to make decisions, and the Mediated Settlement

14 Agreement is not in the best interest of the children.

15 THE COURT: The court notes that is in the

16 pleadings, Exhibit C as it's marked. And also

17 Petitioner's Exhibit 50 doesn't appear to have a file

18 stamp on it, but I'm going to accept Counsel's

19 representation that this was timely filed --

20 MS. WICOFF: It was --

21 THE COURT: -- by Mr. Newman on behalf of

22 Ms. Harrison. All right.

23 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) Sir, in addition to not having

24 been able to see your children -- how many days did you

25 say it was?

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 24

1 THE COURT: 21.

2 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) 21 days since the --

3 THE COURT: 21.

4 A. Well, it's a total of 21 days. I haven't seen

5 John in several weeks.

6 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) All right. Have you been able

7 to communicate with them by phone?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Have you tried to communicate with them by phone?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Have you tried to communicate with them by text?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Have you been successful?

14 A. John has not responded. I have received

15 responses from Victoria's phone that clearly came from

16 Connie.

17 Q. Okay. And when you say they clearly came from

18 Connie, how do you know they clearly came from Connie?

19 A. There are things that are misspelled that

20 Victoria would never misspell. It's clearly that

21 Victoria did not write the responses.

22 Q. All right, sir. We have had multiple -- we've

23 had multiple efforts to try and serve her with various

24 pleadings; is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 25

1 Q. She avoids service?

2 A. She does.

3 Q. All right. Constables have been to her home and

4 she refuses to come to the door?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Even though her car is in the driveway?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. All right. Sir, tell the Court what other

9 reasons you believe your children are at risk under any

10 continuing ongoing care by Connie Harrison.

11 A. Her behavior has deteriorated such over the last

12 few months that I don't really know what she's capable

13 of doing anymore. She is --

14 THE COURT: Is she employed?

15 MS. WICOFF: No.

16 THE WITNESS: That's a good question too.

17 You can't get a straight answer on any of these

18 questions from her.

19 MS. WICOFF: She's a licensed attorney.

20 THE WITNESS: I think she is still licensed.

21 THE COURT: Is she still active?

22 MS. HARRIS: She is active.

23 MS. WICOFF: Her license is still --

24 THE COURT: She's kept her license alive?

25 MS. HUGHES: Last time I checked, Your

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 26

1 Honor.

2 THE COURT: All right.

3 A. She is very controlling, she is very

4 manipulative, she has sole and total control over the

5 children and has prevented all access and --

6 THE COURT: I got that.

7 A. But my concern is that the reason is she is

8 attempting to alienate them from me, God knows what

9 she's telling them. I do know as an example that her --

10 that my niece Victoria's cousin tried to text Victoria

11 because she missed her and was worried about her, and

12 Connie took Victoria's phone and texted my 14-year-old

13 niece with pictures of these injuries and saying, look

14 what Daddy did to me, that kind of stuff we're dealing

15 with.

16 She's extremely dishonest, she's never told the

17 truth about I don't think anything in her life, she

18 doesn't listen to anybody, she continues to violate

19 order after order after order, she ignores direct orders

20 of this Court even when she's standing here being

21 ordered to do something. She has refused to allow them

22 to attend the schools to which they are zoned, taking

23 them to different schools and then prohibits all access

24 to the kids. They are at these different schools. I

25 don't know if she's going to run off to Fort Stockton

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 27

1 with them, I don't know what she's going to do, I don't

2 know what she's capable of.

3 THE COURT: What is in Fort Stockton?

4 THE WITNESS: Her family. That's where

5 she's from, about eight hours away, and they often go

6 out there. And she has testified under oath that she --

7 THE COURT: Hold on a minute. Ms. Hughes,

8 do you have any questions?

9 MS. HUGHES: No, Your Honor.

10 THE COURT: Anything further?

11 MS. WICOFF: Nothing further, Judge. Unless

12 there is more examples.

13 THE COURT: The Court is going to grant the

14 emergency motion to change custody instanter. I will

15 need an order. I will grant a capias for her arrest for

16 not appearing as she was sworn to reappear on this date.

17 What else?

18 MS. HUGHES: I have a request, Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: All right.

20 MS. HUGHES: That Mr. Harrison's girlfriend

21 just in the interim not be around the children. It's

22 been some time since they have seen their father. I

23 think it's --

24 THE COURT: Are you living with this woman?

25 THE WITNESS: No.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 28

1 THE COURT: Any objection to that request?

2 MS. WICOFF: No.

3 THE WITNESS: It just depends on how long it

4 is.

5 THE COURT: That will be an injunction. Add

6 it as an injunction.

7 MS. HARRIS: For how long, Judge?

8 THE COURT: I'm sorry?

9 MS. HARRIS: For how long?

10 THE COURT: Until further order of the

11 Court.

12 MS. WICOFF: Heather, do you have a

13 recommendation?

14 MS. HUGHES: I don't. I want to -- I mean,

15 I've only visited with Victoria yesterday at the school,

16 but I just -- I don't want to add more moving pieces.

17 MS. WICOFF: Can we sort of give the ad

18 litem the opportunity to meet with the kids and then

19 maybe make a recommendation as to whether we need to

20 continue this?

21 THE COURT: Once the children are

22 transferred to Mr. Harrison then -- and he doesn't

23 appear to be hostile to the ad litem. I assume he will

24 work out a time or times for Ms. Hughes to visit with

25 the children. It's certainly needed.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 29

1 MS. HARRIS: We have.

2 THE COURT: I do think that we need the

3 parties psychologically evaluated.

4 MS. WICOFF: I agree.

5 THE COURT: And I will grant that relief,

6 but it will be mutual and it will include the children.

7 There's no telling how much damage has been done for

8 whatever the reasons are. So include that.

9 MS. WICOFF: Judge, we had tried to see if

10 Dr. Silverman was available. As you can anticipate, he

11 can't even see them. We have a January trial setting.

12 He can't even see them until December.

13 THE COURT: Ms. Hughes, who do you think

14 ought to do the mental evaluation?

15 MS. HUGHES: Your Honor, there is a lady in

16 Dr. Silverman's office named Dr. Tinder. I've got her

17 on a case right now. She seems to be responsive. I

18 know that she's relatively new.

19 THE COURT: Has anybody used the

20 psychologist or -- Joan Anderson?

21 MS. HUGHES: The group of three that she's

22 working with?

23 THE COURT: We referred -- you know, that

24 was several months ago. I wondered if anybody had any

25 experience with her.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 30

1 MS. WICOFF: No.

2 MS. HARRIS: We haven't yet.

3 MS. WICOFF: I'll tell you, and Counsel just

4 reminded me. There are two people, really. One that I

5 know because I checked with his office to find out if he

6 could get it done was Dr. Harrison -- was Kit Harrison.

7 The other one is a gentleman named Peter Simone who is

8 in the general vicinity of where the parties live. I

9 don't know if you know Dr. Simone.

10 THE COURT: I don't. We're always looking

11 for new qualified forensic evaluators.

12 MS. HUGHES: May I look into that --

13 MS. WICOFF: We're going to.

14 MS. HUGHES: -- before we commit?

15 THE COURT: How quickly can we get an order?

16 MS. HUGHES: Friday. We can work on that

17 tomorrow.

18 THE COURT: I'm going to give you --

19 MS. WICOFF: With regard to the mental

20 health?

21 THE COURT: All of these orders.

22 MS. WICOFF: We can get it all by Friday.

23 THE COURT: All right. I'll give you an

24 entry date for Friday.

25 MS. HUGHES: Your Honor, I also have a

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 31

1 request.

2 THE COURT: All right.

3 MS. HUGHES: I don't anticipate it being a

4 problem, but if the order can also include a provision

5 that I am allowed to visit with the children at the

6 school and maybe with some directive to the school

7 administration.

8 THE COURT: Any objection to that?

9 MS. WICOFF: No. She needs it because she

10 was denied access previously.

11 THE COURT: Include authorization language.

12 Now, you had suggested or referenced to the district

13 attorney's office. Does that have to come from the

14 Court?

15 MS. WICOFF: Judge, it really should come

16 from you because otherwise it's going to look like a

17 knee-jerk reaction by Mr. Harrison. It needs to come

18 from the Court. The Court needs --

19 MS. HARRIS: We have investigated that.

20 THE COURT: The question I have is, how much

21 effect will it have coming from an associate judge as

22 opposed to a district judge.

23 MS. WICOFF: I think it will be fine, Judge.

24 THE COURT: All right.

25 MS. WICOFF: And you may want to talk to

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 32

1 Judge Franklin about it, but clearly she has violated

2 that penal code.

3 THE COURT: Factually, you know, I'm

4 assuming because I think I have to that the testimony is

5 all true. And if it is, and I have heard disregard for

6 various court orders, she is obviously in the Court's

7 opinion interfering with Mr. Harrison's rights to these

8 children.

9 The only question I have is what does it

10 take to get the district attorney essentially involved.

11 MS. WICOFF: I don't know, Judge, but I

12 would encourage you to if you believe that, that I would

13 ask that you pursue that, discuss it with Judge Franklin

14 and that it be --

15 THE COURT: I will work behind the scenes

16 with Judge Franklin.

17 MS. WICOFF: And that it be done quickly.

18 THE COURT: All right.

19 MS. WICOFF: Because quite frankly I'm

20 concerned that she might have fled with the children at

21 this point.

22 THE COURT: I don't know where she is.

23 She's certainly not here, and she was ordered to be

24 here.

25 MS. WICOFF: Well, the reason I have that

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 33

1 concern, Judge, is because apparently the constable has

2 gone to the schools this morning to get the children and

3 we --

4 THE COURT: Okay, Ms. Wicoff. I've got the

5 same concern. That's one of the factors that I've taken

6 into consideration in granting the emergency transfer of

7 custody and also invited the references and approved the

8 writ of habeas corpus and the writs of attachment and

9 granted a capias.

10 MS. HARRIS: Judge, on the referral, if

11 you'll recall last week, Ms. Harrison told you that the

12 DA's office had amended the protective order to include

13 the children, they were just waiting on the imaging of

14 that order. That was not true. However, she continues

15 to badger and stalk these prosecutors.

16 THE COURT: Okay. I will see you with an

17 order on Friday.

18 MS. WICOFF: Judge, I do have one request.

19 THE COURT: I'm handing the exhibits to the

20 court reporter.

21 MS. WICOFF: Mr. Harrison is -- I mean, the

22 kids are -- if he gets the children --

23 MS. HARRIS: They are on the way.

24 MS. WICOFF: They are on the way? We are

25 going to need --

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 34

1 THE COURT: Wait a minute. They are on

2 their way where?

3 MS. WICOFF: To the courthouse.

4 MS. HARRIS: Here. The constable picked

5 them up at school this morning, Judge.

6 MS. WICOFF: That's good news. Judge, we

7 are going to need access somehow --

8 MS. HARRIS: At least John. They were

9 getting Victoria but --

10 MS. WICOFF: We are going to need the

11 children's uniforms and school --

12 MS. HUGHES: They don't have uniforms for

13 the middle school. Victoria's is khakis and a collared

14 shirt similar to what it was last year.

15 MS. WICOFF: We've probably got school

16 things here.

17 MS. HUGHES: I think that's the least of

18 these parties' worries.

19 THE COURT: That's the least of the Court's

20 worries. My suggestion is that Mr. Harrison go and get

21 what the children need, not from Ms. Harrison but just

22 generally.

23 THE WITNESS: Clothes -- if I may speak.

24 I'm not worried about clothes, but I'm concerned about

25 books, things of that nature that may be irreplaceable.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 35

1 THE COURT: Well, you may have to replace --

2 you may have to just replace everything.

3 MS. WICOFF: We just may have to. And

4 Judge, I assume there will be --

5 THE COURT: I'm going to recess this hearing

6 until the constable gets here with the children.

7 MS. WICOFF: All right. We'll just wait,

8 Judge.

9 THE COURT: All right.

10 MS. WICOFF: We'll just wait.

11 MR. MARTIN: What time would you like me

12 back on Friday?

13 THE COURT: Well, do you want to be here

14 when the children arrive -- or the child arrives?

15 MR. MARTIN: I can't give --

16 THE COURT: Because it's possible that your

17 client may be right behind them.

18 MR. MARTIN: That would be correct.

19 THE COURT: So the entry hearing will be at

20 9 o'clock on Friday morning. That's when we will have

21 your motion to withdraw.

22 MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Your Honor.

23 THE COURT: We will be in a very brief

24 recess.

25 (Short recess.)

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 36

1 MS. WICOFF: We came up about possession by

2 Ms. Harrison.

3 THE COURT: None.

4 MS. HUGHES: Unless there's a private

5 supervisor?

6 THE COURT: None.

7 (End of proceedings.)

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
 37

1 STATE OF TEXAS

2 COUNTY OF HARRIS

3

4 I, Angela N. McBride, Deputy Court Reporter in

5 and for the 311th District Court of Harris, State of

6 Texas, do hereby certify that the foregoing contains a

7 true and correct transcription of all portions of

8 evidence and other proceedings requested in writing by

9 counsel for the parties to be included in this volume of

10 the Reporter's Record, in the above-styled and numbered

11 cause, all of which occurred in open court or in

12 chambers and were reported by me.

13 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of

14 the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the

15 exhibits, if any, admitted, tendered in an offer of

16 proof or offered into evidence.

17 I further certify that the total cost for the

18 preparation of the Reporter's Record is $263.50 and was

19 paid by Ms. Connie Vasquez Harrison.

20 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 2nd day of

21 October, 2014.

22 ___Angela N. McBride /s/_______
Angela N. McBride, CSR
23 Texas CSR 7026
Deputy Court Reporter
24 7818 West Road
Houston, Texas 77064
25 Telephone: (713) 849-5084
Expiration: 12/31/15

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter
Un
of
fic
ial
C
opy
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
C
opy
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
o ffic
ial
C
op
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
o ffic
ial
C
op
yO
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
C
opy
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
ial
C
opy
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
i al
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
Un
of
fic
i al
Co
py
O
ffic
e
of
C
hr
is
Da
nie
lD
ist
ric
t Cl
er
k
 1

1 REPORTER'S RECORD
VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUMES
2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2006-68864
______ COURT OF APPEALS
3 APPELLATE CAUSE NO. _____________

4
)
5 IN THE MATTER OF THE ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT
MARRIAGE OF )
6 )
CONNIE VASQUEZ HARRISON )
7 AND CLIFFORD HARRISON )
) HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
8 AND IN THE INTEREST OF )
JOHN HARRISON AND )
9 VICTORIA HARRISON, )
MINOR CHILDREN. ) 311TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
10

11

12

13

14

15 ------------------------------

16 EXCERPT OF HEARING

17 ------------------------------

18

19 On the 16th day of January, 2015, the following

20 proceedings came on to be heard in the above-entitled

21 and numbered cause before the Honorable Alicia K.

22 Franklin, Judge presiding, held in Houston, Harris

23 County, Texas;

24 Proceedings reported in computerized stenotype by

25 Stephanie Wells, Official Court Reporter.

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969
 2

1 A P P E A R A N C E S

2
FOR THE PETITIONER:
3 SCHLANGER, SILVER, BARG & PAINE, LLP
109 North Post Oak Lane
4 Houston, Texas 77024
713.735.8514
5 BY: MS. PATRICIA A. WICOFF
-AND-
6 MS. AMY HARRIS

7 FOR THE RESPONDENT:
PRO SE
8

9 AMICUS:
M. HEATHER HUGHES LAW OFFICE
10 952 Echo Lane, Suite 410
Houston, Texas 77024
11 713.463.5505
BY: MS. M. HEATHER HUGHES
12

13 ALSO PRESENT:
CLIFFORD HARRISON
14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969
 3

1 INDEX
VOLUME 1 OF 1
2 (EXCERPT OF HEARING)

3 PAGE VOL.
JANUARY 16, 2015
4 Appearances................................... 2 1
Chronological Index........................... 3 1
5 Proceedings................................... 4 1
Reporter's Certificate........................ 7 1
6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969
 4

1 (The following is an excerpt from a

2 Hearing had on January 16, 2015.)

11:36 3 THE COURT: Ms. Harrison, listen to the

11:36 4 question: Every motion that you are asking the Court to

11:36 5 consider, have these all been filed on January 14th

11:37 6 2015, or thereafter? Have any of them been filed before

11:37 7 January 14th 2015?

11:37 8 THE RESPONDENT: I believe the request

11:37 9 for -- the request for hearings were filed January 13th.

11:37 10 THE COURT: Okay. You can't request a

11:37 11 hearing without having a motion. So, I'm asking on the

11:37 12 underlying documents that you are asking for hearings

11:37 13 on, were any of them filed before January 14th?

11:37 14 THE RESPONDENT: They --

11:37 15 THE COURT: "Yes" or "no"? "Yes" or "no"?

11:37 16 Were they?

11:37 17 THE RESPONDENT: They were filed, yes,

11:37 18 before January 14th.

11:37 19 THE COURT: Okay. Identify for me which

11:37 20 motions were filed before January 14th 2015.

11:37 21 THE RESPONDENT: The -- just the request

11:38 22 for oral hearings were filed. The motions had already

11:38 23 been filed. And I can -- I can let the Court know --

11:38 24 THE COURT: I asked you to identify those

11:38 25 for me.

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969
 5

11:38 1 THE RESPONDENT: Okay. There's a

11:38 2 Respondent's First Amended Emergency Motion for

11:38 3 Continuance.

11:38 4 THE COURT: That says January 14th 2015.

11:38 5 So, with regards to that request, that's denied. It's

11:38 6 not timely. We are set for trial January 20th 2015.

11:38 7 This is not timely. The Court is not going to hear it.

11:38 8 Next motion.

11:38 9 THE RESPONDENT: It was filed after the

11:38 10 withdraw, after the withdraw of the --

11:38 11 THE COURT: Ma'am. Ma'am. I am not going

11:38 12 to argue with you today. When I deny or grant whatever

11:38 13 is being requested, we are moving on. So, it's not an

11:38 14 option for you to continue to argue.

11:39 15 We're moving on to the next motion.

11:39 16 THE RESPONDENT: Respondent's Motion to

11:39 17 Enter the Mediated Settlement Agreement and For

11:39 18 Compliance.

11:39 19 THE COURT: Was filed when?

11:39 20 THE RESPONDENT: This was filed --

11:39 21 THE COURT: January 14th. It's not filed

11:39 22 timely. It's denied.

11:39 23 Let's move on.

11:39 24 THE RESPONDENT: May we hear it next week?

11:39 25 THE COURT: When I say it's denied, that

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969
 6

11:39 1 means we are not hearing it before trial.

11:39 2 MS. HARRIS: Judge, just for the record, we

11:39 3 have not even received a copy of that motion.

11:39 4 THE RESPONDENT: Yes, I've mailed you a

11:39 5 copy. Here's a copy for you right now.

11:39 6 THE COURT: Next motion, Mrs. Harrison.

7 (End of excerpt.)

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969
 7

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

2 THE STATE OF TEXAS )
COUNTY OF HARRIS )
3

4 I, Stephanie Wells, Official Court Reporter in and

5 for the 311th District Court of Harris County, State of

6 Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing

7 contains a true and correct transcription of all

8 portions of evidence and other proceedings requested in

9 writing by counsel for the parties to be included in

10 this volume of the Reporter's Record, in the

11 above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred

12 in open court or in chambers and were reported by me.

13 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of

14 the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the

15 exhibits, if any, admitted by the respective parties.

16 I further certify that the total cost for the

17 preparation of this Reporter's Record is $35.00 and was

18 paid by ____________________.

19 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 24th day of

20 March, 2015.

21
/s/ Stephanie Wells
22 ___________________________________
Stephanie Wells, Texas CSR 2700
23 Expiration Date: 12/31/2015
Official Court Reporter
24 311th District Court
301 Caroline, 8th Floor
25 Houston, Texas 77002
713.562.6969

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969
 1

1 REPORTER'S RECORD
VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUMES
2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2006-68864
______ COURT OF APPEALS
3 APPELLATE CAUSE NO. _____________

4
)
5 IN THE MATTER OF THE ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT
MARRIAGE OF )
6 )
CONNIE VASQUEZ HARRISON )
7 AND CLIFFORD HARRISON )
) HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
8 AND IN THE INTEREST OF )
JOHN HARRISON AND )
9 VICTORIA HARRISON, )
MINOR CHILDREN. ) 311TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
10

11

12

13

14

15 ------------------------------

16 EXCERPT OF TRIAL

17 ------------------------------

18

19 On the 20th day of January, 2015, the following

20 proceedings came on to be heard in the above-entitled

21 and numbered cause before the Honorable Alicia K.

22 Franklin, Judge presiding, held in Houston, Harris

23 County, Texas;

24 Proceedings reported in computerized stenotype by

25 Stephanie Wells, Official Court Reporter.

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969
 2

1 A P P E A R A N C E S

2
FOR THE PETITIONER:
3 SCHLANGER, SILVER, BARG & PAINE, LLP
109 North Post Oak Lane
4 Houston, Texas 77024
713.735.8514
5 BY: MS. PATRICIA A. WICOFF
-AND-
6 MS. AMY HARRIS

7 FOR THE RESPONDENT:
PRO SE
8

9 AMICUS:
M. HEATHER HUGHES LAW OFFICE
10 952 Echo Lane, Suite 410
Houston, Texas 77024
11 713.463.5505
BY: MS. M. HEATHER HUGHES
12

13 ALSO PRESENT:
CLIFFORD HARRISON
14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969
 3

1 INDEX
VOLUME 1 OF 1
2 (EXCERPT OF TRIAL)

3 PAGE VOL.
JANUARY 20, 2015
4 Appearances................................... 2 1
Chronological Index........................... 3 1
5 Proceedings................................... 4 1
Reporter's Certificate........................ 6 1
6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969
 4

1 (The following is an excerpt from Trial had on

2 January 20th 2015.)

01:35 3 THE RESPONDENT: Excuse me, Judge, I hate

01:35 4 to interrupt, but I -- if it's okay. I don't want to

01:35 5 upset the Court, but I have a Respondent's Emergency

01:35 6 Motion to Enforce the Mediated Settlement Agreement.

01:35 7 THE COURT: It is denied. We are in trial.

01:35 8 And, Ms. Wicoff, if you will call your witness back to

01:36 9 the stand.

01:36 10 MS. WICOFF: Yes, ma'am.

01:36 11 THE COURT: We will get started again.

01:36 12 THE RESPONDENT: Oh, one of the things,

01:36 13 Your Honor, a -- I just object to not having a jury

01:36 14 trial. I know I was late this morning, but I didn't --

01:36 15 THE COURT: Okay. That's enough. Ms.

01:36 16 Harrison, we are in trial. This is not pretrial. If

01:36 17 you would have been here at 8:30 this morning like you

01:36 18 were ordered to be, we could have handled any of these

01:36 19 issues. We are in trial. We are in the middle of

01:36 20 witness testimony. And there's going to be order to

01:36 21 these trial proceedings. If you're unfamiliar with the

01:36 22 rules of conduct, then I suggest you get yourself

01:36 23 familiarized with them. And that goes for anybody in

01:36 24 this courtroom.

01:36 25 With that being said, we are resuming and

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969
 5

01:36 1 we are going to conduct these proceedings in an orderly

01:36 2 fashion.

01:36 3 Ms. Wicoff, you may resume.

01:36 4 THE RESPONDENT: Excuse me, Judge. May I

01:36 5 just say something into the --

01:36 6 THE COURT: You may not.

01:37 7 THE RESPONDENT: -- record, to the jury

01:37 8 trial --

01:37 9 THE COURT: You may not.

01:37 10 THE RESPONDENT: I object to us not having

01:37 11 a jury trial.

01:37 12 THE COURT: Okay. Duly noted on the

01:37 13 record. We're getting started.

01:37 14 Ms. Wicoff, you may proceed.

01:37 15 MS. WICOFF: Thank you, Judge.

16 DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED

17 BY MS. WICOFF:

18 (End of Excerpt.)

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969
 6

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

2 THE STATE OF TEXAS )
COUNTY OF HARRIS )
3

4 I, Stephanie Wells, Official Court Reporter in and

5 for the 311th District Court of Harris County, State of

6 Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing

7 contains a true and correct transcription of all

8 portions of evidence and other proceedings requested in

9 writing by counsel for the parties to be included in

10 this volume of the Reporter's Record, in the

11 above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred

12 in open court or in chambers and were reported by me.

13 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of

14 the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the

15 exhibits, if any, admitted by the respective parties.

16 I further certify that the total cost for the

17 preparation of this Reporter's Record is $30.00 and was

18 paid by ____________________.

19 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 24th day of

20 March, 2015.

21
/s/ Stephanie Wells
22 ___________________________________
Stephanie Wells, Texas CSR 2700
23 Expiration Date: 12/31/2015
Official Court Reporter
24 311th District Court
301 Caroline, 8th Floor
25 Houston, Texas 77002
713.562.6969

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969