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.

The Truth about Judge Wells: Who’s Watching the Watchers?

The Truth about Judge Wells

Who’s Watching the Watchers?

By

James Scott Trimm

Family Court judges interact with people in what is often one of the worst experiences of their lives.  The cases often involve people with seemingly conflicting rights over the same property and more importantly, their children.   The dilemma of child custody disputes goes all the way back to the times of Solomon (1Kings 3:16-28).  Unfortunately half of disputants leave Family Court unhappy.  In fact, often, both parties leave unhappy.  When people are caught in emotionally wrenching situations and are disappointed by the outcome, it is easy for them to interpret their disappointment as “injustice” and this has led to a subculture of Family Court haters. 

The anti-Family Court subculture has formed an organization in Tarrant County which operates under the names Protective Parents of Texas (PPT) and Protective Parents Coalition (PPC) which maintain a groups of self-proclaimed “court watchers.”  Jennifer Olson who was one of the co-founders of the group largely leads the group.  In a recent article I documented that Jennifer Olson, who is a family violence activist, was herself arrested just last year for family violence. 

Much of this sub-culture is made up of former litigants in Family Court, who were personally disappointed by the outcome of their family court cases, and emotionally feel that their outcome was “injustice.”  This is a subculture of people that simply harbor an irrational hatred for family court judges.  One of the lightning rods for this subculture to hate on has been Judge Judith Wells of the 325th District Court.  This may be in no small part because Jennifer Olson’s most recent divorce and child custody dispute was handled by Judge Wells' 325th District Court. 

In my own investigations, I have discovered that PPT /PPC has been less than honest in its representations concerning Judge Wells.

For example, one Wells case famously cited by PPC/PPT is 325-371563-04 (Archer v Archer).  PPC/PPT recently shared a video of Ms. Archer saying:

Wendy Archer, has spoken out on this page of the trauma induced by Judge Judith Wells to her family. Presented below is a video with Ms Wendy Archer. We appreciate her speaking out and she continues to be an advocate for children and families that are being traumatized by the Tarrant County Family Court.

In the video Archer explains how she appealed her case in Wells' Court to the Appeals Court and even to the Texas Supreme Court, but lost both appeals.  She claims this demonstrates the “…corrupt culture in the Tarrant County Family Courts which are closely connected all the way up to the State Supreme Court of Texas.”

What PPT/PPC doesn’t tell you is that Archer actually settled her case out of court.  (It is amazing the number of cases that PPC/PPT cites as examples, which were actually settled out of court.)  In this case Archer had become dissatisfied with the Amicus Attorney who had been appointed to represent the interests of the children.  Archer was unhappy with the fact that the Amicus Attorney representing the best interests of the children, was to her view, “aligned with” the children’s father in "her desire for the children to live primarily with the father.”  When Wells did not entertain her desire to remove the Amicus attorney, Archer filed a motion to have Wells herself recused.  When Judge Welker denied that motion, Archer appealed that ruling to the Appeals Court which said:

Appellant Wendy Jo Archer attempts to appeal from denial of her motion to recuse the trial judge in cause number 325-371563-04.   Judge Jeff Walker heard appellant's motion and denied it on April 16, 2010.   Appellant filed a notice of appeal, and on May 12, 2010, we notified the parties of our concern that this court lacked jurisdiction over this appeal because the “Order Denying Motion to Recuse” does not appear to be a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order.   We also stated that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court, on or before May 24, 2010, a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.   No response has been filed.

Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment or order.   Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.2001).   An order denying a motion to recuse is an unappealable interlocutory order.  Hawkins v. Walker, 233 S.W.3d 380, 401 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, pet. denied).   Specifically, rule 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only “on appeal from the final judgment.”  Tex.R. Civ. P. 18a(f);  see Hawkins, 233 S.W.3d at 401.   Because the order from which appellant attempts to appeal is an unappealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.   See Tex.R.App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

Still not satisfied, Archer appealed this to the Texas Supreme Court, which also denied her appeal for the same reason.

What PPC/PPT does not tell you is that Wendy Archer ultimately signed an agreement settling out of court, and of course you cannot appeal an out of court settlement, that is why it is an agreement. In the end Judge Wells simply signed off on the agreement Wendy Archer agreed to out of court, as Texas law generally compels judges to do.

In another recent posting in their "Vote No" to Judge Wells campaign, PPT/PPC shares an article about a “Texas Supreme Court ruling handed down on Judge Judith Wells” as if it is recent news (it actually happened way back in 2008).  

  

It appears that for Protective Parents of Texas, if the Texas Supreme Court upholds Wells' decisions, it is evidence of a “corrupt culture… all the way to the State Supreme Court of Texas.”   But the Texas Supreme Court reverses Wells, this is evidence that she is a bad judge.  This is what passes for rational thinking in the PPT/PPC pitchfork-crowd culture.

Who's watching the watchers?.... I am!