Tarrant Families Matter PAC: Beware the Frightful Four!

Tarrant Families Matter PAC: Beware the Frightful Four!

By

James Scott Trimm

The Tarrant Families Matter PAC today began a campaign to educate the public about four elected Republican representatives who are closely associated with Protective Parents of Texas, an organization which publishes dishonest attacks aimed at Tarrant County Family Court judges. 

In recent articles, this blog has exposed many of the false claims and dishonest audio edits made by this group which has exploited a murdered child and her grieving family for their dishonest political agenda.

Now the Tarrant Families Matter Pac is calling out these four Tarrant County Republican Precinct Chairs, dubbing them as the "Frightful Four" in a new and no nonsense political advertisement below:

Civil War Monuments and The War of Northern Agression

Civil War Monuments and

The War of Northern Aggression

By

James Scott Trimm

With the recent removal and destruction of Civil War monuments, I thought I would dispel the common myth that the Civil War was started over slavery.

A couple of years ago I wrote a blog titled "Does Texas have a Right to Secede?" in which I said:

The so-called “Civil War” opens a protracted discussion into numerous unconstitutional acts which took place in this dark time of American History.  This is far to protracted of a discussion for this short paper (perhaps some day I will write more extensively on this topic), suffice it to say that no “war” was ever declared by congress, and the so-called “Civil War” was an Executive action which ultimately resulted in the forced annexation of the Southern States.  As the Constitution lays out exactly how a state may be annexed, and it cannot be by force, this was the unconstitutional outcome of an unconstitutional Executive action.  (I should state here my absolute disdain for the institution of slavery, the relation of which to the so-called Civil War has been greatly misunderstood).   

Well with all of the hoop-la surrounding Civil War monuments lately, I really felt it was time to write this follow up blog.

Now I realize it is easy for conservatives to claim Lincoln as "The first Republican president" but I feel that is a mistake, and in this blog I will explain why.

Obama liked to identify himself with Lincoln.  And when he used a drone to kill a US citizen without due process, his advisors insisted this was constitutional, citing Lincoln's acts during the Civil War as a precedent.

Now as a preface for this let me make it very clear that I have no sympathy for Alkaida (the US citizen that was killed by the drone was, in fact, an Alkida participant).  And I am absolutely believe that slavery in the US was a great evil which should certainly have been abolished.

That being said, I want to say that if we are to have a clear vision of what we are as constitutionalists, we need to have an understanding of the history of the conflict between Federalists and Anti-Federalists to this very day.


The Federalists and Anti-Federalists

During and immediately after the American Revolution there were "Federalists" and "Anti-Federalists".

Our Constitution (Ratified in 1788) was not our first attempt at governing ourselves.

Our first governing instrument was the Articles of Confederation which established the United States as a Confederation of States.

Under the Articles of Confederation the Federal government was very week.  Many believed that we needed a stronger Federal Government if we were going to succeed as a nation.

There was a great conflict between those who wanted to simply amend the Articles and those who wanted to replace them with a Constitution that would establish a more powerful Federal Government.

Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams were strongly opposed to replacing the Articles and creating a strong Federal Government, and Henry boycotted the Constitutional convention.  (Through a strange turn of events, Henry eventually became a Federalist).

There was much debate about whether or not there should be a new Constitution.  Many feared that the new Federal Government would become to powerful.  As a compromise the

Bill of Rights was suggested to limit the power of the Federal Government.  (these debates are preserved in the federalist Papers).

At first James Madison (who penned the Constitution) was opposed to a Bill of Rights.  His thinking was that his Constitution did not give the Federal Government the power to limit speech or the press, etc. and so we did not need the Bill of Rights.  Thomas Jefferson eventually convinced him that in the future there would be those who would interpret the Constitution to give the Federal Government all powers the constitution all powers it did not restrict from it, rather than to mean that the Federal Government only had powers that the Constitution specifically said that it had.  In the end the Constitution was ratified, with the promise of the Bill of Rights which would limit the Federal Government's power.  The 10th amendment was included in the Bill of Rights, saying:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."

With this the Anti-Federalists felt the matter was settled... they were wrong!

Now you may have noticed by now that the Federalists were the party of Big Government... they were used to a strong Government under the King, and they wanted the Federal Government to be like a King.

The Anti-Federalists were the party of limited government and state's rights.  They believed, as Jefferson articulated it, that government governs best which governs least.

Major Federalists were George Washington, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.

Major Anti-Federalists were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (who had defected from the Federalists).

The following is taken from a Home Schooling Program Class i once created on Early American History:

Ratification. Long and exciting debates arose in the several States, over the ratification of the Constitution, which had to be voted on by the people. On this question citizens were divided into two great political parties:

(a) The Federalists. (This name is derived from a Latin word meaning union or league.) These were the men who favored the Constitution, and wanted to have it adopted just as it came from the Convention. They believed that the Union needed the strong central Government which the Constitution provided for. Among those of this way of thinking were Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison. Washington wrote to Patrick Henry: " I wish the Constitution which is offered had been more perfect; but I sincerely believe it is the best which could be obtained at this time. And as a constitutional door is open for amendments here after, the adoption of it, under the present circumstances of the Union, is in my opinion desirable." He pointed out that as " the political concerns of this country are in a manner suspended by a thread," anarchy might result if the instrument were rejected.

(b) The Anti- Federalists. This was the name given to those who feared that the proposed new Federal Government might in time become so strong as to destroy the people’s liberties, and that the President might become a despot. They also complained that the Constitution contained no " bill of rights," or promise that the lives, liberty, and property of the people should be protected by the Government. The makers of the Constitution had not thought it necessary to insert such a promise in that document, which gave only definite powers to the National Government; but to satisfy this objection, a "bill of rights" was later supplied in the first ten Amendments. The Anti-Federalists insisted that the States should continue to have greater power than the Nation, as was the case under the Articles of Confederation. They proposed, therefore, merely to amend the Articles, so as to give Congress a little more power as well as some revenue of its own. Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee belonged to this party.

As soon as nine State conventions, the smallest number necessary for adoption, were carried in favor of the Constitution Congress announced to the people in June, 1788, that the new Government could be organized.

(The majority of the people hailed the news with noisy rejoicing. In Philadelphia where the Continental Congress had met, the Declaration of Independence had been adopted, and the Constitutional Convention had done its great work there were great demonstrations of delight. On the following Fourth of July, cannon saluted the sunrise, bells pealed joyously, there was a marching procession of five thousand people, orators proclaimed the coming glory of our country, and at night nearly every building was illuminated with candles in the windows.)

Later, the other four States also gave their consent. " Now," triumphantly wrote John Adams, who was a strong Federalist, " the thirteen clocks all struck together.

Federalists and Anti-Federalists. During the long and sometimes bitter debates over the adoption of the Constitution, it was natural that men should form very decided opinions about the best methods of carrying on the government of the proposed union of the States. By the time President Washington began his Administration, two political parties had come into being Federalists and Anti- Federalists.
(The Anti-Federalists afterwards called themselves Republicans, and then Democratic- Republicans; and still later, Democrats. After the adoption of the Constitution, both Federalists and Anti- Federalists favored that instrument; they then differed only as to how it should be interpreted. It was Washington s desire to have both parties represented in the Government; of the offices named below, the Federalists held a majority, Jefferson and Randolph being the only Anti-Federalists. Washington’s first Cabinet consisted of four members: the Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson; the Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton; the Secretary of War, General Henry Knox (these three administrative Departments were the only ones in existence at this time) ; and the Attorney-General, Edmund Randolph. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was John Jay.)

Citizens joined one party or the other, according to their way of thinking; and, as is always the case in times of great political excitement, they were very impatient at the ideas of those who differed from them.

"Liberal construction" and "strict construction." The most important question at the beginning of the Government was, How much power should the Nation have over the affairs of individual citizens of the various States? The framers of the Constitution did not make this at all clear; they left the legislative branch of the Government (Congress), together with the judicial branch (the Federal Supreme Court), to decide that great question in the future.

(If a law passed by Congress is not in accord with the Constitution, then the Court may annul it.)
Federalists and Anti-Federalists held opposite views as to how it should be decided:
(a) Should Congress have the authority to do anything and everything in the way of government except only those things that the Constitution expressly said it should not do? The federalists said "yes " to this; for they believed in making the Union a strong central power, stronger than the States composing it. They asked for a "liberal construction" of the Constitution, and "national supremacy."
(b) Should Congress have such authority as was expressly given to it by the Constitution, and no more? Such was the opinion of the Anti-Federalists, who stood for "strict construction " and "state rights." They did not believe in centralized power, for they wished the States to remain Stronger than the Nation.

The controversy would eventually lead to the great Civil War, which resulted in the final triumph of the Federalist idea of "National Supremacy over "State Rights."


Conflict Between North and South from the Beginning

Now although Washington was a Federalist, he respected the Bill of Rights and he kept the Federal Government restrained. 

Washington Urged to a Second Term. At the end of Washington’s first term, as he was preparing to retire and go back to Mt. Vernon to just be a farmer again, the leaders of the opposing parties both wanted him to reconsider with Hamilton and Jefferson pleading with Washington to stay on for a second term.

Jefferson is credited as stating: “North and South will hang together if they have you to hang on.”

Washington finally consented to such sentiments and was again the obvious choice of the Electoral College as they re-elected him in February of 1793.

That's right, the division between North and South was already brewing!  And it had nothing to do with slavery, at the time they were ALL slave states.  This was a division between Big Government Federalists and Limited Government, States' Rights Anti-Federalists.

Washington was a restrained Federalist, a Federalist that the Anti-Federalists could live with.

At this point I should say that these two parties eventually took other names, and these names have changed throughout history as these two parties have even changed... but the ideals remained the same Big Government vs. Limited Government.

The Anti-Federalists the Republican Party.  Historians call these "Republicans" the "Democratic-Republican" Party because they later changed their name to Democrats (ironically becoming the ancestor of the modern Democratic party, but we will cover that later).

So after Washington (who had no official party affiliation), Federalist John Adams became the first Federalist Party president (and the second President of the United States).

During the Adams administration the US became involved in an undeclared war with France.  During this time the Big Government Federalists made a big power grab.

Alien and Sedition Laws. While this war was in progress, still more serious trouble was brewing at home. Many of the newspapers in the United States were at that time conducted by men, mostly foreigners, who favored France. These editors made a practice of viciously abusing President Adams and his Government, and trying to get our country into trouble with Great Britain. Congress tried to check these offenses by passing two laws, 1798:

(a) The Alien Law authorized the President to banish from the country any foreigner whose presence here was harmful to the nation. This law was never put in force.

(b) The Sedition Law provided for the punishment of persons who spoke or wrote maliciously about the President or the Government. Under this law a number of persons were punished.

Virginia and Kentucky pass Nullification Resolutions. These laws aroused the fierce anger of the Democratic-Republicans. They declared that such legislation concentrated power in the hands of the Federal Government, interfered with freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and was not according to the intent of the Constitution. The legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky went so far as boldly to resolve that these obnoxious Federal laws were “unconstitutional," therefore "void and of no force," and that the States would be justified in not allowing them to be enforced within their borders.

(The Virginia Resolutions were written by Madison, and were not so bitter as those of Kentucky, which were drafted by Jefferson.)

Congress soon repealed the two laws that had aroused such opposition. But the passage of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions continued to be events of great importance, because of their new and startling claim that Federal laws might be nullified by States that did not approve of them. (That is, declared not binding on the objecting State.)

Those who believed in "strict construction" of the Constitution, or "state rights," were inclined to favor this doctrine, that the Constitution was merely an agreement between sovereign States, which any of them might break whenever they wished. The Federalists pointed out, however, that if nullification were to be permitted whenever a State disliked some Federal law, there would soon be no Union at all. Thus the momentous question as to whether or not the rule of the Union was to be supreme over that of the States had again come to the front to threaten the welfare of the Nation.

As a result of this controversy Adams (having served only one term) lost the next election to Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson served two terms, and was followed by James Madison for two terms.  In fact the Anti-Federalist (Democratic-Republican/Democratic party) held the office until 1841.  (The Party became known as the "Democratic Party" by 1829 with the Jackson presidency).

The Federalists never won the presidency again, and soon disband.  The Federalists themselves re-organized in 1833 as the Whig Party and did not win a Presidency until 1841 (Hilliam Harrison).

The Whig party also dissolved and the Federalists reorganized as the "Republican Party" in the 1850s.  Abraham Lincoln became president in 1860, becoming the first Republican president.


Now you may have noticed a shell game here, which will more complex as time goes on.

The War of Northern Aggression

Now we have come to the time of the Civil War, or as it was called in the South "The War of Northern Aggression."

Now it is important to begin by dispelling the false claim that has become so popular, that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves.  The Civil War was not fought over slavery.  This can be shown in many ways:

1.  The Dred Scott decision in 1857.  This is often cited as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever.  In reality this decision was not saying that slavery was good, or that it should continue.  It was simply stating that the framers of the Constitution had not intended the Bill of Rights to free the slaves, and that it would take a Constitutional Amendment and not a Supreme Court decision to free them.  Here the court was tempted with an opportunity to step into an activist role, and do something good, free the slaves, right a horrible injustice, all they had to do was say that the Constitution meant something that the framers clearly did not intend it to mean.  It is known that the framers visited the issue of slavery, and failing to settle the matter, kicked the can down the road to be resolved by constitutional amendment later, and the court came to the same conclusion.  Whether we see this decision as right, or wrong, the fact is that it established that only a Constitutional amendment could free the slaves.

2.  Most southerners did not even own slaves, only a small minority owned slaves.

3.  There were actually four Northern Slave States (Kentucky, Delaware, Missouri and Maryland) which continued to hold slaves through most of the Civil War.  You may notice that the Emancipation Proclamation freed only slaves south of the Mason Dixon line... it seemed Northern Slavery was just fine.  In fact Maryland borders Washington DC.... Lincoln could have taken a short walk to find slaves working in fields in the Union if he wanted to free slaves.

4.  Robert E. Lee was against slavery, but Grant had been a slave master.

In an 1856 letter Lee said slavery was "a moral & political evil".  In a handwritten legal document, dated January 2, 1863, Robert E. Lee promised to "hereby manumit, emancipate and forever set free" the slaves once owned by his father–in–law, George Washington Parke Custis, who had died in 1857.  Lee supported the work by his wife and her mother to liberate slaves and fund their move to Liberia, his wife and daughter set up an illegal school for slaves on the Arlington plantation.  Lee was also involved in freeing many slaves in the South during the war.

By contrast, during the years 1854 to 1859 Grant lived at White Haven Farm with his wife, Julia, and their children, managing the farm for his father-in-law, Colonel Dent where he oversaw slave labor.

5.  While the Constitution of the confederacy continued to maintain the institution of slavery, it also made a major step toward phasing out slavery, making the import of any new slaves unconstitutional.
So what was the real cause of the War of Northern Aggression?

To find the answer we can look at some very old history books.  The following is taken from a history book used in American schools in the early 20th Century:

The North and the South differed from each other both in the
physical characteristics of the land, and in the habits and
opinions of the inhabitants.

(a) The South had few important towns, and not many
factories. The principal business was farming, and this
was done on large plantations. The warm Southern climate
is well suited to out-of-door life ; and we have seen that the
soil of that region is adapted to the raising of large single
crops, like tobacco, cotton, rice, and indigo.

The North has a colder climate than the South, which
leads to the indoor employment of many of its people, and
thus to larger centers of population and manufactures. By
1830 that section had come to contain many prosperous
cities and towns. Numerous factories of different kinds had
been established, and Northern merchants and shipowners
carried on a profitable commerce with all parts of the world.
The farms of the North were small, compared with the great
Southern plantations, and on them were raised a consider
able variety of crops.

(b) Northern manufacturers had, by this time, come to
be eager for high-tariff legislation that should virtually shut
out all foreign-made goods.  

(The argument of the manufacturers was that a high tariff would encourage
men to start new industries in the United States; that these would employ
large numbers of workmen, at good wages, who would purchase produce from
the farmers; that a manufacturing nation could be independent of other na
tions, in time of war; and that the tariff on imports would at the same time
bring much revenue to the Government.)


But the Southern planters would have liked to
continue their trade with Europe, which
they could easily carry on by means of the sailing-vessels
that took their crops across the Atlantic. They were opposed
to a high tariff, for it caused them to pay large prices for all
their imports. They thought they ought to be allowed " free
trade " that is, the right to bring over to their planta
tions whatever foreign-made articles they wished, free of
duty. They had almost no manufactures of their own, and
were not pleased at being forced to pay out of their own
pockets for " fostering the infant industries " of New Eng
land.

(c) Northern manufacturers and merchants wanted to
sell their goods to settlers in the interior of the continent.
For that reason they asked the Federal Government to
deepen the rivers upon which boats and barges might carry
cargoes toward the West; and where necessary, to build
canals connecting east-flowing with west-flowing waterways.
Their wishes were heeded by Congress, which consented
to undertake several such schemes of "internal improve
ments," some of them at great cost.

(Between 1824 and 1828, two and a third million dollars
were voted by Congress for this purpose.)

The South was provided by nature with as many navigable
rivers as it needed for its own ocean-going vessels, so
was not much interested in these improvements. The cost
of them ought, Southern statesmen said, to be met by the
States that were directly benefited, not by the entire Nation.
The fact that a good share of the money collected at the
custom-houses because of the tariff was spent on internal
improvements was very annoying to the South.
( A History of the United States for grammar schools
Rev. ed. by Reuben Gold Thwaites and Calvin Noyes Kendall.
Published 1922 pages 270-271)

So the primary reasons that the Southern States seceded was over unfair taxation and the right of free trade.

The Southern States were outvoted in Congress.  They found themselves being forced to pay the bulk of the nations tax bill, while their money was being spent in the North.
In my previous blog, I established that the South had the Constitutional right to secede.

Now we come to Abraham Lincoln's actions and the Civil War.

The Constitution grants only Congress the power to declare war, yet congress chose not to declare war on the South.  Lincoln therefore forced a war by resupplying Fort Sumter in the South, ultimately forcing the South to fire on the fort, or accept foreign occupation.

Lincoln suspended the right of Habeas corpus, which requires a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court.  Under Lincoln's theory the southerners were guilty of Treason, but the Constitution is very specific about Treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

In fact the Obama administration claimed the same right to execute Americans it found guilty of Treason without due process, because Lincoln did.

Also the Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional.  This does not mean slavery should not have been abolished, but abolishing it would take a Constitutional Amendment.  (Remember the Dred Scott decision?)  This would be like a Republican president today issuing an executive order banning abortion, because he disagrees with Roe vs. Wade.  In fact even after the war, the Thirteen Amendment ended slavery... why not just another Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves North of the Mason Dixon line?

Under Lincoln as Commander and Chief, after ordering almost all civilians to leave Atlanta, Sherman gave instructions that all military and government buildings in Atlanta be burned.  Many private homes and shops were burned as well. This was to set a precedent for future behavior by his armies.  Was this Constitutional?  Can you imagine a president today doing that?

This is just the beginning of Lincoln trampling on the Constitution.
After the war, and his assassination, Lincoln became virtually deified.
The War also resulted in a major victory for big government Federalists.
As one Southern writer wrote of the fall of the South:

With its failure the United States of America that we know was born. The South, the Northern Republicans said, rebelled.  To crush the “rebellion” the North wrought a revolution.  The old union of states federated together for specific and limited purposes died, to be succeeded by a new nation in which the states, North and South alike, have contentedly sunk from the sovereignty they so jealously maintained in 1787 to become little more than convenient administrative subdivisions of government.
(The Story of the Confederacy; Robert Selph Henry 1931; p. 11)


How the Two Parties Switched Places

The Republican Party went on to become the Progressive party of Theodore Roosevelt.  And through a strange turn of events the Progressive baton was passed to Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Democratic Party.

Interestingly a man named Ronald Reagan campaigned for FDR, and later felt betrayed by the Big Government Federalism that was creeping into the Democratic Party.  He left the Democratic Party for the Republican Party, saying "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me."
Limited government conservative Democrats followed him into the Republican party and today we have a complete switch.... ironically the Republican Party is now the limited government Anti-Federalist Party and the Democratic Party has become the Big Government Federalist Party.

Dishonest Video Exploits Family of Murdered Child

Dishonest Video Exploits Family of Murdered Child

By

James Scott Trimm

Within 24 hours of publication of my recent article The Death of Leiliana: The Untold Story Part 1, an anonymous video began to be circulated in response, which was billed as being “The Real Untold Story”. 

According to Brian Maker (father of Leiliana) the video was produced with the “help” of Jennifer Olson of Protective Parents of Texas (also known as Protective Parents Coalition).  In a recent article I documented that Jennifer Olson, who is a family violence activist, was herself arrested just last year for family violence.  Olson has not been above exploiting the death of little Leiliana, and even her family in her political campaign of unfair attacks on Tarrant Family Court Judges, and in this case Judge Haddock, the Associate Judge of the 233rd 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.  Now Olson has stooped even further, in exploiting a grieving family to support her political agenda.

The basis of the video is a secretly recorded conversation between Olson’s close confederate Duhnelle Essary and Judge Diane Haddock.  In my research, I acquired a copy of this recording back in February of 2017.  This recording was not new information for which my article did not account,

The secret recording was made in a highly unethical manner, by Duhnelle Essary, whose brother has a case in judge Haddock’s court.  Essary called the court, claiming to be returning a call, but the court had no knowledge of a prior call to Essary.  Judge Haddock answered, and had what she believed was a private conversation.  Just over a minute and thirty seconds into the conversation, Judge Haddock asks the caller “can we talk freely?” to which Duhnelle Essary dishonestly replies “we can talk freely.”  It appears that to Duhnelle “we can talk freely” means “I am secretly recording this phone call and intend to publish it.”

As I said, I have had a copy of this entire phone call for several months before I wrote my article.  I was well aware of its contents, and there is nothing about this fraudulently recorded conversation that calls the facts presented in my article into question.

Since there was nothing about this recorded conversation that supports the false claim that the judiciary are responsible for Leliana’s death, the video’s producer stoops to dishonest edits of the most extreme variety, and engaging in a campaign of misdirection and distraction, addressing issues that are unrelated to responsibility for the death of Leiliana, often at the expense of the family. 

Did CPS Contact the 233rd District Court?

After a brief introduction he first segment of the video is designed to convince the viewer of something that has been well established as false.  The video begins with an outtake [slightly altered] of Judge Haddock from the recorded phone call saying:

The 233rd never heard any evidence.

[We... you know when they filed, when the Klakley's filed]

And it was really Alisa, the grandmother,

when she filed she attached an affidavit.

But there was no evidence to the affidavit

Now since we have done the research that

we have done and since CPS did their research

there was never even a CPS report prior to January of 2016.

(The words in brackets were edited out in the video)

The narrator/interviewer then picks up saying:

 So contrary to what Judge Haddock said, CPS was there?

Here the producer intents to give the false impression of a refutation of something Judge Haddock said, but actually responds to something Judge Haddock never said at all!

This dishonestly worded question is posed as an interview question directed to Leiliana’s grandmother Alisa Clakley, who responds:

“Yes because uh, I believe that Crystal Evans had told me that she had to be subpoenaed to go to court um in this case period. And us so I am assuming that  also going back the  following month that judge Haddock and the attorneys all know she was there.”

Despite what Mrs. Clakley may have been “assuming” there is no subpoena for Crytsal Evans and/or CPS records in the court record.  No such subpoena was filed with the 233rd District Court in this case. 

No one seems to be disputing that the CPS worker was there, participating in out of court negotiations.  However, as presented in my blog, the evidence indicates that she was there to participate in negotiating a settlement.  What is known is that Crystal Evans (the CPS worker) disappeared into a room with the two attorneys, and they came out of that room with a settlement. 

As stated in my blog:

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.”

No hearing was held that day, and CPS did not present any evidence or testimony to the court.  Mrs. Clackley chose to settle her case out of court that day and therefore chose  to not call up the CPS worker to give any testimony to the court. 

 It is unlikely Judge Haddock even knew at the time that a CPS worker had been there participating in negotiations, because the case was never brought before her.

Although Judge Haddock made the statement on the recording that there was not a CPS report until January 2016, there was a CPS investigation before that time, as detailed in my recent blog.

It is possible that Judge Haddock simply did not know at the time of the recording, that there had been a CPS investigation before the January 2016 report.  Or she may be referring only to the 2016 investigation as a “CPS Report” because the prior investigation was originally opened for “neglectful supervision” not abuse, and was ultimately closed with a finding of “ruled out”.  Since the term “CPS Report” can mean many things (such as a report made to CPS, or any number of types of reports made by CPS).

At any rate the truth is that there was is no Subpoena for CPS or the CPS worker filed with the 233rd District Court and there was no testimony of evidence provided to the court by CPS.  The video simply seeks to cloud the issue and convince people of a falsehood.

Brian Maker’s Drug Problem

Next the video presents another sound clip from the recorded conversation:

Brian Maker, the son of the Clakley's is a drug addict. In Rehab out of rehab.  None of this did we know at the time of course everything I am telling you is what we have learned since then.  You wanted a review, we have done it, trust me, um.  But anyway he is a drug addict and so he...  But he was here, I heard he was here.

This clip is followed by the narrator asking Mrs. Clakley another interview question:

“How does it make you feel when you hear this judge speak about your son like this, after his daughter has just been murdered?”

To which Brian’s mother responds:

I was very aggravated, very upset at the fact that she was making that assumption, if you will.  My son has never been in drug rehab, never.  Where she got that information from, I would like to know.

In light of what Brian Maker has suffered with the murder of his daughter, it is unfortunate that Mrs Essary chose to make this private conversation public, and even more unfortunate that the producer of the video has in a very public way, used this in a cut to imply that Judge Haddock wrongly accused Maker of having a drug problem. 

It is worthy of note that Mrs. Clakley did not object to the claim that Brian Maker was “a drug addict” but only that he had been in rehab.  If a person is a drug addict, but has never tried rehab, it is not disparaging to wrongly assume that they would have tried rehab.  And it is not defamation to say that a person has had a drug problem if it is true.

It is especially unfortunate that the producer has paraded this private conversation into this video, because, other than stirring up the pitchfork crowd, this issue has nothing to do with the false claim that the judiciary has was responsible for Leiliana’s death.  It is merely presented as a distraction to exploit the grieving family to forward a malicious political agenda.

Did CPS Drug Test the Mother?

Next the video plays another sound clip from the recording:

But the affidavit said that the mom was a known drug user, did you know that there was no evidence in the CPS file of her drug use?

Then the video immediately shows a clip from a news broadcast:

In October, 2014, two months before the scheduled hearing, CPS already had a report that Leiliana’s little half brother was born  with drugs in his system. And during that investigation, the children’s mother tested positive on a drug test.

However the editor of the video has cherry picked certain statements by Judge Haddock, while conveniently leaving out others:

Later in the same recorded conversation Duhnel Essary asks:

Duhnell: Well it seems as if they had asked for that [drug test] mom certainly would not have passed it. I mean-

Judge Haddock: No she would have. Mom was being tested-

Duhnell: She did take a drug test-

Judge Haddock: She was being tested thru her parole, not thru us and not thru CPS. Yea mom would have passed..

While the CPS Fatality Report says:

On December 1, 2014, CPS received the mother's drug test results. She tested positive for marijuana.

However it also says:

It appears the mother was drug tested through either her service provider or probation

services, however results of drug tests were not clearly documented. CPS did not drug

test any parent during the FBSS case.

So Judge Haddock’s statements that “there was no evidence in the CPS file of her drug use” and that “She was being tested thru her parole, not thru us and not thru CPS” were absolutely correct.

Remember, Judge Haddock did not have the CPS report, at the time she signed off on the family’s out of court agreement.  She is here referring only to what she has learned since the child’s death.  This issue also has nothing to do with the false claim that the judiciary was responsible for Leiliana’s death.  It is merely presented as a distraction. 

Did Judge Haddock Call Brian Maker a “Dead Beat”?

Now we come to the most dishonest edit yet.  The video extracts the following statement by Judge Haddock from the audio recording:

She got pregnant right when she got out of prison to this other, ahhhh, can you forgive me for using  a pejorative, but another dead beat.

A message on the screen says “Judge Haddock describes Brian Maker as a “deadbeat.”

The narrator/interviewer then asks Brian’s mother:

Alisa, the Judge Haddock describes your son as a “deadbeat.”  Do you feel she is biased in this case? 

However if we look to the statement Judge Haddock actually made, we find this video producer is being completely dishonest.  In context Judge Haddock was speaking, not about Brian Maker but about a completely different person: the father of Leiliana’s younger half-brother.  The complete statement in the original audio recording was:

She got pregnant right when she got out of prison to this other, ahhhh, can you forgive me for using  a pejorative, but another dead beat. And she gets pregnant with this guy and his name is ***name withheld**

Although judge Haddock says “another” deadbeat, it is unclear what this means.  She could be referring to the father of Leiliana’s three older half siblings, to the mother herself, or simply to other parents who have gone thru the 233rd in other cases as also being “deadbeats.”  But through dishonest editing, the viewer of the video is led to believe that statement in the outtake referred specifically to Brian Maker. 

That said, if a father who helps create a child and fails to financially support his child is a “deadbeat” then it is interesting to note that Maker signed onto an out of court settlement which required him to pay no child support and which stipulated that he would have “no access to the child” and “not be allowed in the presence of the child”.

It is unfortunate that the video producer has chosen to embarrass Mr. Maker, a man whose daughter was murdered, by dragging the issue of whether or not he was a deadbeat into a public video.  No such statement came from Judge Haddock.  Brian Maker is not who she was talking about, and the whole issue is simply brought forward by the video producer as a distraction, as it has nothing to do with the false claim that the judiciary was responsible for Leileana's death. 

Standing Strong: Fighting for Changes in the Law

Next the video gives us another statement by judge haddock, from the recorded conversation:

When this happened with Leiliana I knew it was not my case because I knew I had never heard any evidence like this. But I none the less put myself on trial for about a week and I have researched it.  I have gone to- and I have with my own time with my own money,

to try and find [out] any crack that I can possibly find. And I am happy to tell you that I am going to stand strong.

The narrator/interviewer again misquotes the statement from Judge Haddock:

“How do you feel when you hear Haddock say she’s proud to say she’s standing strong?”

In fact Judge Haddock said nothing about being “proud” and the dishonest editor has cut the edit just before Judge Haddock explains her words.  In the original recorded conversation, Haddock immediately follows these words with:

I knew and I know that my heart is pure, and there was absolutely nothing that this court  could have done. We do need some changes in the law and I hope we get them. But I got to start fighting for that, because I will tell you right now, its met with a lot of resistance.

So when Judge Haddock said “I am going to be standing strong” it had nothing to do with pride, it meant that she would be “standing strong” “fighting for” “changes in the law” that she is concerned will be “met with a lot of resistance.” Fighting such opposition and not a fight for the weak or impure of heart.

The Best Interests of the Child

Next the narrator-interviewer asks the grandmother:

“But isn’t this court supposed to be more concerned with what’s in the best for the child?”

To which the grandmother very emotionally responds:

Absolutely, and I don’t feel that at all in this case- at all.  Because if Leiliana was the center of it, then it wouldn’t have come to the point that it did.

In Texas law it is presumed that the parents act in the best interests of their child unless it can be proven that this would significantly impair the child's physical health or emotional development.  When a family enters into an out of court agreement, the law in the State of Texas presumes that family is acting in the best interests of the child, and Texas law therefore compels judges to sign off on such agreements.

On December 17th both Alisa Clakley and Brian Maker signed their names to an out of court agreement, which stated right up at the top “In the Interest of Leiliana Rose Wright.”  Judge Diane Haddock simply followed the law in signing off on the out of court agreement that the family had declared was “In the Interests of Leiliana Rose Wright”.

[Above] Close up from the out of court settlement

"In the interest of Leiliana Rose Wright"

[Above] The Out of Court Settlement "In the Interest of Leiliana Rose Wright"

Signed by Alisa Clakley and Brian Maker

Stamped "Agreed w/o hearing or conference" 

Unfortunately the very people who placed custody of Leiliana with her mother, now wish to blame the judges who never had the case before them.  It is even more unfortunate that this grieving family is now being exploited by Jennifer Olson and Protective Parents of Texas for a political agenda.

[Above] Closeup from the Out of Court Agreement

Signed by Alisa Clakley (upper left) and Brian Maker (lower left)

Stamped "Agreed w/o hearing or conference"

Settled Out of Court

In yet another dishonest sound edit the next out take in the video poses the following question from Duhnelle Essary with a very dishonest edit of Judge Haddock’s answer.

In the video we hear:

Duhnelle: As a judge, don't you make the final determination in that:

Judge Haddock: No, that is not true.

I can't make it- be a final determination about all cases in all children all over the world.

But Judge Haddock’s actual answer on original audio recording is:

Judge Haddock: No, that is not true.

The law of the land is, and I think we want it that way, parents get to make the decisions, they get to parent their children, and the judge can only make a decision when evidence is brought to us. And we can't,

I can't make it- be a final determination about all cases in all children all over the world.

Then we hear the following question from Duhnelle Essary: “I understand, but if it's before your court?” but this is replaced in the transcript running on the screen with “But all before your court?” 

This is yet another dishonest change and is designed to imply that the case was actually brought before Judge Haddock’s court (it was not).  The original question Duhnelle Essary asked Judge Haddock only refereed to any hypothetical case brought before her court “if it’s before your court” but the question substituted on the screen edits out the phase “I understand” (which implied an understanding that the case had not come before Haddock’s court) with a declaration implying that this case was before Judge Haddock’s court “But all before your court?”.

Judge Haddock then responds:

No ma'am, that is not true.  It isn't.  They filed a pleading and they did not want to prosecute it. They just did not want to. Did they not want to because they had something on them? Did you think about that? Did they not want to because, maybe  their lawyer said "You know she is going to ask if your drug free, and if  you’ve used anything in the last six months, your not going to get custody, Did you think about that?

The layman may not understand that “filed a pleading” means that they filed a case in the court, and “did not want to prosecute it” means that they chose to settle out of court rather than bring the case before a judge.

The narrator / interviewer then asks the grandmother:

Alisa, do you feel it is in fact a judges responsibility to make decisions about cases like your granddaughter’s in her court?

To which the grandmother responds:

 Um- absolutely.  She should have been uh- making a judgment call but we never got into the courtroom. And it sounds to me like she knew nothing about anything as far as this case goes. If she did, and as Judge Harris had said, he had made a statement that this case should have been heard in court, Now- they were together, so if she knew and read the evidence, and saw everything that we have produced for them, she should have read it. 

The truth is that this case never went before a judge for one simple reason: because the family settled it out of court.  Contrary to the grandmother’s statement, there was never any evidence presented in this case.  The only thing filed was an affidavit from the grandmother attached to the original petition, which was never presented to the court.  By signing the out of court settlement, the grandmother was effectively recanting the affidavit (which itself never mentioned the CPS investigation of Leiliana, and which probably did not meet the very high standard for a grandparent to obtain custody from a parent). Judge Haddock never saw this affidavit, because it was in the main file in Judge Harris’s court, and was not needed because the family chose to settle out of court.

Next that narrator asks the grandmother:

Was she also suggesting that you as Leiliana’s grandmother was [sic] also using drugs?

It is very clear from the original audio that Judge Haddock said no such thing about the grandmother.  Moreover this issue is merely thrown out as part of a distraction, because it has no impact on the false claim that the judiciary is responsible for Leiliana’s death.

The narrator asks the grandmother what one question she would ask the judge.  And the grandmother responds “Why can’t you tell the truth,” yet the judges have been completely truthful.  It is now time to see the other side of the coin.

The 233rd Court Has Saved the Lives of Thirty Children!

The video ends as it began with an outtake from the recorded conversation in which Judge Haddock says:

In seventeen years we’ve lost five babies.

Then the narrator snidely adds “Tarrant County does not need a sixth.

And Duhnelle Essary writes on her Facebook page:

"...from what I understand that is an extremely high death count to happen in one courtroom."

However the truth is that this number is shockingly low!

On average about 1,580 children in the US die from abuse or neglect each year.  Over a seventeen year period that would be 26,860 children out of 74 million children in the USA, or 36 out of every 100,000 children.

Approximately 4,800 children pass through each Tarrant County Family Court each year.  Over a seventeen year period that is 81,600 children.  Out of that, only five children who went through the 233rd District Court, died from abuse or neglect.  That is an average of 6 out of every 100,000 children.  This is way below the national average!

In other words the children who passed thru the 233rd district court were six times less likely to die from abuse or neglect than the national average.  Put another way, Judges Harris and Haddock have together, saved the lives of over thirty children, and we will never know who they were!

There is nothing about this new video that offers any real refutation of my recent article.  The video is filled with dishonest sound edits, and falsifications, dealing almost entirely with issues that are distractions from the real question of responsibility for the death of Leiliana.  In the end, this video is a sad exploitation of the death of a child and a grieving family for Jennifer Olson’s political agenda.

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.