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

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

Lana Shadwick State Bar No. 00784951 2210 Norfolk, Suite 920 Houston, Texas 77098 Telephone: (713) 392-8222 Telecopier: (713) 622-6334 [email protected] Attorney for Relator, Connie V. Harrison Preamble COMES NOW Connie V. Harrison, Relator herein, who respectfully files this, her Petition for Writ of Mandamus. In this Petition, Ms. Harrison will be referred to as “Ms. Harrison,” and her ex-husband Cliff Harrison, will be referred to as “Mr. Harrison.”

Identity of Parties and Counsel Pursuant to Tex. R. App. Pro. 52.2, Ms. Harrison identifies the following parties and counsel: Relator and her Counsel: Connie V. Harrison Represented by: Lana Shadwick State Bar No. 00784951 Respondent: Judge Alicia K. Franklin Presiding Judge, 311th District Court Caroline, 8th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 274-4580 Real Parties in Interest and his Counsel: Cliff Harrison Represented by: Schlanger, Silver, Barg & Paine LLP Patricia A. Wicoff State Bar No. 21422500 Amy Harris State Bar No. 2401057 North Post Oak Lane, Suite 300 Houston, Texas 77024 Telephone: (713) 735-8514 Telecopier: (713) 351-4514 Amicus Attorney: Heather Hughes State Bar No. 00796794 Echo Lane, Ste. 475 Houston, Texas 77024 Telephone: (713) 463-5505 Telecopier: (713) 463-5213

Table of Contents Preamble......................................................................................................................i Identity of Parties and Counsel ................................................................................ iii Table of Contents .................................................................................................. iv-v Index of Authorities ................................................................................................... 6 Statement of the Case................................................................................................. 7 Statement of Jurisdiction............................................................................................ 8 Sole Issue Presented ................................................................................................... 8 The Honorable Judge Franklin committed a clear abuse of discretion in refusing to render judgment based on the parties’ mediated settlement agreement found in Appendix 1 which dealt with all issues involving the children save and except management of their college funds.

Statement of Facts ...................................................................................................... 8 Arguments and Authorities ...................................................................................... 12 Sole Issue Presented ................................................................................................. 12 The Honorable Judge Franklin committed a clear abuse of discretion in refusing to render judgment based on the parties’ mediated settlement agreement found in Appendix 1 which dealt with all issues involving the children save and except management of their college funds.

I. Introduction............................................................................................13 II. The Standard Of Review………………….…………………………..14 III. Texas Family Code Section 153.0071(e) Entitles Relator To A Judgment On the Mediated Settlement Agreement…………………15

A. Texas Family Code Section 153.0071………………………..………..16 B. The Texas Supreme Court Settled The Issue In In re Stephanie Lee – Mediated Settlement Agreements Are To Be Enforced……………17 C. Texas Family Code 153.001(a) Expresses Public Policy of Texas That Parents Should Be Able To Make Decisions About Their Children..................................................................................................22 IV. Conclusion – Ms. Harrison Is Entitled To Entry Of The MSA Order And A Stay Of The March 27, 2015 9 a.m. Entry Of The Trial Court’s Rendition That Does Not Adopt The MSA...........................................22 Conclusion and Prayer ............................................................................................. 24 Certificate of Conference ......................................................................................... 25 Certification ............................................................................................................. 25 Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 26 Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................ 26 Appendix………………………………………………………………………27-28

Index of Authorities Cases Acker v. Texas Water Comm’n, 790 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. 1990)………………………………………………………16 Am. Zurich Ins. Co. v. Samudio, 370 S.W.3d 363 (Tex. 2012)………………………………………………………16 City of DeSoto v. White, 288 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. 2009)……………..………………………………………..16 In re Gonzalez, 981 S.W.2d 313 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied)…………………….26 In re Stephanie Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. 2013)……………...…………………………………..passim Molinet v. Kimbrell, 356 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. 2011)………………...…………………………………….16 Perkins v. City of San Antonio, 293 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, no pet.)………………………..25 Texas Dep’t of Protective & Reg. Srvcs v. Mega Child Care, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. 2004)………………………………………………………16 Texas Statutes Tex. R. Civ. P. 21………………...……………………………………………….25 Tex. Fam. Code sec. 157.0071………………………………...……………..passim Tex. Fam. Code sec. 153.001(a)…………………………………………………..24 Tex. Gov’t Code sec. 311.026……………………………………………………16

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: Relator, Ms. Connie V. Harrison, files this petition for writ of mandamus. Ms. Harrison asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to Judge Alicia Franklin, Presiding Judge of the 311th Judicial District Court of and for Harris County, Texas, compelling Judge Franklin to enter judgment based upon the mediated settlement agreement found in Appendix 1 to this petition for writ of mandamus, and to stay the entry of judgment on March 27, 2015 at 9 a.m., based on the Judge Franklin’s rendition of February 13, 2015 found in Appendix 2. In support of her prayer, Relator, Ms. Harrison would respectfully show this Honorable Court as follows.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Petitioner is Mr. Harrison, referred to here as (“Mr. Harrison”) and Respondent is Connie Harrison, referred to here as (“Ms. Harrison”). The parties reached a Mediated Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) on all matters dealing with their children on January 29, 2014. Appendix 1 (MSA). In the MSA, Ms. Harrison has joint custody with Mr. Harrison. According to the MSA, Ms. Harrison is the primary care parent and the children live with Ms. Harrison in Harris County, Texas. Ms. Harrison and Mr. Harrison, along with their counsel signed and agreed to all provisions of the MSA.

Relator, Ms. Harrison, seeks relief from Judge Franklin’s entering judgment on March 27, 2015 at 9 a.m. based on her February 13, 2015 rendition (Appendix 2) that fails to incorporate the parties’ MSA as to parent-child issues.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The basis of this Court’s jurisdiction is section 22.002(a) of the Texas Government Code. This section confers jurisdiction on this Court to issue writs of mandamus agreeable to the principles of law regulating those writs, against a district judge.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS Background Overview: The divorce action was filed in 2006. The case was tried to a jury beginning in March 2010 and ending in April 2010. Respondent appealed the final order in September 2010. In December 2012, the Fourteenth Court of Appels reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial, with the exception that the appellate court affirmed the divorce between the parties as of June 2010. The parties participated in mediation and signed a mediation

agreement on January 29, 2014. Appendix 1. On April 10, 2014, the Court signed an order to comport with the mediated settlement agreement. Appendix 2. Trial was conducted in January 2015 wherein Ms. Harrison was forced to proceed pro se. Ms. Harrison has repeatedly motioned for attorney’s fees, and even though the community estate is sizable, she has not been awarded attorney’s fees. On January 16, 2015, Ms. Harrison was ordered to pay the Amicus Attorney over $14,000.00.

The Court also awarded on October 24, 2014 that monies in the registry of the Court in the amount of $14,421.31 be awarded to the Amicus Attorney.

 Jan. 29, 2014: Mediated Settlement Agreement Signed - Appendix 1 Mr. Harrison and Ms. Harrison reached a Mediated Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) on all matters dealing with their children on January 29, 2014. Appendix (MSA of January 29, 2014). In the MSA, Ms. Harrison has joint custody with Mr. Harrison. According to the MSA, Ms. Harrison is the primary care parent and the children live with Ms. Harrison in Harris County, Texas. Ms. Harrison and Mr. Harrison, along with their counsel signed and agreed to all provisions of the MSA.

The MSA addressed all issues involving the children save and except management of their college funds. See Appendix 1. ). The MSA contained all the statutorily required language for a valid and enforceable MSA.

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

 March 12, 2014 – Emergency Motion To Enter Order Filed By Amicus Attorney - Appendix 6  April 4, 2014 – Mr. Harrison filed Motion to Enter MSA – Appendix 8

 April 10, 2014 – MSA incorporated into Agreed Order on Parent-Child Issues and it was signed by the Court – Appendix 3 & 4 On April 10, 2014, the 311th Court entered the MSA and incorporated the MSA into the Agreed Order on Parent-Child Issues and the parties operated under this Order. See Appendix 3 (Agreed Order) & 4 (transcript of hearing).

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

On May 30, 2014 in a hearing before the Court, counsel for Ms. Harrison stated to the Court “We are asking this Court to enforce the MSA as written as I argued during my opening summary.” Appendix 9, pg. 6 (Hearing transcript of 5/30/14). Mr. Harrison was questioned about “prior acts or criminal factors” and “a criminal conviction for family violence” but Mr. Harrison replied that there was not, “There was a dismissal. Deferred adjudication and a dismissal.” He also testified that he received deferred adjudication on an assault and battery charge and the charge was dismissed. Id. at pg. 7.

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

On September 3, 2014, a hearing was heard and the Associate Judge ordered that Ms. Harrison be “immediately, instanter removed as a joint managing conservator” and ordering that Mr. Harrison “immediately, instanter appointed the temporary sole managing conservator.” The order further provides that Mr. Harrison was to have “the exclusive right to all periods of possession and access with the children,” and that Ms. Harrison “shall not have any periods of possession and/or access to the children until further order of the Court or by written agreement of the parties and the attorneys.” The order also terminated Mr. Harrison’s obligation to pay child support. Ms. Harrison was not represented by counsel. Appendix 10. Ms. Harrison tells Counsel she was not given notice and she was not served concerning the matters conducted during the September 3, 2014 hearing.

 September 8th, October 24th, 2014 – Respondent Requested a De Novo Hearing and Appeal of the Associate Judge’s Ruling – Appendix 12 & On September 8th and October 24th, 2014, Respondent timely filed a Request For De Novo Hearing And Appeal To The District Court appealing the September 3, 2014 hearing and Order of the Associate Judge. Although there is a notice of hearing in the district court records, Ms. Harrison tells counsel she did not receive a de novo hearing of the Associate Judge’s order.

 January 14th and January 16, 2015 - Ms. Harrison Asked The Court To Enter MSA But Was Denied An Opportunity To Present Evidence – Appendix 14 January 16th, 2014 Trial Transcript On January 16th, Ms. Harrison asked the trial court to enforce the MSA and the trial court denied her request. Appendix 14.

 January 20, 2015 – Ms. Harrison filed Emergency Motion To Enforce MSA – Appendix 16.

On the morning of January 20, 2015, Ms. Harrison filed another motion to enforce the MSA, she told the Court that she had filed the Motion and wished to urge the motion and her Motion was perfunctorily denied. See Appendix 15, pg. 4 (Trial transcript excerpt). The trial court continued the court trial and did not allow Ms. Harrison to put on evidence as to the MSA. Ms. Harrison also filed an Emergency Motion for Continuance.

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

On February 13, 2015, the Judge's Rendition gave sole managing conservatorship (“SMC”) to Mr. Harrison and gave possessory conservatorship (“PC”) to Ms. Harrison with only supervised visitation.

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

I. Introduction The parties in this case were ordered to mediation and concluded the mediation by reaching a mediated settlement agreement and signing off on that MSA (all parties and counsel). The MSA contained all the statutorily required language for a valid and enforceable MSA.

The first page of the mediated settlement agreement contains the following sentence, which appears in bold, capitalized and underlined print: “THIS MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS BINDING AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO REVOCATION.”

Appendix 1 at pg. 1.

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

Appendix 1 at pg. 3.

The MSA contains all of the necessary terms as it relates to parent-child issues save and except management of the children’s college fund. Appendix 1 at pg. 2-3 and Exhibit A attached to the MSA.

II. The Standard Of Review The issue in this case involves the statutory interpretation of Texas Family Code section 153.0071 governing mediated settlement agreements. The Texas Supreme Court has held that questions of statutory construction are reviewed de novo.

Molinet v. Kimbrell, 356 S.W.3d 407, 411 (Tex. 2011). The fundamental objective in interpreting a statute is “to determine and give effect to the Legislature’s intent.”

Am. Zurich Ins. Co. v. Samudio, 370 S.W.3d 363, 368 (Tex. 2012). The Statutory Construction Act mandates that courts give effect to the clear meaning of the words in a statute. Tex. Gov’t Code sec. 311.026. The primary objective of statutory interpretation when a statute is unambiguous is to determine legislative intent by examining the statute’s plain language. City of DeSoto v. White, 288 S.W.3d 389, 394 (Tex. 2009). A statute is presumed to have been enacted by the legislature with complete knowledge of the existing law and with reference to it. Acker v. Texas Water Comm’n, 790 S.W.2d 299, 301 (Tex. 1990). If the statutory text is unambiguous, a court must adopt the interpretation supported by the statute’s plain language unless that interpretation would lead to absurd results. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Services v. Mega Child Care, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 170, 177 (Tex. 2004).

III. Texas Family Code Section 153.0071(e) Entitles Relator To A Judgment On the Mediated Settlement Agreement Section 153.0071(e) entitles Relator, Ms. Harrison, to judgment on the mediated settlement agreement. In its wisdom, the Texas Legislature provided a solution for resolution of family law matters and empowered individuals to make decisions that are in the best interest of them and their children. In enacting section 153.0071 of the Texas Family Code, the Legislature not only empowered individuals to make decisions for themselves and their children, but also provided a way whereby they could come to agreements without protracted litigation and its concomitant expense. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. sec. 153.0071. Other Texas statutes also reflect the general public policy of the state “to encourage the peaceable resolution of disputes, with special consideration given to disputes involving the parent-child relationship, including the mediation of issues involving conservatorship, possession, and support of children, and the early settlement of pending litigation through voluntary settlement procedures.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code sec. 154.002. In accordance with that policy, the Legislature enacted Texas Family Code section 153.0071 to address the resolution of suits affecting the parent-child relationship.

A. Texas Family Code Section 153.0071 Entitled “Alternate Dispute Resolution Procedures,” section 153.0071 of the Texas Family Code provides in pertinent part:

(a) On written agreement of the parties, the court may refer a suit affecting the parent-child relationship to arbitration. The agreement must state whether the arbitration is binding or non-binding. (b) If the parties agree to binding arbitration, the court shall render an order reflecting the arbitrator's award unless the court determines at a non-jury hearing that the award is not in the best interest of the child. The burden of proof at a hearing under this subsection is on the party seeking to avoid rendition of an order based on the arbitrator's award. (c) On the written agreement of the parties or on the court's own motion, the court may refer a suit affecting the parent-child relationship to mediation. (d) A mediated settlement agreement is binding on the parties if the agreement: (1) provides, in a prominently displayed statement that is in boldfaced type or capital letters or underlined, that the agreement is not subject to revocation; (2) is signed by each party to the agreement; and (3) is signed by the party's attorney, if any, who is present at the time the agreement is signed. (e) If a mediated settlement agreement meets the requirements of Subsection (d), a party is entitled to judgment on the mediated settlement agreement notwithstanding Rule 11, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, or another rule of law. (e–1) Notwithstanding Subsections (d) and (e), a court may decline to enter a judgment on a mediated settlement agreement if the court finds that: (1) a party to the agreement was a victim of family violence, and that circumstance impaired the party's ability to make decisions; and (2) the agreement is not in the child's best interest.

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

Subsection (d) provides that an MSA is binding on the parties if it is signed by each party and by the parties’ attorneys who are present at the mediation and states prominently and in emphasized type that it is not subject to revocation. Id. sec. 153.0071(d). Subsection (e) goes even further, providing that a party to an MSA is “entitled to judgment” on the MSA if it meets subsection (d)’s requirements. Id. sec. 153.0071(e). Subsection (e-1) provides a narrow exception to subsection (e)’s mandate, allowing a court to decline to enter judgment on even a statutorily compliant MSA if three conditions are met: (1) a party to the agreement was a victim of family violence; (2) the violence impaired the party’s ability to make decisions; and (3) the agreement is not in the best interest of the child.

B. The Texas Supreme Court Settled The Issue In In re Stephanie Lee – Mediated Settlement Agreements Are To Be Enforced In In re Stephanie Lee, the Texas Supreme Court had before it on petition for writ of mandamus, the issue of “whether a trial court abuses it discretion in refusing to enter judgment on a statutorily compliant mediated settlement agreement (MSA).”

See In re Stephanie Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. 2013). The trial court had refused to enter the MSA on best interest grounds. The Relator in the case argued that she was “entitled to judgment on the [MSA] because it met the statutory requirements under section 153.0071 of the Family Code. The Judge had denied enforcement on the MSA on the basis that a registered sex offender was living in her home.

The Texas Supreme Court noted that the issue before the Court was one of first impression. There was a split among the intermediate appellate courts. Id. at 450, fn.6. The Court also cited Alvarez v. Reiser from the Eastland Court of Appeals for the proposition that “even if one party withdraws its consent to the MSA, the trial court is required to enter judgment on the agreement.” Id. (citing Alvarez v. Reiser, 958 S.W.2d 232, 233 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1997, pet. denied)).

The Court conditionally issued the writ of mandamus stating: We hold that this language means what it says: a trial court may not deny a motion to enter judgment on a properly executed MSA on such grounds.

Id. at 457.

In its opinion, the Court found that: Encouragement of mediation as an alternative form of dispute resolution is critically important to the emotional and psychological well-being of children involved in high-conflict custody disputes.

Indeed, the Texas Legislature has recognized that it is “the policy of this state to encourage the peaceable resolution of disputes, with special consideration given to disputes involving the parent-child relationship, including the mediation of issues involving conservatorship, possession, and support of children, and the early settlement of pending litigation through voluntary settlement procedures.”

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

The Court noted in detail, the high financial and emotional cost, and the harmful effect on children, of high-conflict litigation. The Court stated “The Legislature has thus recognized that, because children suffer needlessly from traditional litigation, the amicable resolution of child-related disputes should be promoted forcefully.” Id. at 449-50.

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

Id. at 453 (citations omitted).

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

Id. at 453-54.

The Texas Supreme Court in In re Stephanie Lee held that “section 153.0071(e) reflects the Legislature’s determination that it is appropriate for parents to determine what is best for their children within the context of the parents’ collaborative effort to reach and properly execute an MSA.” The Court opined that “[t]his makes sense not only because parents are in a position to know what is best for their children, but also because successful mediation of child-custody disputes, conducted within statutory parameters, furthers a child’s best interest by putting a halt to potentially lengthy and destructive custody litigation.” The failure of the trial court in this case to enforce the MSA has caused or enabled, the very things that the Texas Legislature was trying to address when it enacted section 153.00071(e). Id. at 454.

The Texas Supreme Court opined that “we hold that section 153.0071(e) encourages parents to peaceably resolve their child-related disputes through mediation by foreclosing a broad best interest inquiry with respect to entry of judgment on properly executed MSAs, ensuring that the time and money spent on mediation will not have been wasted and that the benefits of successful mediation will be realized. Allowing courts to conduct such an inquiry in contravention of the unambiguous statutory mandate in section 153.0071 has severe consequences that will inevitably harm children. The decisions below ignore clearly expressed legislative intent, undermining the Legislature’s goal of protecting children by

eroding parents’ incentive to work collaboratively for their children’s welfare. This frustrates the policies underlying alternative dispute resolution in the custody context, which are firmly grounded in the protection of children.” Id. at 455.

The Court concluded that a trial court may not deny a motion to enter judgment on a properly executed MSA under section 153.0071 based on a broad best interest inquiry. The Court held that in cases of abuse or neglect, section 261.101 of the Family Code provides a mandatory duty to report. Moreover, it noted that there were numerous other statutes authorizing protective action by the trial court, and said that the safeguards inherent in the mediation process fulfill the need to ensure that children are protected. Id. at 458.

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

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

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

As is clear by the mandate set by the Texas Supreme Court in In re Stephanie Lee, a trial court abuses its discretion in denying a motion to enter judgment on an MSA and in setting a case for trial based on the court’s conclusion that the MSA is not in the child’s best interest.

C. Texas Family Code 153.001(a) Expresses Public Policy of Texas That Parents Should Be Able To Make Decisions About Their Children Moreover, section 153.001(a) of the Texas Family Code provides that: In suits affecting the parent-child relationship, it is the public policy of the State of Texas to: (1) assure that children will have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interest of the child; (2) provide a safe, stable, and nonviolent environment for the child; and (3) encourage parents to share in the rights and duties of raising their child after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage.

Tex. Fam. Code sec. (a).

IV. Conclusion – Ms. Harrison Is Entitled To Entry Of The MSA Order And A Stay Of The March 27, 2015 9 a.m. Entry Of The Trial Court’s Rendition That Does Not Adopt The MSA Ms. Harrison is entitled to entry of the MSA order as to parent-child issues. As evidenced by the record, and the exhibits filed in the Appendix to this writ of mandamus, the parties intended that the MSA would be enforced. They signed on January 29, 2014, and the trial court incorporated it into an Interim Agreed Order on April 10, 2014. Appendix 1, 3, 4. Moreover, the Petitioner and Respondent/Relator, and the Amicus Attorney, all urged that the MSA would be entered. Appendix 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 16. Relator urged the MSA again at trial but the trial court judge refused to entertain her presentation of the issue. Appendix 14, 15.

The trial court abused its discretion in its rendition by not adopting the provisions of the mediated settlement agreement as to parent-child issues, including not allowing Relator, Ms. Harrison to put on evidence of the mediated settlement agreement during trial of this matter in January of this year. See Appendix 14, pg. 4- & 15, pg. 4 (January 16th & 20th trial excerpts). Moreover, the trial court denied hearing the matter saying Relator had not given 3 days notice. The trial in chief began on January 20, 2015. Relator asked the trial court judge on January 16th, 2015 when pre-trial matters and other items were discussed, to entertain her motion but the court would not saying Relator did not give the requisite notice. The motion was dispositive on the parent-child issues, and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21 specifically excepts trial matters from the notice requirement. See Perkins v. City of San Antonio, 293 S.W.3d 650, 654-55 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, no pet.); Tex. R. Civ. P. 21. The trial court abused its discretion in not entertaining the motion, and in not incorporating the MSA into its rendition.

The trial court signed an “Interim Agreed Order On Parent-Child Issues” and the MSA was adopted during the April 10, 2104 hearing. See Appendix 3 (Agreed Order) & 4 (transcript of hearing).

Ms. Harrison is entitled to entry of the MSA order, as well as a stay of the March 27, 2015, 9 a.m. entry of the trial court’s rendition that does not adopt the MSA.

Relator, Ms. Harrison has filed a Motion to Stay concurrently with the filing of this writ of mandamus in the appellate court.

Counsel is also filing, and urging before the trial court at 9 a.m., that it agree to stay the proceedings in the trial court until the appellate court has an opportunity to rule on the writ of mandamus. As in an order that is being appealed, the trial court has the authority to suspend an order that is being urged at the appellate court. See In re Gonzalez, 981 S.W.2d 313, 314 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied).

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER Ms. Harrison is entitled to entry of the MSA order, as well as a stay of the March 27, 2015, 9 a.m. entry of the trial court’s rendition that does not adopt the MSA. Ms. Harrison prays for any other and further relief, general or special, in law or in equity, to which she may show herself to be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Lana Shadwick Lana Shadwick State Bar No. 00784951 2210 Norfolk, Suite 920 Houston, Texas 77098 Telephone: (713) 392-8222 [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE Respondent has notified all counsel. Petitioner has not responded to an inquiry about the undersigned counsel’s filing a writ of mandamus or a motion to stay but has responded to another email correspondence. The amicus attorney is opposed.

/s/ Lana Shadwick

CERTIFICATION I certify that I have reviewed the Petition and Writ and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the Appendix or the Record.

/s/ Lana Shadwick

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In accordance with Tex. R. App. Pro. 9.5(a), the undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent to Patricia A. Wicoff, lead counsel of record for Mr. Harrison, c/o Schlanger, Silver, 109 North Post Oak Lane, Suite 300, Houston, Texas 77024 and to Heather Hughes, counsel for J.E.H. and V.M.H., 952 Echo Lane, Suite 475, Houston, Texas 77024 through electronic email, and to Alicia K. Franklin, Judge of the 311th District Court, 201 Caroline, 8th Floor, Houston, Texas 77002 by hand-delivery, and postage prepaid certified mail, return receipt requested, on this, the 27th day of March, 2015.

/s/ Lana Shadwick

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Tex. R. App. Pro. 9.4(i)(3), the undersigned hereby certifies that according to the word count function of the computer program used to generate the document, the portions of the foregoing document subject to the rule contain contain less than 4200 words total and that the text thereof is in 14 point Times New Roman font.

/s/ Lana Shadwick

________________________________________________________________ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST OR FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS _________________________________________________________________ IN RE: CONNIE V. HARRISON __________________________________________________________________ RELATOR’S APPENDIX __________________________________________________________________

 APPENDIX 1 - Jan. 29, 2014: Mediated Settlement Agreement Signed  APPENDIX 2 - February 13, 2015 – Trial Court’s Rendition Giving Mr. Harrison SMC  APPENDIX 3 - April 10, 2014 – MSA incorporated into Agreed Order on Parent-Child Issues and it was signed by the Court  APPENDIX 4 – April 10, 2014 Transcript of Hearing  APPENDIX 5 - March 7, 2014 – Emergency Motion For Enforcement of MSA Filed By Mr. Harrison  APPENDIX 6 - March 12, 2014 – Emergency Motion To Enter Order Filed By Amicus Attorney  [NO APPENDIX 7]

 APPENDIX 8 - April 4, 2014 – Mr. Harrison filed Motion to Enter MSA  APPENDIX 9 - May 30, 2014 – Transcript of Hearing on Motion to Enforce MSA  APPENDIX 10 - September 3, 2014 – Hearing Transcript  APPENDIX 11 – September 3, 2014 Order  APPENDIX 12 -- September 8th – Respondent Requested a De Novo Hearing and Appeal of the Associate Judge’s Ruling  [NO APPENDIX 13]  APPENDIX 14 - January 16, 2015 Trial Transcript  APPENDIX 15 - January 20, 2015 – Trial Transcript

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

1 REPORTER'S RECORD VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUME 2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2006-68864 IN THE INTEREST OF ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT ) J.E.L.H., II, ) AND ) HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS V.M.H., ) ) MINOR CHILDREN ) 311TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

9 _____________________________________________

11 REQUESTED EXCERPTS OF REPORTER'S RECORD 12 _____________________________________________

15 On the 10th day of April, 2014, the following proceedings came on to be held in the above-titled and numbered cause before the Honorable Tom Stansbury, Judge Presiding, held in Houston, Harris County, Texas.

20 Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype machine.

April 10, 2014

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

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

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

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

April 10, 2014

1 INDEX 2 VOLUME 1 3 REQUESTED EXCERPTS OF REPORTER'S RECORD April 10, 2014 5 PAGE VOL.

6 First Excerpt of Reporter's Record .......... 4 1 Start of Second Excerpt ..................... 6 1 Ruling on Motion to Set Aside Rendition ..... 6 1 Ruling on Mediated Settlement Agreement .... 19 1 Start of Third Excerpt ..................... 26 1 Reporter's Certificate ..................... 33 1

April 10, 2014

1 (REQUESTED EXCERPTS OF REPORTER'S RECORD) 2 THE COURT: Okay. Counsel, if you will, tell me who represents Petitioner.

4 MS. WICOFF: Your Honor, Patricia A.

5 Wicoff and Amy Harris represent Mr. Clifford Layne Harrison, and we are the Petitioner in the underlying divorce. We're also the party that has the motions before the Court today.

9 THE COURT: Okay. The Respondent?

10 MR. MEDINA: I'm David Medina on behalf of Connie Harrison. Texas Bar Number 88.

12 MS. HUGHES: Your Honor, I'm Heather Hughes, the amicus attorney for the children.

14 THE COURT: Thank you.

15 MS. DANIELS: And my name is Heather Daniels, and I'm here for Bobby Newman on the limited issue of his interest in the Judge's current order.

18 THE COURT: In what?

19 MS. DANIELS: He has a -- they're trying to set aside the Judge's rendition, and he has -- he was awarded attorney's fees in that. So he has an interest in that order.

23 MS. WICOFF: Well, Your Honor, he's not the attorney of record. I don't know why anyone that's not the attorney of record would be addressing April 10, 2014

1 the Court with regard to any of these issues. If he has an interest in the order, then perhaps he should file an intervention like everyone else would; but I would object to anyone addressing the Court that is not an attorney of record for one of the parties in this matter, whether they have an interest or not.

7 It's inappropriate.

8 THE COURT: What motions do you have, Counsel? Ms. Wicoff?

10 MS. WICOFF: Your Honor, I have a Motion to Set Aside an Alleged Rendition. I have -- that was file marked March 31st by the clerk in this matter. I have a Motion to Enter a Mediated Settlement Agreement. I have a Motion for Preferential Trial Setting. I also have set for today a Motion for Severance; but I'm not moving forward on that severance today, Judge.

18 THE COURT: Are there any other motions set for today by anyone else or any other -- 20 MS. WICOFF: No, sir, there are not.

21 THE COURT: Okay. We've got a Motion to Set Aside Rendition, a Motion to Enter an MSA and a Motion for Preferential Trial Setting; and I guess they need to go in that order probably. Correct?

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

1 correct, Judge.

2 THE COURT: All right. Please proceed, ma'am.

4 MS. WICOFF: Your Honor, I'm going to provide you a timeline which will be a summary of my argument; and I'm providing a copy to Mr. Medina.

7 I've provided a copy to Ms. Hughes.

8 The rendition in question, Judge, is a result of a hearing on February the 12th and February the 14th. It was conducted before Judge Pratt.

12 (CONCLUSION OF FIRST REQUESTED EXCERPT) 13 ***** 14 (START OF SECOND REQUESTED EXCERPT) 15 THE COURT: Let's stand in recess for five minutes. Y'all stay close.

17 (Recess taken) 18 THE COURT: The Motion to Set Aside the Rendition of March 31st, 2014 is granted. Well, I had March 31st on my notes here.

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

23 THE COURT: It was filed that date, and the stamp date on the signature line for Judge Pratt is March 26th. That is the rendition that is April 10, 2014

1 set aside.

2 MS. WICOFF: Thank you, Judge.

3 MR. MEDINA: Thank you, Judge.

4 MS. WICOFF: May I pursue, then, at this point, Judge, our next motion, which would be a Motion to Enter the Mediated Settlement Agreement?

7 And, Judge, by way of just chronological, this case was mediated in January.

9 MS. HARRIS: 29th.

10 MS. WICOFF: Actually, I'll have Ms. Harris do it because she was at the mediation.

12 So I'll have her address the entry and the Lee case.

13 MS. HARRIS: Judge, actually, Judge Pratt had ordered the parties to mediation back in September. I was actually the only lawyer that objected at that time because we had previously mediated this case two or three or possibly even four times. The Judge ordered us to mediate anyway, and so we did. We scheduled mediation.

20 We mediated this case, I believe, on January 29th, earlier this year.

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

24 Mr. Harrison and I were there. The amicus attorney was there. And, Judge, we signed off on a Mediated April 10, 2014

1 Settlement Agreement that day. We have prepared an order that complies with the provisions of the Mediated Settlement Agreement; and, Judge, we just want to get that entered. It only pertains to the children's issues, with the exception of one thing.

6 There's only one issue that's not resolved by that Mediated Settlement Agreement, and that is the right or the duty to manage the children's college accounts, which we reserved to try at a later time.

10 Other than that, every provision that deals with the children is -- is within that Mediated Settlement Agreement, and we have an order in that regard.

13 THE COURT: Mr. Medina.

14 MR. MEDINA: Judge, the -- the MSA should be set aside because case law provides -- 16 MS. HUGHES: Your Honor, I'm going to object. I don't know that that's before the Court today.

19 MS. WICOFF: There's no motion -- 20 MR. MEDINA: Excuse me. 21 MS. WICOFF: -- to set aside before the Court today, Judge.

23 MR. MEDINA: Judge, I had the privilege of sitting on the Texas Supreme Court for eight years; and during that period of time, counsel April 10, 2014

1 is given 20 minutes on one side, 20 minutes on the other side without interruption. I would expect the same courtesy here at this bar. I'm responding to -- 4 THE COURT: I'll endeavor in that direction, Mr. Medina.

6 MR. MEDINA: Thank you.

7 THE COURT: At this point, I'm taking what you're saying as a background as to why the motion to enter should be denied.

10 MR. MEDINA: Thank you. Thank you, Judge.

12 It should be denied because my client was subjected to domestic violence, and that's -- that alone is enough to set aside these agreements; and quite frankly, Judge, that should have been conveyed to her before all of everybody's time and resources were wasted.

18 THE COURT: Conveyed to your client?

19 MR. MEDINA: Yes, sir. She should have known that going into that; but, you know -- 21 Excuse me, please.

22 But that aside, the case law allows these to be set aside. Now this agreement, as I understand it, in speaking with her counsel, lead counsel, it's substantially agreed to. There's some April 10, 2014

1 part that she doesn't agree to; but, you know, either we set it aside or we go back to arbitration and try to get -- get the details worked out. That's my response to that.

5 In regarding the ad litem, Judge, I didn't want to raise this here; but there is a motion to remove the ad litem, and that -- that motion needs to be heard at some point in the future. And my -- 9 THE COURT: When was that motion filed? Do you recall?

11 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: April.

12 MR. MEDINA: April of last year, Judge.

14 THE COURT: Okay.

15 MR. MEDINA: For whatever reason, that motion is still pending; but that needs to be reurged, and I think the lead counsel in this case will reurge that at some time.

19 Judge, in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 153.0071(e-1) supports -- supports that.

21 THE COURT: I apologize. Give me about two minutes. I'll be right back.

23 MR. MEDINA: Thank you, Judge.

24 (Recess taken) 25 THE COURT: I apologize.

April 10, 2014

1 Mr. Medina, did you answer me on when that was filed? Yeah, we did. We got that one.

3 Where were we after the motion to remove the ad litem -- or the amicus?

5 MS. HUGHES: 2013, I believe.

6 THE COURT: Okay.

7 MS. HARRIS: Judge, I can respond.

8 First of all, the motion to remove the amicus, Judge, was filed by Ms. Harrison's now lead counsel who was her appellate counsel; but the two family law lawyers that represented Ms. Harrison after that point have both declined to go forward on that motion. That's why it's not been urged before the Court.

15 Secondly, Judge, I think Mr. Medina was arguing that the Court should consider setting aside the Mediated Settlement Agreement because they allege that she was the victim of family violence.

19 Judge, 153.0071(e-1) and (e-2) specifically say that a party to the agreement was a victim of family violence, and that circumstance impaired the party's ability to make decisions; and the agreement is not in the best interest.

24 Further, Judge, I would argue that at this point in time, they can't ask the Court to set April 10, 2014

1 aside the Mediated Settlement Agreement. There was no objection to mediation. I was the only lawyer here. I think there was one, two, three, four, five lawyers here that day. I was the only lawyer that objected to mediation. Ms. Harrison nor any of her counsel objected to mediation. We went to mediation, an order was signed. I think they have now waived the right to ask the Court to now set it aside. And that, Judge, would be further 153.0071 beginning with (f).

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

13 THE COURT: What is the effect? Is granting relief contained or pursuant to the Mediated Settlement Agreement automatic if the Mediated Settlement Agreement is entered today?

17 MS. WICOFF: Oh, it's already been filed with the Court, Judge.

19 THE COURT: Well, what does Motion to Enter the MSA mean?

21 MS. WICOFF: We need an order, and maybe Ms. Hughes can address why we need an order.

23 THE COURT: An order adopting the contents -- 25 MS. WICOFF: That's correct.

April 10, 2014

1 THE COURT: -- of the MSA?

2 MS. WICOFF: That's correct.

3 THE COURT: Ms. Hughes.

4 MS. HUGHES: That is correct, Your Honor. They had filed a motion to enter -- they meaning Mr. Harrison's -- some time ago and then there were issues developing at the children's school with who was to pick up on what days and it was becoming an issue with the school. So I filed an emergency motion to enter as the amicus to try and narrow that down; and so that's what we appeared on, on March 26th. And the Court gave us a very limited order on possession and access to get us through the school year, so-to-speak. It doesn't address holidays or summer because my immediate concern was so that we could tell the school this is what you follow.

18 THE COURT: And that was pursuant to a hearing in open court on March 26th?

20 MS. HUGHES: Yes.

21 THE COURT: Why didn't she -- why did she limit the contents of the MSA that she adopted?

23 Why did she adopt only part of it?

24 MS. HUGHES: My understanding was because there had been a motion filed contesting the April 10, 2014

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

3 THE COURT: Is that motion still pending?

5 MS. HUGHES: My understanding is it's pending. I don't know that it's been set.

7 MS. WICOFF: It's never been set, Judge.

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

11 And, Judge, I just -- I also want to let the Court know that this alleged family violence argument that they attempt to make today is from an alleged incident that happened well over eight years ago. These people have not lived under the same roof in eight years. They've been divorced for well over four years.

18 Further, Judge, I would just provide to the Court a copy of the Supreme Court case In Re: Lee which says that, Judge, when there is a Mediated Settlement Agreement that a Trial Court may not deny a Motion to Enter the Judgment on a properly executed Mediated Settlement Agreement.

24 MR. MEDINA: Judge, that's a very good case. The concurrence is on point. The April 10, 2014

1 concurrence was written by my law school friend and former colleague Justice Guzman. It addresses essentially all issues that weren't addressed in majority opinion, and I think that's a good start to look for guidance for this type of assistance.

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

8 And I -- this is not evidence, Judge; but I want to hand to you a part of the text messages that -- that just is consistent with the type of language and behavior that goes on from Mr. Harrison -- 13 MS. HARRIS: Judge, and I would -- 14 MR. MEDINA: -- to Ms. Harrison.

15 MS. HARRIS: -- object to anything.

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

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

19 Is it all on the same date?

20 MR. MEDINA: Judge, it is on the same date. It's 5:40 a.m. This was part of an exhibit on February the 14th.

23 THE COURT: 2014?

24 MR. MEDINA: Yes, sir.

25 THE COURT: After the mediation?

April 10, 2014

1 MR. MEDINA: It's marked CH -- 2 MS. HARRIS: It's after the mediation, Judge.

4 MR. MEDINA: It's marked CH135.

5 I just add that, Your Honor, for this domestic violence issue -- and we're not talking about, you know, Saint Paul here.

8 MS. HARRIS: Judge, they're talking about an incident that happened before January of 2006. That's how long ago they're talking about.

11 How in the world can they come in today and say we're a victim of domestic violence and because of an alleged incident that happened more than eight years ago that's prevented me from entering into a properly executed Mediated Settlement Agreement even though I was there with counsel being advised?

17 THE COURT: Mr. Medina, it sounds to me that the -- that the Movant's arguments and requests are directly in line with Justice Guzman.

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

21 THE COURT: Tell me why they are not.

22 MR. MEDINA: They are not. Justice Guzman's concurrence -- the majority of that opinion was written by Justice Lehrmann. Justin Guzman's concurrence analyzes the -- the majority's opinion April 10, 2014

1 and finds instances where a -- a motion like this can be set aside based on domestic violence and some other issues, and I believe the concurrence supports our position.

5 THE COURT: Okay.

6 MS. HARRIS: Judge, a part of the opinion that I think Mr. Medina is talking about, let me just read to you exactly what it says. It says: Finally Subsection (e-1), added in 2005, provides a narrow -- a narrow exception to Subsection (e)'s mandate, allowing a Court to decline to enter judgment on even a statutorily compliant Mediated Settlement Agreement if a party to the agreement was a victim of family violence, comma, the violence impaired the party's ability to make decisions; and, Judge, that the agreement is not in the best interest of the child.

18 How can they say that an alleged incident that may or may not have happened more than eight years ago impaired her current ability to make a decision to sign a Mediated Settlement Agreement?

22 MR. MEDINA: Judge, what that does is give the Trial Court broad discretion, broad discretion, if you find it not in the best interest of the children. Now while that incident may -- April 10, 2014

1 leading to his arrest may have happened years ago, this man continues to threaten her through text messages. He's threatened her the day before the mediation. He continues to threaten her, and that's what all this is about, and it's a shame that we are still here arguing about this seven years later.

7 MS. HARRIS: Judge, that -- none of that has ever been introduced into evidence at any point in time. I've never heard that until just right this very second.

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

13 The opinion specifically says it provides a narrow exception, not broad discretion.

15 THE COURT: Anything further on this motion?

17 MR. MEDINA: No. Thank you, Judge.

18 MS. HARRIS: Judge, I would just argue that we really need to get an order entered.

20 There have been numerous problems with the drop off and pick up of the children, with denial of periods of possession and access.

23 And, Judge, the children have now been asked to leave their private school that they have been enrolled in since they began their school April 10, 2014

1 careers. And, Judge, it's imperative that we get an order in place protecting the children.

3 MR. MEDINA: And the children -- that is all true, but that incident was caused by the husband. The police were called to remove him from the campus because he was being hostile.

7 MS. HARRIS: Judge, that is not true.

8 That is absolutely not true.

9 THE COURT: The Court adopts the contents of the Mediated Settlement Agreement as the order of this Court.

12 MS. WICOFF: Your Honor, we have the order to submit, and I also have an order on vacate that I would tender to the Court. It is signed by myself.

16 And here is a copy of it, Mr. Medina.

17 THE COURT: Ms. Harris, Ms. Wicoff, did y'all give me this?

19 MS. HUGHES: I did, Your Honor.

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

21 MS. HUGHES: You can have it.

22 MS. HARRIS: We have an extra copy.

23 MS. HUGHES: Judge, and in this order you will see some handwritten interlineations that I did that conform with the order that Judge Pratt April 10, 2014

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

2 THE COURT: Have all counsel seen that?

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

6 THE COURT: Can y'all -- can y'all recess to counsel table -- 8 MS. HARRIS: Yes, Judge.

9 THE COURT: -- and if you've got a problem with it, Mr. Medina, I want you to address that on the record; but otherwise let me type in my docket sheet.

13 MS. HARRIS: Yes, Judge.

14 (Recess taken) 15 THE COURT: We're on the record.

16 Mr. Medina?

17 MR. MEDINA: I need some guidance here, Judge. I understand your decision. My client is telling me that she understands that this was not scheduled for today, this hearing to set aside. And I also understand that she was going to bring a witness to help her support the allegation on the psychological part.

24 Is that correct?

25 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: Yes.

April 10, 2014

1 MR. MEDINA: And while I think I know a little bit about family law, I am not a family law expert. I practice civil trial law and appellate law. That's where my experience is, and I certainly don't want to be in a position where she's not getting the best counsel she needs for this hearing.

7 And if you would indulge me, Your Honor, for a brief continuance, I don't -- 9 THE COURT: Let me see if that was set for today, number one.

11 MR. MEDINA: Okay.

12 THE COURT: Stephanie, can you verify for me?

14 MS. HARRIS: What exactly are we talking about was not set?

16 THE COURT: The motion to adopt the MSA.

18 MS. HARRIS: Okay.

19 THE COURT: Is that what you're saying, Mr. Medina?

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

22 THE CLERK: Today it was Clifford Harrison and Connie Harrison was set -- set aside judgment. It was set for set aside.

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

1 thing that we heard.

2 THE COURT: Right.

3 MS. HARRIS: But there were many others.

5 THE CLERK: To specify, it's a motion to enforce and then a set aside judgment and other motions.

8 MS. HARRIS: Right. Judge, and it was actually file stamped on April the 4th, Judge, 2014; and it was noticed that same date, Judge, for April 10th, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. And it was sent via e-mail, Judge, to Mr. Christopher Martin at Martin, Disiere, Jefferson & Wisdom; by e-mail to Mr. David Medina; and by e-mail to the amicus attorney, Ms. Heather Hughes.

16 THE COURT: It appears to be correct, Mr. Medina, from what Ms. Hughes is showing me. I think it was properly set for today.

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

20 May I have a moment, Judge?

21 THE COURT: Sure.

22 (Brief recess taken) 23 MR. MEDINA: Judge, may I make an inquiry -- 25 THE COURT: Yes, sir.

April 10, 2014

1 MR. MEDINA: -- to the clerk of the court if she has any documentation of this hearing, this part of the hearing being canceled by Judge Pratt? Do you have any notation?

5 THE COURT: Do you have any indication that the hearing -- 7 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: On April the 26th.

9 MS. HUGHES: I believe I know what Ms. Harrison is referring to, Your Honor, if -- 11 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: On March.

12 MS. HUGHES: -- the Court would like me to fill in.

14 THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.

15 MS. HUGHES: When we were down here on March 26th, at the conclusion of that hearing in the afternoon, Judge Pratt had asked the attorneys and Ms. Harrison to appear down here on today at 8:30 in the morning to get with her coordinator to get a pref setting on various motions. That kind of went away when she resigned that Friday.

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

24 MS. HUGHES: And then I received notice of a handful of motions set for today at 1:30.

April 10, 2014

1 MS. HARRIS: In fact, Judge, I -- I would say that I believe we filed originally a motion back on -- probably on or about March 21st, and so I want to say that our hearing -- that this hearing has been set since about that time.

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

8 THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.

9 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: Judge, we -- Bobby Newman had withdrawn. He hadn't been paid his fees and so I had to represent myself on that afternoon and Judge Pratt canceled. She said -- she looked at her documentation -- I have 40 cases. I cannot hear you on April the 10th. On April the 10th I cannot hear the motion to set aside or the motion to enter.

17 THE COURT: So come down here at 8:30 to get a new date?

19 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: So she said come here at 8:30; and so then my attorney, Mr. Martin, took it off of his calendar as -- as to us having the hearing and then my two witnesses that were going to show up took it off of their calendar because we were going to get a new date at 8:30 in the morning, as Ms. Hughes said, where everybody April 10, 2014

1 could attend at a future time.

2 THE COURT: Ma'am, I'm sure if you discussed that with Mr. Medina and with Mr. Martin, they have remedies available; but what I have before me today, it hadn't been canceled. It hadn't been reset. I understand what you're saying as a practical matter, but it hadn't been changed from 1:30 this afternoon. And based on that, I've made the ruling, and that ruling must stand at this time.

10 MR. MEDINA: Thank you, Judge.

11 THE COURT: Okay. Thank y'all.

12 MS. HARRIS: Judge, the only further motion that we have is our Motion for a Preferential Trial Setting.

15 And, Judge, I -- I understand that -- that we're in kind of a weird situation at this moment, but if I could just give the Court a flavor of kind of what we're dealing with.

19 Judge, this case was originally filed back in 2006. It was tried to a jury over the course of about two weeks in front of the Honorable Judge Doug Warne in March and then in April of 2010. We did get a rendition, ruling, an order signed in June of 2010. It went up on appeal. It's been back down for well over a year, Judge. It's been on remand for April 10, 2014

1 well over a year.

2 We attempted to get Temporary Orders in place in this matter immediately following the remand in January and February of 2013. Judge, we couldn't get anything heard until we got a Mediated Settlement Agreement a year later. My point, Judge, is that we have got to get a trial setting in this case.

9 (CONCLUSION OF SECOND REQUESTED EXCERPT) 10 ***** 11 (START OF THIRD REQUESTED EXCERPT) 12 THE COURT: Y'all have a seat, if you will. The coordinator is checking right now. I'm going to give you a trial setting date before you leave here.

16 MS. WICOFF: All right. Thank you.

17 MR. MEDINA: Thank you.

18 MS. HARRIS: Thank you, Judge.

19 MS. WICOFF: I'm sorry?

20 MR. MEDINA: Here is a copy of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals opinion. Do you have any objection?

23 MS. WICOFF: Oh, in this case?

24 MR. MEDINA: Yes.

25 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: It's my copy.

April 10, 2014

1 Would you like a copy, Judge?

2 THE COURT: Not necessarily. Whoever had it can have it back.

4 MR. MEDINA: Thank you, Judge.

5 THE COURT: Thank you.

6 MS. WICOFF: All right. And did both of those other orders get signed, Judge? I didn't -- where did we end up on the -- 9 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: Mr. Medina, do you have the order?

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

13 MS. HARRIS: It's not a Temporary Order.

15 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: Oh, we were -- 16 MS. WICOFF: Is that done?

17 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: The order has not been -- 19 THE COURT: We're off the record.

20 (Discussion off the record) 21 THE COURT: We're back on the record.

22 MS. WICOFF: Judge, what the MSA says, very boilerplate language, if there are drafting disputes, those drafting disputes go back to -- April 10, 2014

1 THE COURT: Who was your mediator?

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

4 THE COURT: Who was your mediator?

5 MS. WICOFF: John Millard, appointed by Judge Pratt.

7 THE COURT: Okay.

8 MS. WICOFF: And -- and we submitted an order to the other side weeks ago. We've never heard a peep about any drafting dispute, not a peep.

11 So at this point, Judge, we've got to get an order entered for the benefit of these children so if there's any hope of their staying at Second Baptist we have a firm order signed by the Court moving forward.

16 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: Your Honor, the language is very clear. Mr. Newman -- Mr. Newman withdrew on March 14th.

19 MS. HARRIS: 24th.

20 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: On March 14th.

21 MS. WICOFF: 24th.

22 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: Okay. Well, I have not had a family attorney to help me go through -- these orders would affect my children and myself -- April 10, 2014

1 THE COURT: Uh-huh.

2 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: -- for, you know, 10, 20 years.

4 THE COURT: Or at least until your trial date coming up.

6 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: Yes, Your Honor. And so I only ask that if you -- if you did decide to not set aside the MSA, to give us the opportunity to go through that with a family law attorney, as Justice Medina have recommended, so that -- and if -- and -- and I already see several drafting that they've put words in there that are not even in the MSA.

14 And so -- and so I just -- I plead with the Court that -- that that -- for me to be given the opportunity to have an attorney to go through that, and if we can't discuss it amongst -- if they can't -- if we can't agree to something, to go back to Mr. Millard.

20 THE COURT: I understand. I understand.

22 Ms. Hughes.

23 MS. HUGHES: I have a suggestion, Your Honor, that may accomplish both ends.

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

1 Temporary Order? If Ms. Harrison does submit drafting disputes and we can't work them out, then we're ordered back to Mr. Millard, but at least there is a governing order that covers everything moving forward.

6 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: Judge, I ask -- I mean this is -- that -- that would not be -- I have sole. Your Honor, I have sole custody.

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

10 MS. HUGHES: That's what the MSA -- 11 THE COURT: Ms. Harrison, I'm going to have to interrupt you and make this statement.

13 Change that order to read "interim," as Ms. Hughes suggests. Everybody approve that order unless there's some specific objections to the form, and I'll sign those orders as presented to me today.

17 Y'all have a seat and wait for your -- for your trial date. Oh, let me ask one other question before you do.

20 Ms. Hughes, were you there for the duration of the mediation?

22 MS. HUGHES: Absolutely, Your Honor.

23 THE COURT: Were there issues mediated other than the issues you were involved in?

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

1 were some property discussion, but then the focus shifted entirely to the children.

3 THE COURT: I don't want to invade anything, but I'd like to know has property been -- property issues been mediated.

6 MS. HUGHES: It was discussed -- 7 THE COURT: Ms. Wicoff, were you at the mediation -- no. Ms. Harris, you were there.

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

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

11 THE COURT: Was property mediated?

12 MS. HARRIS: Property was discussed.

13 I wouldn't -- I couldn't say to the Court that we actually mediated those issues.

15 THE COURT: Okay.

16 MS. HARRIS: It was discussed, but probably not negotiated very well, Judge; but it had been mediated numerous times prior to then.

19 THE COURT: All right. You agree, it was talked about?

21 MS. VASQUEZ HARRISON: They were discussed and I understand that children's issues, SAPCR issues and property, that type of bifurcation, is not allowed.

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

1 (Conclusion of requested transcriptions)

April 10, 2014

1 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF HARRIS 3 I, Marilee M. Anderson, Deputy Official Court Reporter in and for the 311th District Court of Harris County, State of Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains a true and correct transcription of all portions of evidence and other proceedings requested in writing by counsel for the parties to be included in this volume of the Reporter's Record in the above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred in open court or in chambers and were reported by me. 13 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any, offered by the respective parties.

16 I further certify that the total cost for the preparation of this Reporter's Record is $ and was paid/will be paid by .

19 WITNESS MY HAND this the ____________ day of __________________________, 2015.

20 Marilee M. Marilee M. Anderson 2015.03.25 12:36:48 21 Anderson -05'00' _ 22 Marilee M. Anderson, CSR Texas CSR 3271 23 Deputy Official Court Reporter P.O. Box 6459 24 Kingwood, Texas 77325 Telephone: (281) 705-9268 25 Expiration: 12/31/2016 3/7/2014 3:58:40 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 660878 By: Stephanie Garcia

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

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

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

1 REPORTER'S RECORD 2 VOLUME 1 OF 1 3 COURT CAUSE NO. 2006-68864

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

13 ******************************************************** 14 REPORTER'S RECORD ********************************************************

17 On the 30th day of May, 2014, the following proceeding came to be heard in the above-titled and numbered cause before the Honorable Thomas Stansbury, presiding, held in Houston, Harris, Texas: 21 Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype machine.

25 (Excerpt of Pages 53 through 56.)

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 A P P E A R A N C E S Patricia A. Wicoff Christopher W. Martin SBOT: 21422500 SBOT: 13057620 Amy R. Harris 808 Travis St., 20th Floor SBOT: 24041057 Houston, Texas 77002 N Post Oak Ln, Ste 300 Telephone: 713.632.1700 Houston, Texas 77024 Attorney for Respondent Telephone: 713.785.1700 Connie Vasquez Harrison Attorneys for Petitioner Clifford Layne Harrison Heather M. Hughes SBOT: 00796794 Echo Lane, Suite 475 Houston, Texas 77024 Telephone: 713.463.5505 Amicus Attorney

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 VOLUME 1 OF 1 2 CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX

4 May 30, 2014 Page Vol.

6 Appearances...................................2 1 Chronological Index...........................3 1 Proceedings...................................4 1 Court Reporter's Certification................72 1

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 MS. WICOFF: Objection, Your Honor. What is the relevance for this other than trying to persuade the Court that this is a bad person?

4 MR. MARTIN: It's directly relevant under the code with respect to possession issues concerning the children. The code makes it specifically relevant with respect to the transfer of presumptions or whether there is a repetitive course of conduct, which the law indicates that one criminal conviction is directly relevant to these exact kind of issues.

11 THE COURT: Okay. And you're saying or are you about to assert that whatever action, activity, court orders, convictions that occurred in 2007 or earlier were directly related to Ms. Harrison's abilities to adequately mediate these issues in January of this year?

17 MR. MARTIN: No, sir.

18 THE COURT: So for what reason is it relevant to this proceeding?

20 MR. MARTIN: To the extent the Court believes that the MSA is not binding, which is our primary argument that we think the MSA resolves all of this and we don't even need to be here, but it's an alternative argument in the event the Court disagrees with that and we just consider the merits, the family

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

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

3 MS. WICOFF: I renew my objection, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: As a factor how, please? I just don't follow, Mr. Martin.

7 MR. MARTIN: Well if -- hypothetically if there were no Mediated Settlement Agreement, Family Code Section 153.004 indicates that the Court has to consider the commission of family violence in resolving issues like this. Since we wanted the record to be clear for the Court that to the extent that the Court is complying with 153, that that evidence was in the record.

14 MS. WICOFF: May I respond, Judge?

15 THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.

16 MS. WICOFF: You know, they're damned if they do; they're damned if they don't. In one breath they say they want to enforce the MSA, in the other breath they say they don't. If they don't think she has the mental capacity, which they have made a judicial admission that she does not have in order to make the best decisions for these children -- a judicial admission, it's in their pleadings. They filed it with this court, she does not have the mental capacity to make decisions in the best interest of these children.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 We can either accept that judicial admission as a stipulation, or we can rely on what was filed recently that says -- and the representation before the Court that everybody recognizes this MSA is signed, sealed, delivered before the Court, signed off on and everybody should follow it. I don't know on any given minute what their position is going to be with regard to this MSA.

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

9 So Judge, I renew my objection. Either you've got to find based on her judicial admission she doesn't have the capacity to do the right thing for these children or on any other thing that you may have heard during the testimony of this case, particularly from Ms. Gallagher. But anyway, that's my objection.

15 MR. MARTIN: Well, despite the unprofessionalism of the last diatribe, which I object to, I don't know what you're talking about in terms of stipulation. But for the record our position is the MSA is binding and fully enforceable. Mr. Newman filed a motion to set it aside. It's never been set for hearing, it's never been ruled on by the Court. We're asking this Court to rule on that previously-filed motion by prior counsel. We are asking this Court to enforce the MSA as written as I argued during my opening summary.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 MS. WICOFF: Then I would renew my objection.

3 MR. MARTIN: And I simply was pointing out an alternative to the extent the Court disagrees with that. I just simply wanted to establish the record.

6 THE COURT: Overruled, and I will accept the testimony as given with regard to prior acts or criminal factors.

9 Q. (BY MR. MARTIN) And just so the record is clear, there is a criminal conviction for family violence -- 11 A. No. 12 Q. -- against you and Ms. Harrison?

13 A. No, sir, there is not.

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

15 A. No, I did not.

16 Q. How was it resolved?

17 A. There was a dismissal. Deferred adjudication and a dismissal.

19 Q. Okay. And you got deferred adjudication on the assault and battery charge; correct?

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

23 Q. Okay. Well, it's your position with respect to the proposed order before the Court that you be allowed to e-mail the Court as much as you want -- I'm sorry --

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF HARRIS

4 I, Angela N. McBride, Deputy Court Reporter in and for the 311th District Court of Harris, State of Texas, do hereby certify that the foregoing contains a true and correct transcription of all portions of evidence and other proceedings requested in writing by counsel for the parties to be included in this volume of the Reporter's Record, in the above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred in open court or in chambers and were reported by me. 13 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any, admitted, tendered in an offer of proof or offered into evidence.

17 I further certify that the total cost for the preparation of the Reporter's Record is $100.00 and was paid by Ms. Connie Vasquez Harrison.

20 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 26th day of March, 2015.

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

1 REPORTER'S RECORD 2 VOLUME 1 OF 2 3 COURT CAUSE NO. 2006-68864

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

13 ******************************************************** 14 REPORTER'S RECORD ********************************************************

17 On the 3rd day of September, 2014, the following proceeding came to be heard in the above-titled and numbered cause before the Honorable Robert Newey, presiding, held in Houston, Harris, Texas: 21 Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype machine.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 A P P E A R A N C E S Patricia A. Wicoff Christopher W. Martin SBOT: 21422500 SBOT: 13057620 Amy R. Harris 808 Travis St., 20th Floor SBOT: 24041057 Houston, Texas 77002 N Post Oak Ln, Ste 300 Telephone: 713.632.1700 Houston, Texas 77024 Attorney for Respondent Telephone: 713.785.1700 Connie Vasquez Harrison Attorneys for Petitioner Clifford Layne Harrison Heather M. Hughes SBOT: 00796794 Echo Lane, Suite 475 Houston, Texas 77024 Telephone: 713.463.5505 Amicus Attorney

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 VOLUME 1 OF 2 2 CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX

4 September 3, 2014 Page Vol.

6 Appearances...................................2 1 Chronological Index/Examination Index.........3 1 Exhibit Index.................................4 1 Proceedings...................................5 1 Court Reporter's Certification................37 1

12 EXAMINATION INDEX 13 DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS CLIFFORD L. HARRISON 15 By Ms. Wicoff 8

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 EXHIBIT INDEX

3 OFFERED BY THE PETITIONER NO. DESCRIPTION OFFERED ADMITTED VOL.

5 34 Handwritten Letter 21 21 1

7 50 Motion to Set Aside 23 23 1 8 Purported Mediated 9 Settlement Agreement 10 On Parent Child Issues

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 THE COURT: The Court calls Cause No. 2006-68864, Clifford Harrison, Connie Harrison.

4 Counsel, identify yourselves for the record, please.

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

7 Wicoff together with Amy Harris representing Movant in the habeas corpus, the Movant in the enforcement action, and the Movant for mental examination, Mr. Clifford Layne Harrison.

11 MS. HUGHES: Your Honor, I'm Heather Hughes, amicus attorney for the two children John and Victoria.

13 MR. MARTIN: And I'm Christopher Martin, previous counsel for Connie Harrison. As of this morning we've filed a motion to withdraw myself and my law firm as counsel of record for Ms. Harrison and a motion to continue this hearing based upon our withdrawal.

19 THE COURT: I'm curious about something.

20 Yesterday the Court signed an order to appear on 9-25-14 at 9:00 a.m. What is that?

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

24 THE COURT: Okay. So that's another enforcement.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

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

3 MS. WICOFF: It's another enforcement, Judge.

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

6 THE COURT: So you want to deal with your motion to withdraw first?

8 MR. MARTIN: Yes, sir.

9 THE COURT: Okay. So how do you as -- I understand it you filed it last night?

11 MR. MARTIN: Early this morning.

12 THE COURT: Early this morning.

13 MR. MARTIN: Yes, sir.

14 THE COURT: You had a telephone conversation with your client last night?

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

17 THE COURT: And you advised her that you were filing a motion to withdraw?

19 MR. MARTIN: Yes.

20 THE COURT: So if I grant it now, is that -- has she had enough notice? I mean, she might not like the language that's included in the motion. I don't know.

24 MR. MARTIN: Without waiving my attorney-client privilege, Your Honor, I can say that I

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 do not have any consent from Ms. Harrison to be here to represent her, to speak on her behalf.

3 THE COURT: Today.

4 MR. MARTIN: Today.

5 THE COURT: Regardless of whether you withdraw or not.

7 MR. MARTIN: Correct. In fact there have been discussions about walking out of court and not appearing, and I have my client's consent to do that.

10 THE COURT: All right. What I'm going to do is allow you to do whatever you need to do, but I'm going to reset your motion to withdraw until Friday to give you an opportunity to give her appropriate notice.

14 MR. MARTIN: Of course.

15 THE COURT: You can then choose to stay or leave. That's up to you.

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

18 THE COURT: Right now.

19 MR. MARTIN: I won't stay just too long, but I'm not here to represent her.

21 THE COURT: All right. So you're not going to ask any questions, take any position -- take any position?

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

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 THE COURT: Any objection to that?

2 MS. WICOFF: No objection.

3 MS. HUGHES: No, Your Honor.

4 THE COURT: That leaves us now with the emergency motion to change custody.

6 MS. WICOFF: Correct. And I have Mr. Harrison here.

8 THE COURT: Let's hear some evidence on that.

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

11 THE COURT: Raise your right hand, please.

12 (Oath administered.)

13 THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

14 MS. WICOFF: Your Honor.

15 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. WICOFF: 17 Q. State your name.

18 A. Clifford Layne Harrison.

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

21 A. I am.

22 Q. You are a joint managing conservator pursuant to temporary orders; is that correct?

24 A. That's correct.

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

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 immediately designate you as the sole -- temporary sole managing conservator of these two minor children or as the joint managing conservator who establishes the residence of these children; is that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Sir, can you tell me briefly what has occurred since January of 2014 which you believe has been injurious to the welfare, emotional or physical welfare of your children at the direct supervision and instruction of Connie Harrison?

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

12 Q. Well, tell the Court why you are asking for an immediate change of custody.

14 A. There have been many, many occasions where she has unilaterally decided to withhold the children, not turn them over. She has violated court orders, she has violated Mediated Settlement Agreements, she has then violated the order that implemented the Mediated Settlement Agreement. She has gotten the kids kicked out of school by causing disruptions at the school in violation of the Mediated Settlement Agreement.

22 Q. Let me stop you a minute with regard to the school issue. Your children were life-long attendees at Second Baptist School; is that correct?

25 A. That's correct.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 Q. And when you say she unilaterally got them kicked out, the children were prohibited from returning to Second Baptist; correct?

4 A. Right.

5 Q. And we were -- had a temporary hearing before the Honorable Tom Stansbury in June of 2014 of this year; is that correct?

8 A. That's right.

9 Q. And at that time, the principal from Second Baptist came and testified; correct?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. And in that testimony which we have reduced to a court reporter's transcript, did the Second Baptist principal state that but for the actions of Connie Harrison that the children would still be back at Second Baptist?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. All right. Did Judge Stansbury make a ruling that you were to have the right to enroll the children either in Briar Grove or -- Victoria in Briar Grove Elementary School and enroll John in Grady Middle School?

23 A. First of all, it was a ruling that gave me the exclusive right to try and enroll them in First Baptist Academy which was --

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 THE COURT: Was an official order entered?

2 MS. HARRIS: Yes.

3 MS. WICOFF: Yes. I have that order, Judge, if you would like a copy of it.

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

6 Give me the date of the order.

7 MS. WICOFF: While she's pulling that, you want me to wait?

9 THE COURT: That occurred in May?

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

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

12 MS. WICOFF: Oh, was it? I'm sorry. Here is a copy of it, Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: I think I have it, but then Judge Stansbury signed an order on May 30th.

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

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

18 THE COURT: I think that's it.

19 MS. WICOFF: Actually there may be two there.

21 THE COURT: It is. I have it. I found it on the screen.

23 MS. WICOFF: May I proceed?

24 THE COURT: You may.

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

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 initially authorized to try and get the children into First Baptist Academy; is that correct?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. The children were not admitted to First Baptist Academy after they spoke with Second Baptist; is that accurate?

7 A. That is correct.

8 Q. And the order further provided that the children were to go to the public school if they were not admitted to First Baptist Academy, that they were to go to the public school to which you, your residence, is zoned; is that correct?

13 A. That is correct.

14 Q. That is Briar Grove?

15 A. Briar Grove Elementary.

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

17 A. And Grady, yes.

18 Q. And additionally you have since found out that Connie Harrison has violated that order; is that correct?

21 A. That's correct.

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

24 A. I found that out on Thursday when I went to pick him up that he was not even enrolled.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 THE COURT: Okay. Hold on a minute. As I'm reading this order on May 30th, you were given permission to enroll the children at First Baptist Academy.

5 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

6 THE COURT: And she was not to interfere with that in any way.

8 THE WITNESS: That's correct.

9 THE COURT: I wasn't listening carefully enough to what you just told me. What happened then?

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

12 It was a process. I submitted everything, and they interviewed us, they interviewed the kids, took the kids up there, took a tour, met with the principals of both the lower school and the middle school, submitted the test scores, the transcripts, letters of recommendation from Second Baptist. Did everything that we needed to do. Unfortunately -- 19 THE COURT: At First Baptist or Second Baptist?

21 THE WITNESS: They were at Second, and so Second Baptist teachers had to write letters of recommendation to First Baptist where I was trying to get them -- where I was trying to get them admitted.

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

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 they would not be offering a contract of attendance.

2 THE COURT: Did they offer any explanation?

3 THE WITNESS: No. 4 THE COURT: They just said no?

5 THE WITNESS: They just said no. 6 THE COURT: So we don't know what role, if any, Ms. Harrison played in that decision?

8 THE WITNESS: Judge, all I can tell you is the very first question they ask is the very first question any private school would ask, and that is have these kids ever been basically kicked out of any of -- or denied admittance to any other schools, and I had to tell them yes.

14 THE COURT: So you think First Baptist denied the request to enroll because they were out of Second Baptist?

17 THE WITNESS: I don't think there's any other reason for it. Yes, sir. I think that's the only conclusion to be drawn.

20 THE COURT: All right. Continue.

21 MS. WICOFF: Thank you.

22 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) So pursuant to the order signed by Judge Stansbury on May 30th, when your children were not able to go to First Baptist Academy, did you enroll both children, or did you enroll Victoria in Briar Grove

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 and did you enroll John at Grady?

2 A. Yes.

3 THE COURT: All right. Now, under what authority were you doing that?

5 THE WITNESS: This order that says if they don't go to First Baptist then -- as I think it's down toward the bottom, then they would be -- 8 THE COURT: All right. You got that they could go to a school where you were zoned?

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

11 THE COURT: All right. That's the last paragraph of the May 30th order signed by Judge Stansbury.

14 MS. WICOFF: Correct.

15 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

16 THE COURT: All right.

17 A. I couldn't -- 18 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) Did you find out -- so you did what you were supposed to do pursuant to the temporary order; is that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And sir, have you since learned that Connie Harrison has not taken the children -- has not taken John to Grady Middle School?

25 A. Yes.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 Q. Okay. When did you find out that he was not enrolled at the school that he was ordered to be enrolled in pursuant to Judge Stansbury's order?

4 A. Well, if I can back up just a second. I enrolled him in early August. I went up there, I filled out all the forms, gave them the utility bills, my driver's license showing my residence. I enrolled him. I got the packet -- the summer packet of assignments he had to do in several different subjects. I bought his school supplies, got some uniforms for him. He was -- 11 Q. Ready.

12 A. He was enrolled. And I e-mailed Connie, told her I had this stuff, told her she needed to pick up this packet of summer assignments that he needed to do, that he had some required reading he had to do. Never heard a word. It was not until last -- the last Tuesday we were here, and my understanding was that the Court ordered her to allow me to pick up the kids from school on Thursday, last Thursday because it was my weekend.

20 Great. The first time I'd seen them in six weeks. So first I go to -- it's a long answer and I apologize.

22 Q. All right. Shorten it.

23 A. I go to Briar Grove to pick up Victoria and they said she was absent. I left Briar Grove and I went to Grady Middle School, and I drove through the carpool. I

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 had been to orientation a few weeks earlier, and they told me I had to -- 3 Q. Was John there?

4 A. I got up there, he was not there.

5 Q. Did you find out he wasn't even attending Grady as ordered by the Court?

7 A. My first thought was that whether -- 8 THE COURT: Is that a yes or a no?

9 THE WITNESS: It's a yes.

10 THE COURT: Stay with us. I know this is a troubling time for you, but if you'll just answer Ms. Wicoff's questions, we will get through this a lot quicker.

14 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) Mr. Harrison, up until the amicus attorney informed you, did you even know where your son was in middle school?

17 A. No. I found out through her that he was not enrolled at Grady and that she didn't know where he was.

19 Q. And did you also find out that you -- even though the Court ordered Ms. Harrison for you to have your visitation commencing this last Thursday, Ms. Harrison pulled Victoria out of school that day so you could not see her?

24 A. I found that Victoria was absent Thursday and Friday, yes.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 Q. So she's missed two days out of the first week of school; is that correct?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. Do we know whether she's in school today?

5 A. I have no idea.

6 Q. Sir, you have filed three contempts against Connie Harrison in three years; is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. We have a fourth contempt that has been filed with a process server here today to serve her; is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Can you tell the Court approximately how many times, how many days you have missed of visitation just this summer -- well, just since the first of the year?

16 A. January 27th -- 17 Q. How many days? 18 A. 21.

19 Q. Sir, and am I correct -- now, there was some kind of physical altercation in June; is that correct?

21 A. July.

22 Q. July? All right.

23 THE COURT: Of this year?

24 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

25 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) And had you gone to get your

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 children?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Did Connie Harrison get out of her car and attack the lady that you were with?

5 A. She did.

6 Q. Did she take your cell phone from you?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Were the police called?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. The police did not want charges filed; is that correct?

12 A. That's correct.

13 Q. Ms. Harrison has pursued relentlessly the DA's office to get this matter moving forward; is that correct?

16 A. That is correct.

17 Q. And you're aware of that?

18 A. I am.

19 Q. And you're aware of the activities that she has engaged in; is that correct?

21 THE COURT: Yes or no?

22 A. I think I've just seen the tip of the iceberg of what she's been engaged in.

24 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) Mr. Harrison, do you believe -- you got a letter from your son John -- you got a letter

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 from your son John; is that correct?

2 A. It looks likes it was in his handwriting. It was a -- it was e-mailed to me from an Office Depot.

4 Q. All right, sir. Is the letter -- 5 THE COURT: It was an attachment to an e-mail?

7 THE WITNESS: It was an attachment to an e-mail that I received from an Office Depot.

9 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) Sir, the letter -- and we're getting the letter. The letter that you received, did it sound like something that your son would have composed?

13 A. No. 14 Q. Do you believe that Connie Harrison has engaged in consistently ever since you filed for divorce back in 2006 a conscientious effort to alienate you from your children and your children from you?

18 A. I do.

19 Q. Let me hand you Petitioner's Exhibit No. 34. Is this a copy of the letter that allegedly John Harrison sent to you?

22 A. Yes. It looks like it's his handwriting except the date is in Connie's handwriting.

24 Q. All right. So it's partly in Connie's handwriting and partly in your son's?

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 A. It appears to be, yes.

2 MS. WICOFF: Your Honor, I would tender Exhibit 34.

4 MS. HUGHES: No objection, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: All right. 34 will be admitted.

6 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) Is this the kind of emotional abuse that you think both of these children are undergoing under the hands of Connie Harrison?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Do you think this is damaging to your children?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Are you concerned about their ongoing emotional wellbeing?

14 A. Absolutely.

15 Q. Do you believe that Connie Harrison is mentally deranged at this point?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Do you think her judgment is impaired with regards to these children?

20 A. Absolutely.

21 Q. In fact she even acknowledged in her own motion to set aside an MSA that she could not make decisions with regard to the best interest of these children, did she not?

25 A. She did.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 Q. And that's in a pleading in the court; correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Okay. That is in her motion to set aside Mediated Settlement Agreement; is that accurate?

5 A. Yes.

6 THE COURT: When was that filed?

7 MS. WICOFF: Your Honor, I have a copy for you.

9 THE COURT: Just tell me when it was filed.

10 MS. WICOFF: Well, I don't know that mine is file marked.

12 MS. HARRIS: Probably March or -- 13 THE COURT: What's the certificate of service?

15 MS. HARRIS: March 13th, Judge.

16 MS. WICOFF: I can submit a hard copy, Judge.

18 MS. HARRIS: It was filed by Mr. Newman, Judge.

20 MS. WICOFF: Mr. Bobby Newman filed it when he was representing her.

22 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) Sir, I'm going to hand you what's been marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 50. Is this the motion that Ms. Harrison filed by and through her attorney Bobby Newman?

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 A. Yes.

2 MS. WICOFF: Judge, here is a hard copy if you would like to see it.

4 THE COURT: That would be helpful. Thank you.

6 MS. WICOFF: And I would direct your attention, Judge, to Page 2, Paragraph No. 3 where Connie Harrison states a judicial admission, Connie Harrison has been a victim of family violence and that circumstances surrounding the family violence -- now this is something that she would have been referring to that occurred in 2006, eight years ago -- impaired her ability to make decisions, and the Mediated Settlement Agreement is not in the best interest of the children.

15 THE COURT: The court notes that is in the pleadings, Exhibit C as it's marked. And also Petitioner's Exhibit 50 doesn't appear to have a file stamp on it, but I'm going to accept Counsel's representation that this was timely filed -- 20 MS. WICOFF: It was -- 21 THE COURT: -- by Mr. Newman on behalf of Ms. Harrison. All right.

23 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) Sir, in addition to not having been able to see your children -- how many days did you say it was?

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 THE COURT: 21.

2 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) 21 days since the -- 3 THE COURT: 21.

4 A. Well, it's a total of 21 days. I haven't seen John in several weeks.

6 Q. (BY MS. WICOFF) All right. Have you been able to communicate with them by phone?

8 A. No. 9 Q. Have you tried to communicate with them by phone?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Have you tried to communicate with them by text?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Have you been successful?

14 A. John has not responded. I have received responses from Victoria's phone that clearly came from Connie.

17 Q. Okay. And when you say they clearly came from Connie, how do you know they clearly came from Connie?

19 A. There are things that are misspelled that Victoria would never misspell. It's clearly that Victoria did not write the responses.

22 Q. All right, sir. We have had multiple -- we've had multiple efforts to try and serve her with various pleadings; is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 Q. She avoids service?

2 A. She does.

3 Q. All right. Constables have been to her home and she refuses to come to the door?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Even though her car is in the driveway?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. All right. Sir, tell the Court what other reasons you believe your children are at risk under any continuing ongoing care by Connie Harrison.

11 A. Her behavior has deteriorated such over the last few months that I don't really know what she's capable of doing anymore. She is -- 14 THE COURT: Is she employed?

15 MS. WICOFF: No. 16 THE WITNESS: That's a good question too.

17 You can't get a straight answer on any of these questions from her.

19 MS. WICOFF: She's a licensed attorney.

20 THE WITNESS: I think she is still licensed.

21 THE COURT: Is she still active?

22 MS. HARRIS: She is active.

23 MS. WICOFF: Her license is still -- 24 THE COURT: She's kept her license alive?

25 MS. HUGHES: Last time I checked, Your

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 Honor.

2 THE COURT: All right.

3 A. She is very controlling, she is very manipulative, she has sole and total control over the children and has prevented all access and -- 6 THE COURT: I got that.

7 A. But my concern is that the reason is she is attempting to alienate them from me, God knows what she's telling them. I do know as an example that her -- that my niece Victoria's cousin tried to text Victoria because she missed her and was worried about her, and Connie took Victoria's phone and texted my 14-year-old niece with pictures of these injuries and saying, look what Daddy did to me, that kind of stuff we're dealing with.

16 She's extremely dishonest, she's never told the truth about I don't think anything in her life, she doesn't listen to anybody, she continues to violate order after order after order, she ignores direct orders of this Court even when she's standing here being ordered to do something. She has refused to allow them to attend the schools to which they are zoned, taking them to different schools and then prohibits all access to the kids. They are at these different schools. I don't know if she's going to run off to Fort Stockton

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 with them, I don't know what she's going to do, I don't know what she's capable of.

3 THE COURT: What is in Fort Stockton?

4 THE WITNESS: Her family. That's where she's from, about eight hours away, and they often go out there. And she has testified under oath that she -- 7 THE COURT: Hold on a minute. Ms. Hughes, do you have any questions?

9 MS. HUGHES: No, Your Honor.

10 THE COURT: Anything further?

11 MS. WICOFF: Nothing further, Judge. Unless there is more examples.

13 THE COURT: The Court is going to grant the emergency motion to change custody instanter. I will need an order. I will grant a capias for her arrest for not appearing as she was sworn to reappear on this date.

17 What else?

18 MS. HUGHES: I have a request, Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: All right.

20 MS. HUGHES: That Mr. Harrison's girlfriend just in the interim not be around the children. It's been some time since they have seen their father. I think it's -- 24 THE COURT: Are you living with this woman?

25 THE WITNESS: No.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 THE COURT: Any objection to that request?

2 MS. WICOFF: No. 3 THE WITNESS: It just depends on how long it is.

5 THE COURT: That will be an injunction. Add it as an injunction.

7 MS. HARRIS: For how long, Judge?

8 THE COURT: I'm sorry?

9 MS. HARRIS: For how long?

10 THE COURT: Until further order of the Court.

12 MS. WICOFF: Heather, do you have a recommendation?

14 MS. HUGHES: I don't. I want to -- I mean, I've only visited with Victoria yesterday at the school, but I just -- I don't want to add more moving pieces.

17 MS. WICOFF: Can we sort of give the ad litem the opportunity to meet with the kids and then maybe make a recommendation as to whether we need to continue this?

21 THE COURT: Once the children are transferred to Mr. Harrison then -- and he doesn't appear to be hostile to the ad litem. I assume he will work out a time or times for Ms. Hughes to visit with the children. It's certainly needed.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 MS. HARRIS: We have.

2 THE COURT: I do think that we need the parties psychologically evaluated.

4 MS. WICOFF: I agree.

5 THE COURT: And I will grant that relief, but it will be mutual and it will include the children.

7 There's no telling how much damage has been done for whatever the reasons are. So include that.

9 MS. WICOFF: Judge, we had tried to see if Dr. Silverman was available. As you can anticipate, he can't even see them. We have a January trial setting.

12 He can't even see them until December.

13 THE COURT: Ms. Hughes, who do you think ought to do the mental evaluation?

15 MS. HUGHES: Your Honor, there is a lady in Dr. Silverman's office named Dr. Tinder. I've got her on a case right now. She seems to be responsive. I know that she's relatively new.

19 THE COURT: Has anybody used the psychologist or -- Joan Anderson?

21 MS. HUGHES: The group of three that she's working with?

23 THE COURT: We referred -- you know, that was several months ago. I wondered if anybody had any experience with her.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 MS. WICOFF: No. 2 MS. HARRIS: We haven't yet.

3 MS. WICOFF: I'll tell you, and Counsel just reminded me. There are two people, really. One that I know because I checked with his office to find out if he could get it done was Dr. Harrison -- was Kit Harrison.

7 The other one is a gentleman named Peter Simone who is in the general vicinity of where the parties live. I don't know if you know Dr. Simone.

10 THE COURT: I don't. We're always looking for new qualified forensic evaluators.

12 MS. HUGHES: May I look into that -- 13 MS. WICOFF: We're going to.

14 MS. HUGHES: -- before we commit?

15 THE COURT: How quickly can we get an order?

16 MS. HUGHES: Friday. We can work on that tomorrow.

18 THE COURT: I'm going to give you -- 19 MS. WICOFF: With regard to the mental health?

21 THE COURT: All of these orders.

22 MS. WICOFF: We can get it all by Friday.

23 THE COURT: All right. I'll give you an entry date for Friday.

25 MS. HUGHES: Your Honor, I also have a

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 request.

2 THE COURT: All right.

3 MS. HUGHES: I don't anticipate it being a problem, but if the order can also include a provision that I am allowed to visit with the children at the school and maybe with some directive to the school administration.

8 THE COURT: Any objection to that?

9 MS. WICOFF: No. She needs it because she was denied access previously.

11 THE COURT: Include authorization language.

12 Now, you had suggested or referenced to the district attorney's office. Does that have to come from the Court?

15 MS. WICOFF: Judge, it really should come from you because otherwise it's going to look like a knee-jerk reaction by Mr. Harrison. It needs to come from the Court. The Court needs -- 19 MS. HARRIS: We have investigated that.

20 THE COURT: The question I have is, how much effect will it have coming from an associate judge as opposed to a district judge.

23 MS. WICOFF: I think it will be fine, Judge.

24 THE COURT: All right.

25 MS. WICOFF: And you may want to talk to

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 Judge Franklin about it, but clearly she has violated that penal code. 3 THE COURT: Factually, you know, I'm assuming because I think I have to that the testimony is all true. And if it is, and I have heard disregard for various court orders, she is obviously in the Court's opinion interfering with Mr. Harrison's rights to these children.

9 The only question I have is what does it take to get the district attorney essentially involved.

11 MS. WICOFF: I don't know, Judge, but I would encourage you to if you believe that, that I would ask that you pursue that, discuss it with Judge Franklin and that it be -- 15 THE COURT: I will work behind the scenes with Judge Franklin.

17 MS. WICOFF: And that it be done quickly.

18 THE COURT: All right.

19 MS. WICOFF: Because quite frankly I'm concerned that she might have fled with the children at this point.

22 THE COURT: I don't know where she is.

23 She's certainly not here, and she was ordered to be here.

25 MS. WICOFF: Well, the reason I have that

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 concern, Judge, is because apparently the constable has gone to the schools this morning to get the children and we -- 4 THE COURT: Okay, Ms. Wicoff. I've got the same concern. That's one of the factors that I've taken into consideration in granting the emergency transfer of custody and also invited the references and approved the writ of habeas corpus and the writs of attachment and granted a capias.

10 MS. HARRIS: Judge, on the referral, if you'll recall last week, Ms. Harrison told you that the DA's office had amended the protective order to include the children, they were just waiting on the imaging of that order. That was not true. However, she continues to badger and stalk these prosecutors.

16 THE COURT: Okay. I will see you with an order on Friday.

18 MS. WICOFF: Judge, I do have one request.

19 THE COURT: I'm handing the exhibits to the court reporter.

21 MS. WICOFF: Mr. Harrison is -- I mean, the kids are -- if he gets the children -- 23 MS. HARRIS: They are on the way.

24 MS. WICOFF: They are on the way? We are going to need --

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 THE COURT: Wait a minute. They are on their way where?

3 MS. WICOFF: To the courthouse.

4 MS. HARRIS: Here. The constable picked them up at school this morning, Judge.

6 MS. WICOFF: That's good news. Judge, we are going to need access somehow -- 8 MS. HARRIS: At least John. They were getting Victoria but -- 10 MS. WICOFF: We are going to need the children's uniforms and school -- 12 MS. HUGHES: They don't have uniforms for the middle school. Victoria's is khakis and a collared shirt similar to what it was last year.

15 MS. WICOFF: We've probably got school things here.

17 MS. HUGHES: I think that's the least of these parties' worries.

19 THE COURT: That's the least of the Court's worries. My suggestion is that Mr. Harrison go and get what the children need, not from Ms. Harrison but just generally.

23 THE WITNESS: Clothes -- if I may speak.

24 I'm not worried about clothes, but I'm concerned about books, things of that nature that may be irreplaceable.

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 THE COURT: Well, you may have to replace -- you may have to just replace everything.

3 MS. WICOFF: We just may have to. And Judge, I assume there will be -- 5 THE COURT: I'm going to recess this hearing until the constable gets here with the children.

7 MS. WICOFF: All right. We'll just wait, Judge.

9 THE COURT: All right.

10 MS. WICOFF: We'll just wait.

11 MR. MARTIN: What time would you like me back on Friday?

13 THE COURT: Well, do you want to be here when the children arrive -- or the child arrives?

15 MR. MARTIN: I can't give -- 16 THE COURT: Because it's possible that your client may be right behind them.

18 MR. MARTIN: That would be correct.

19 THE COURT: So the entry hearing will be at 9 o'clock on Friday morning. That's when we will have your motion to withdraw.

22 MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Your Honor.

23 THE COURT: We will be in a very brief recess.

25 (Short recess.)

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 MS. WICOFF: We came up about possession by Ms. Harrison.

3 THE COURT: None.

4 MS. HUGHES: Unless there's a private supervisor?

6 THE COURT: None.

7 (End of proceedings.)

Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF HARRIS

4 I, Angela N. McBride, Deputy Court Reporter in and for the 311th District Court of Harris, State of Texas, do hereby certify that the foregoing contains a true and correct transcription of all portions of evidence and other proceedings requested in writing by counsel for the parties to be included in this volume of the Reporter's Record, in the above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred in open court or in chambers and were reported by me. 13 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any, admitted, tendered in an offer of proof or offered into evidence.

17 I further certify that the total cost for the preparation of the Reporter's Record is $263.50 and was paid by Ms. Connie Vasquez Harrison.

20 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 2nd day of October, 2014.

22 ___Angela N. McBride /s/_______ Angela N. McBride, CSR 23 Texas CSR 7026 Deputy Court Reporter 24 7818 West Road Houston, Texas 77064 25 Telephone: (713) 849-5084 Expiration: 12/31/15 Angela N. McBride, Deputy Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter Un of fic ial C opy O ffic e of C hr is Da nie lD ist ric t Cl er k Un of fic ial C opy O ffic e of C hr is Da nie lD ist ric t Cl er k Un o ffic ial C op yO ffic e of C hr is Da nie lD ist ric t Cl er k Un o ffic ial C op yO ffic e of C hr is Da nie lD ist ric t Cl er k Un of fic ial C opy O ffic e of C hr is Da nie lD ist ric t Cl er k Un of fic ial C opy O ffic e of C hr is Da nie lD ist ric t Cl er k Un of fic i al Co py O ffic e of C hr is Da nie lD ist ric t Cl er k Un of fic i al Co py O ffic e of C hr is Da nie lD ist ric t Cl er k

1 REPORTER'S RECORD VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUMES 2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2006-68864 ______ COURT OF APPEALS 3 APPELLATE CAUSE NO. _____________ ) IN THE MATTER OF THE ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT MARRIAGE OF ) 6 ) CONNIE VASQUEZ HARRISON ) AND CLIFFORD HARRISON ) ) HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS AND IN THE INTEREST OF ) JOHN HARRISON AND ) VICTORIA HARRISON, ) MINOR CHILDREN. ) 311TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

15 ------------------------------ 16 EXCERPT OF HEARING 17 ------------------------------

19 On the 16th day of January, 2015, the following proceedings came on to be heard in the above-entitled and numbered cause before the Honorable Alicia K.

22 Franklin, Judge presiding, held in Houston, Harris County, Texas; 24 Proceedings reported in computerized stenotype by Stephanie Wells, Official Court Reporter.

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969

1 A P P E A R A N C E S FOR THE PETITIONER: 3 SCHLANGER, SILVER, BARG & PAINE, LLP North Post Oak Lane 4 Houston, Texas 77024 713.735.8514 5 BY: MS. PATRICIA A. WICOFF -AND- 6 MS. AMY HARRIS FOR THE RESPONDENT: PRO SE AMICUS: M. HEATHER HUGHES LAW OFFICE 10 952 Echo Lane, Suite 410 Houston, Texas 77024 11 713.463.5505 BY: MS. M. HEATHER HUGHES ALSO PRESENT: CLIFFORD HARRISON

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969

1 INDEX VOLUME 1 OF 1 2 (EXCERPT OF HEARING) 3 PAGE VOL.

JANUARY 16, 2015 Appearances................................... 2 1 Chronological Index........................... 3 1 Proceedings................................... 4 1 Reporter's Certificate........................ 7 1

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969

1 (The following is an excerpt from a Hearing had on January 16, 2015.)

11:36 3 THE COURT: Ms. Harrison, listen to the 11:36 4 question: Every motion that you are asking the Court to 11:36 5 consider, have these all been filed on January 14th 11:37 6 2015, or thereafter? Have any of them been filed before 11:37 7 January 14th 2015?

11:37 8 THE RESPONDENT: I believe the request 11:37 9 for -- the request for hearings were filed January 13th.

11:37 10 THE COURT: Okay. You can't request a 11:37 11 hearing without having a motion. So, I'm asking on the 11:37 12 underlying documents that you are asking for hearings 11:37 13 on, were any of them filed before January 14th?

11:37 14 THE RESPONDENT: They -- 11:37 15 THE COURT: "Yes" or "no"? "Yes" or "no"?

11:37 16 Were they?

11:37 17 THE RESPONDENT: They were filed, yes, 11:37 18 before January 14th.

11:37 19 THE COURT: Okay. Identify for me which 11:37 20 motions were filed before January 14th 2015.

11:37 21 THE RESPONDENT: The -- just the request 11:38 22 for oral hearings were filed. The motions had already 11:38 23 been filed. And I can -- I can let the Court know -- 11:38 24 THE COURT: I asked you to identify those 11:38 25 for me.

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969

11:38 1 THE RESPONDENT: Okay. There's a 11:38 2 Respondent's First Amended Emergency Motion for 11:38 3 Continuance.

11:38 4 THE COURT: That says January 14th 2015.

11:38 5 So, with regards to that request, that's denied. It's 11:38 6 not timely. We are set for trial January 20th 2015.

11:38 7 This is not timely. The Court is not going to hear it.

11:38 8 Next motion.

11:38 9 THE RESPONDENT: It was filed after the 11:38 10 withdraw, after the withdraw of the -- 11:38 11 THE COURT: Ma'am. Ma'am. I am not going 11:38 12 to argue with you today. When I deny or grant whatever 11:38 13 is being requested, we are moving on. So, it's not an 11:38 14 option for you to continue to argue.

11:39 15 We're moving on to the next motion.

11:39 16 THE RESPONDENT: Respondent's Motion to 11:39 17 Enter the Mediated Settlement Agreement and For 11:39 18 Compliance.

11:39 19 THE COURT: Was filed when?

11:39 20 THE RESPONDENT: This was filed -- 11:39 21 THE COURT: January 14th. It's not filed 11:39 22 timely. It's denied.

11:39 23 Let's move on.

11:39 24 THE RESPONDENT: May we hear it next week?

11:39 25 THE COURT: When I say it's denied, that

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969

11:39 1 means we are not hearing it before trial.

11:39 2 MS. HARRIS: Judge, just for the record, we 11:39 3 have not even received a copy of that motion.

11:39 4 THE RESPONDENT: Yes, I've mailed you a 11:39 5 copy. Here's a copy for you right now.

11:39 6 THE COURT: Next motion, Mrs. Harrison.

7 (End of excerpt.)

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE THE STATE OF TEXAS ) COUNTY OF HARRIS ) 4 I, Stephanie Wells, Official Court Reporter in and for the 311th District Court of Harris County, State of Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains a true and correct transcription of all portions of evidence and other proceedings requested in writing by counsel for the parties to be included in this volume of the Reporter's Record, in the above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred in open court or in chambers and were reported by me. 13 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any, admitted by the respective parties.

16 I further certify that the total cost for the preparation of this Reporter's Record is $35.00 and was paid by ____________________.

19 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 24th day of March, 2015.

/s/ Stephanie Wells 22 ___________________________________ Stephanie Wells, Texas CSR 2700 23 Expiration Date: 12/31/2015 Official Court Reporter 24 311th District Court Caroline, 8th Floor 25 Houston, Texas 77002 713.562.6969

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969

1 REPORTER'S RECORD VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUMES 2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2006-68864 ______ COURT OF APPEALS 3 APPELLATE CAUSE NO. _____________ ) IN THE MATTER OF THE ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT MARRIAGE OF ) 6 ) CONNIE VASQUEZ HARRISON ) AND CLIFFORD HARRISON ) ) HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS AND IN THE INTEREST OF ) JOHN HARRISON AND ) VICTORIA HARRISON, ) MINOR CHILDREN. ) 311TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

15 ------------------------------ 16 EXCERPT OF TRIAL 17 ------------------------------

19 On the 20th day of January, 2015, the following proceedings came on to be heard in the above-entitled and numbered cause before the Honorable Alicia K.

22 Franklin, Judge presiding, held in Houston, Harris County, Texas; 24 Proceedings reported in computerized stenotype by Stephanie Wells, Official Court Reporter.

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969

1 A P P E A R A N C E S FOR THE PETITIONER: 3 SCHLANGER, SILVER, BARG & PAINE, LLP North Post Oak Lane 4 Houston, Texas 77024 713.735.8514 5 BY: MS. PATRICIA A. WICOFF -AND- 6 MS. AMY HARRIS FOR THE RESPONDENT: PRO SE AMICUS: M. HEATHER HUGHES LAW OFFICE 10 952 Echo Lane, Suite 410 Houston, Texas 77024 11 713.463.5505 BY: MS. M. HEATHER HUGHES ALSO PRESENT: CLIFFORD HARRISON

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969

1 INDEX VOLUME 1 OF 1 2 (EXCERPT OF TRIAL) 3 PAGE VOL.

JANUARY 20, 2015 Appearances................................... 2 1 Chronological Index........................... 3 1 Proceedings................................... 4 1 Reporter's Certificate........................ 6 1

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969

1 (The following is an excerpt from Trial had on January 20th 2015.)

01:35 3 THE RESPONDENT: Excuse me, Judge, I hate 01:35 4 to interrupt, but I -- if it's okay. I don't want to 01:35 5 upset the Court, but I have a Respondent's Emergency 01:35 6 Motion to Enforce the Mediated Settlement Agreement.

01:35 7 THE COURT: It is denied. We are in trial.

01:35 8 And, Ms. Wicoff, if you will call your witness back to 01:36 9 the stand.

01:36 10 MS. WICOFF: Yes, ma'am.

01:36 11 THE COURT: We will get started again.

01:36 12 THE RESPONDENT: Oh, one of the things, 01:36 13 Your Honor, a -- I just object to not having a jury 01:36 14 trial. I know I was late this morning, but I didn't -- 01:36 15 THE COURT: Okay. That's enough. Ms. 01:36 16 Harrison, we are in trial. This is not pretrial. If 01:36 17 you would have been here at 8:30 this morning like you 01:36 18 were ordered to be, we could have handled any of these 01:36 19 issues. We are in trial. We are in the middle of 01:36 20 witness testimony. And there's going to be order to 01:36 21 these trial proceedings. If you're unfamiliar with the 01:36 22 rules of conduct, then I suggest you get yourself 01:36 23 familiarized with them. And that goes for anybody in 01:36 24 this courtroom.

01:36 25 With that being said, we are resuming and

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969

01:36 1 we are going to conduct these proceedings in an orderly 01:36 2 fashion.

01:36 3 Ms. Wicoff, you may resume.

01:36 4 THE RESPONDENT: Excuse me, Judge. May I 01:36 5 just say something into the -- 01:36 6 THE COURT: You may not.

01:37 7 THE RESPONDENT: -- record, to the jury 01:37 8 trial -- 01:37 9 THE COURT: You may not.

01:37 10 THE RESPONDENT: I object to us not having 01:37 11 a jury trial.

01:37 12 THE COURT: Okay. Duly noted on the 01:37 13 record. We're getting started.

01:37 14 Ms. Wicoff, you may proceed.

01:37 15 MS. WICOFF: Thank you, Judge.

16 DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WICOFF: 18 (End of Excerpt.)

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE THE STATE OF TEXAS ) COUNTY OF HARRIS ) 4 I, Stephanie Wells, Official Court Reporter in and for the 311th District Court of Harris County, State of Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains a true and correct transcription of all portions of evidence and other proceedings requested in writing by counsel for the parties to be included in this volume of the Reporter's Record, in the above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred in open court or in chambers and were reported by me. 13 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any, admitted by the respective parties.

16 I further certify that the total cost for the preparation of this Reporter's Record is $30.00 and was paid by ____________________.

19 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 24th day of March, 2015.

/s/ Stephanie Wells 22 ___________________________________ Stephanie Wells, Texas CSR 2700 23 Expiration Date: 12/31/2015 Official Court Reporter 24 311th District Court Caroline, 8th Floor 25 Houston, Texas 77002 713.562.6969

Stephanie Wells - 713.562.6969