Category: FATHER’S RIGHTS

Case Dismissed

TEXAS MOTHER ABSCONDS WITH SONS TO OKLAHOMA AND GETS PROTECTIVE ORDER AGAINST DAD

Case: Crow v. Crow [PO-20-08][Choctaw, OK] and [Cause FM20-00269][Van Zandt]
Result: Dismissed with prejudice and Mother ordered to pay Dad’s attorney fees

Oklahoma State Courts Network

Haslam represented this father of two young boys whose mother absconded with them to Oklahoma – in direct violation of a Texas court order issued when she filed for divorce the day she left Texas. On top of that, once she got to Oklahoma, she sought an ex parte victim’s protective order [VPO] against the father seeking to forbid his contact with the boys and her.

Ex parte VPO’s are among the most abused legal tools – they permit the filing person to get legal relief against the accused without his presence to defend himself: just one product of decades of successful lobbying by our culture’s Feminist-Victimist Complex.  Here, the mother filed for divorce in Texas and made all kinds of claims about Dad to an Oklahoma judge before Dad even knew she’d moved out of their Texas house.  Remarkably, this judge heard her claims and granted her VPO without a court reporter present to record her allegations, leaving Dad unable to challenge those oral allegations later.

Once Dad hired Haslam, he quickly succeeded in removing this judge from the case.

Licensed in Oklahoma and Texas, Haslam urged Oklahoma motions to return the VPO to Texas per the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act [UCCJEA]. After cross-examining the mother under oath in Oklahoma, the new Oklahoma judge dismissed the VPO “protecting” father’s two sons  and agreed to return the surviving VPO “protecting” mother to Texas: Haslam wanted the Texas divorce court judge to know exactly what she’d been up to. Crucially, Haslam also persuaded the Oklahoma Court to make a finding that mother had behaved inappropriately in removing the boys to Oklahoma.  This finding of “inappropriate conduct” as defined in the UCCJEA is a way to obtain legal fees and costs down the road….

With the VPO now before the Texas divorce court judge, Haslam persuaded the judge to dismiss the remaining VPO forever.  THEN, Haslam persuaded the Texas judge to award Dad $17,000+ in attorney fees and costs! Not only does this restore Dad financially, it educates the Texas divorce judge about the mother’s months of falsehoods and violations of Texas orders, setting Dad up well as his divorce lawyer fights for custody and child support before that very same Texas judge.

1-22-2021 Filemarked Order Dismissing with Prejudice and Awarding Fees

 

In need of an exceptional divorce lawyer?

Mr. Haslam is pleased to recommend Tina Hall Montoya. Her website is https://www.tinamhall.com/

Settlement

TEXAS MOTHER ABSCONDS WITH SON TO WASHINGTON STATE – HASLAM RETURNS HIM TO DAD AND COURT GRANTS HIM CUSTODY, CHILD SUPPORT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES

Case: ex parte G.J.M., a Child [Cause 83618] [Lamar, TX]
Result: Son stolen by mother returned to Dad


Stealing a child – even by a parent – is often one and likely two distinct felonies in Texas. Kidnapping and interference with child custody are separate offenses and not precluded by double jeopardy jurisprudence.

Here, a mother absconded with her young son from Lamar County [TX] to a remote area of Washington State. As in almost all paternity orders and divorce litigation, the Lamar County paternity order governing the home of this child had a 75-mile geographic limitation on how far away either parent could move him. When Dad would not agree to her taking the boy to WA state to live – she just took him.  Didn’t tell him she was leaving or where she was going.  At least as importantly, she didn’t go to court first….

After months of investigation, the family located her in a remote area near Tacoma and hired Haslam. Haslam succeeded in obtaining a writ of habeus corpus and an order to enforce possession and access to the child from the Lamar County court, sent the papers to local WA authorities and prepared to seize the child for his return. Wisely, the mother delivered the boy to them and he was returned to Dad as litigation began.

After hearing the evidence, the Lamar County judge ordered a switch in primary custody to Dad back in Lamar County, ordered mother to pay Dad’s attorney’s fees and costs and ordered mother to begin paying dad monthly child support.

Case Dismissed

ALLEGED DEPRIVED CHILDREN AND DHS TAKES CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN

Civil Matter: Alleged Deprived Children and DHS Takes Custody of the Children
Case: In re Hall children
Court: [JD-05-123, Rogers County]
Result: Case dismissed when Rogers County Trial Judge Erin O’Quinn Reversed by Oklahoma Supreme Court


Summary:

Read stories about this case from the Claremore Daily Progress:

Because juvenile matters are confidential by Oklahoma statute, the docket sheet and the identity of the 5 children in this “juvenile deprived” matter cannot be revealed, but Haslam represented their natural father in this Rogers County case that experienced unusual interest by the press and local community. On May 30, 2007, after 2 years of litigation, this case was dismissed outright and the children returned to their father.

The Bizarre Investigation and Charge

The Rogers County District Attorney alleged Mr. and Mrs. Hall deprived their children in McIntosh County. The Halls lived in McIntosh County, and the McIntosh County DHS office investigated and refused to find abuse. Nonetheless, Mrs. Hall was escorted from her home by family members to a Rogers County shelter. Mr. Hall knew nothing about their new location.

About one month later, Rogers County officials took the children from Ms. Hall because of concerns she was depriving them. Yet after another month, the Rogers County DA filed its deprived petition against both parents. Incomprehensibly, it based its petition against Mr. Hall on the very McIntosh County claims against him that had been investigated and declined earlier by McIntosh County officials.

The Rogers County Trial and Successful Appeal

Mrs. Hall admitted she had deprived the children, but Mr. Hall fired two attorneys before hiring Haslam to fight the charge. The local judges refused to allow Mr. Hall ANY visits with his kids for 10 months – not even SUPERVISED visits – while Ms. Hall was granted visitation. In a January 2006 bench trial, Judge Erin O’Quinn ruled that Mr. Hall had deprived his kids. The children did not testify, and hearsay statements were unlawfully admitted over Haslam’s objections.

In the first of two abrupt appellate reversals of Rogers County trial judge Erin Oquin, the Oklahoma Supreme Court overturned her ruling denying Mr. Hall transcripts of his trial and an appellate attorney at court fund expense.

Then, adequately equipped to lodge his appeal, Claremore attorney Greg Laird persuaded the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals that Judge O’Quinn had committed error in the trial. The appeals court reversed her finding that Mr. Hall had deprived his children and remanded the case for a fair trial.

After Mr. Hall’s Appellate Victories: The Case is Dismissed and His Kids Returned to Him

After the appellate courts returned the case to Rogers County for retrial, prosecutor Jenny Sanbrano’s drummed up still more charges against Mr. Hall: this time with threatening Judge O’Quinn and her. This exercise of Rogers County’s vindictiveness was based on a phone call Mr. Hall allegedly made to DHS asking for the return of the kids to him pending the retrial, and in which he allegedly promised that Rogers County would be “…less one prosecutor and judge when he and his lawyer got finished.”

Haslam immediately, successfully moved to disqualify the Rogers County courts and prosecutors from the case. The case was reassigned to Mayes County Judge Gary Dean and the Ottowa County DA. After assessing the case history, Judge Dean removed the Rogers County DHS workers, the CASA workers and the childrens’ lawyer, Leslie Ellis-Kissinger, from the case.

On May 30, 2007, Judge Dean completely dismissed the case against Mr. Hall and returned all of his children to his custody. On December 7, 2007, the Court issued its final order. The order is candid in its findings: “…Based upon the record, the claims of Crystal Hall as to abuse appear to the Court to have been manufactured or fabricated….” [See the final order here]. As the order’s first paragraph relates, the Court took the extraordinary step of making its final order public record. Judge Dean also completely dismissed the “threatening phone call” charge involving Sanbrano.