The Death of Leiliana: The Untold Story

The Death of Leiliana: The Untold Story

Part 1

By

James Scott Trimm

Leiliana Rose was a precious little girl failed by CPS and the State of Texas.  Leiliana was born in a Texas prison to a mother whose three previous children had been taken by CPS after she had been charged with battery for abusing the oldest. She lived her first two years with her grandmother Alisa, but at the age of two, custody of Lieliana was given to her mother who had just been released from prison.  Although CPS was involved in the case, they failed to report anything to the Family Courts and made no effort to remove the child from the home. Left in the abusive situation Leiliana died at the hands of her own mother at the tender age of four.

Over the last year and a half, since the tragic death of four year old Leiliana, this precious child’s memory has been exploited by unscrupulous organizations with their own agenda.  These groups have made baseless arguments that the judiciary is responsible for the child’s death. The false narrative being propagated by groups like Protective Parents of Texas, threatens to undermine the administration of real justice in this matter. By blaming parties that are not responsible, they divert attention from those who truly are responsible for this tragic death.

Jennifer Olson, who was one of the co-founders of the group, leads protective Parents of Texas.  In a recent article I documented thatJennifer Olson, who is a family violence activist, was herself arrested justlast year for family violence.  Olson has not been above exploiting the death of little Leiliana in her political campaign of unfair attacks on Tarrant Family Court Judges, and in this case Judge Haddock, the Associate Judge of the 233^rd District Court. In fact Olson has stooped so low in her exploitation of the death of this precious child as to publish an internet Meme with pictures of the beaten up Leiliana next to a picture of Judge Haddock and the words “Vote No in Memory of Leiliana” written across it.

In this article I intend to set the story straight and tell the untold story of the death of little Leiliana. This is the story Fox 4 News failed to tell you, it is the story that Jennifer Olson and Protective Parents of Texas do not want you to know.  But most importantly, this story is the result of months of investigative research to get to the truth. 

In October of 2014 Leiliana’s mother, Jeri, had given birth to a fifth child and on Oct. 20 2014 CPS received a report alleging that the she had used drugs during the pregnancy. 

Then on November 9^th Jeri was arrested at a traffic stop for possession of crystal methamphetamines.  Leiliana was in the car at the time.  Police released Leiliana to the Jeri's boyfriend (father to the recent newborn child) and CPS opened an investigation on Leiliana based on a report of “neglectful supervision.”

The next day (Nov. 10^th) Jeri agreed to a parental child safety placement (PCSP) by CPS with the paternal relatives of Jeri’s boyfriend where the children were staying at the time.

Feeling Leiliana was still in danger, Leiliana’s paternal grandmother hired an attorney on November 11^th who filed a petition on her behalf in the Tarrant County Family Courts, for custody.  The case was assigned to the 233^rd District Court and a hearing was scheduled for November 20^th.  However when Jeri could not be served that hearing was rescheduled of December 3^rd. 

The December 3^rd hearing did not take place.  Jeri’s attorney had filed a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of standing and the parties agreed without that hearing to a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss to be held on December 17^th at 9AM, before Judge Harris immediately before a 10AM temporary orders hearing before Judge Haddock.

It is very important to understand the purpose of this December 17^th hearing.  This was a hearing for a Motion to Dismiss.  Protective Parents of Texas (also known as Protective Parents Coalition) has been very misleading about the nature of these hearings.  This 9AM December 17th hearing would deal with the question of whether or not this suit could proceed, or whether it must be dismissed due to a lack of standing.

In Texas Courts (as in all US Courts) one must have what is called “standing” to file a suit.  If one of my neighbors chops down another neighbor’s tree, I can not go file a lawsuit.  I don’t have “standing.”  Likewise if I don’t like how my neighbor raises his children, I can’t go file for custody of my neighbor’s kids.  I don’t have standing.  What is very important to the events that occurred on December 17^th is that grandparents don’t normally have standing to file for custody against parents in Texas.  Alisa Clakley (the grandmother) had the best of intentions, but under Texas law, she as a grandmother, did not have standing to sue the child’s mother for custody without overcoming a substantial burden.

The December 17^th hearings also did not take place.  According to a reliable source, on December 17^th, the two parties showed up at the hearings and had a conference out of court. It appears from the CPS Fatality Report, that this was the very first time CPS interviewed the father (Brian Maker).  According to a reliable source, at this meeting Mr. Housewirth (the attorney for the Grandmother) and Mr. Pettigrew (the attorney for the mother) retreated into a closed room with Crystal Evans, a CPS worker.  When they returned, they had hammered out an out of court settlement, which would give the grandmother visitation with Leiliana twice a month. 

Fox 4 News has made a false claim about this event, saying:

"...in Clakley’s case, a CPS case worker did show up for the hearing, but since the case was settled outside the courtroom, the case worker’s testimony and evidence was never heard by the judge."

Fox 4 News;  Audio Recording Sheds New Light on Leiliana Wright Child Abuse

Editors Note Feb. 15th 2017

Protective Parents Coalition and Protective Parents of Texas have repeated this false claim in a campaign of unfair attacks on Judge Haddock. 

CPS appears to have had no testimony or evidence to offer on that issue and thus no testimony or evidence to offer at this December 17th hearing.  CPS was there, but not at all to advocate for the grandmother, Alisa.

We may never know what took place in that conference.  However the CPS Fatality Report sheds some light on the negotiations that appear to have been “approved” by CPS that day.  The CPS Fatality Report says “on December 17, 2014, CPS approved the mother's request to move the PCSP from the sibling's paternal relatives to the children's maternal relative's home.”

CPS approved this request without taking the steps required by its own policy to make sure that the PCSP is a safe place for the child.  As the CPS Fatality Report itself says of this event:

CPS approved the children to be placed in a paternal child safety placement (PCSP)

with the maternal grandmother prior to completing tasks necessary for approval. Staff

never interviewed the maternal grandfather in the home, who also lived in the home, nor

did staff contact a collateral reference for the maternal grandmother prior to approval or

within 24 hours of completing the placement. Per CPS Policy 3211.6 Collateral

Contacts: The caseworker must make collateral contacts to confirm that the PCSP is

safe before the child goes into the PCSP or, if that is not possible, within 24 hours after

the child goes into the PCSP.

The CPS Fatality Report also states of this placement:

Staff never spoke with the maternal grandfather, who reportedly lived in the PCSP

home, during the FBSS case.

Even more importantly, according to the CPS Fatality Report “…staff visited with the children in the home of the PCSP and the mother was always present. It is unknown if the mother was truly living outside of the home as directed by staff.”

CPS should never have given approval to the mother’s request.  And yet, it seems CPS was at this hearing to advocate for Jeri’s wishes in these out of court negotiations, not to offer any testimony or evidence in the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss regarding the question of the grandmother’s standing which was scheduled to take place that day. 

And while the grandmother likely did not have legal standing to sue the mother for custody in Texas, CPS did have standing to bring a cause into the courts to save Leiliana.  But CPS never did this as the CPS Fatality Report plainly states:

Although Leiliana repeatedly informed both FBSS and investigative staff that her mother

smacked her on the face, staff did not recommend a change in case direction such as

legal involvement, a change in PCSP, or a change in the mother's contact or service

needs.

When the grandmother’s attorney told her he had negotiated for an out of court settlement, reliable sources say that she was initially dissatisfied with such just visitation.  The grandmother wanted custody. 

However, grandparents do not normally have standing to sue parents for custody.  According to the grandmother, her attorney informed her that if he went into the hearing they would lose .  If this was the case it would not have been, as Protective Parents of Texas would have you believe, but because of the law.  The judges would almost certainly have been forced to follow the law and dismiss this case due to lack of standing. 

According to once source, the grandmother’s attorney warned her that if they went into the hearing, she was not guaranteed to get visitation rights.  In fact in 2007 the Texas Supreme Court reversed Judge Wells in the Tarrant Family Courts (Case 325-346301-03) for having granted a grandparents visitation over a mother’s wishes.  (Interestingly Protective Parents of Texas has widely cited that very case as evidence of “bad judges” in Tarrant County.  They appear to want to have it both ways.) . However with this out of court agreement the grandmother would at least have visitation, which was also not guaranteed her under Texas law. 

If the grandmother’s attorney quite informed his client that if they went into that hearing, they would lose everything, he might well have been correct  But this would likely have been because he knew he was going before judges with a reputation of following the law.  In the end the grandmother signed the out of court agreement and the case was settled without a hearing and without ever going before the judges.

One Protective Parents “Court Watcher,” Marie Howard has stated that the judge granted custody of Leilana to her mother "over her grandmother's wishes."  This is factually incorrect.  The parties never came before the judge.  The judge did not grant custody to anyone.  The mother already had custody of her own daughter.  The grandmother did not appear to have standing under Texas law to sue for custody, and the parties agreed out of court.  The grandmother signed onto an agreement that would at least grant her visitation. 

In this case Judge Haddock simply signed onto an out of court settlement entered into by the parties, as Texas law required her to do.  This was explored in more detail in my recent article titled An Unfair Attack on Judge Haddock.

CPS did not transfer this case to Family Based Services until January 2^nd.  According to CPS’s own Fatality Report:

It is unknown why there was a delay in investigation closure and transfer to Family

Based Safety Services. The case was identified as appropriate for services on

November 10, 2014, yet not transferred to FBSS until January 2, 2015.

In other words, CPS was admittedly asleep at the wheel during this very critical time period.  Instead of filing themselves and perhaps recommending the grandmother as guardian, CPS negotiating for the mother’s wishes to place Leilana in a home that they had not cleared as safe and where the mother may actually have been living. 

Then on February 23^rd the grandmother during one of her visitations observed bruising and a broken lip on Leiliana and even provided pictures to CPS.  According to the CPS Fatality Report:

In response, staff telephoned the maternal grandmother/PCSP placement. Staff spoke with the maternal grandmother about the bruises and then asked to speak with Leiliana over the phone. Leiliana made two statements during the phone conversation to staff that her mother "smacked her" face and lips. The supervisor directed the worker to make a new report so that an official investigation of the alleged physical abuse would be launched.

And:

It does not appear that staff uploaded photographs that they took of the observed injuries to Leiliana, even though documentation indicates pictures were taken of the bruises on February 24, 2015.

Just days later, on March 3^rd, 2015 the 233^rd District Court, still not having heard anything from CPS issued agreed Temporary Orders based on the out of court settlement.

It was not until March 31, 2015 that CPS interviewed the mother in regard to the injuries documented on Leiliana a month earlier, when Lieliana had told CPS staff that her mother had “smacked her”.  The report says:

 Leiliana's mother was interviewed on March 31, 2015. The mother denied that the bruising was due to physical abuse. Both mother and maternal grandmother stated that Leiliana was very clumsy and always running into things. They stated Leiliana had bruising from running into a wall. Leiliana was again interviewed on this date and stated to staff that she ran into the wall and hit her face.

The report elsewhere concludes that CPS staff was wrong to accept rely upon these statements made a month later.  The report says:

Staff heavily relied on Leiliana's statement made on March 31, 2015, which significantly

differed from Leiliana's original statements made shortly after the bruising was observed.

Then, believe it or not, on April 3, 2015 the investigation of the February 23^rd report was “ruled out” and closed and on May 14, 2015 The Family Based Safety Services case was closed as well. 

Then in October of 2105, Judge Harris of the 233^rd District Court, still never having heard from CPS, issued final orders in accordance with the out of court agreement and closed its case.

But the story is not over, not yet.   Just three months later, on Jan. 4, 2016 CPS received a brand new report alleging sexual abuse, neglectful supervision, and physical abuse of Leiliana and her younger sibling and opened a whole new investigation.

CPS had a second bite at the apple, a second chance to save Leiliana.  The account of how CPS once again failed Leiliana in this second investigation will be the subject of part two.