PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS - THSC

1 No. _____IN THE COURT OF APPEALSFIFTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICTDALLAS, TEXASIn re Ashley Pardo and Daniel Pardo, individually andas next friends for KDP, a minor,Relators_____PETITION FOR writ OF MANDAMUSEMERGENCY HEARING REQUESTED_____From Kaufman County District CourtKaufman County, TexasHon. Mike Chitty, 422nd District JudgeCause No. 102717-CC_____Respectfully Submitted:Scheef & Stone, LLPJ ames A. PiklState Bar No. Network Blvd., Suite 102 Frisco, Texas 75034(214) 472-2100 Fax (214) 472-2150 ATTORNEYS FOR RELATORSORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTEDNo. _____IN THE COURT OF APPEALSFIFTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICTDALLAS, TEXASIn re Ashley Pardo and Daniel Pardo, individually andas next friends for KDP, a minor,Relators_____IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL_____Relators certify that the following is a complete list of the parties, their attorneys,and any other person who has any interest in the outcome of this case:RELATORS:Ashley PardoDaniel PardoKDP, a minor childCounsel for Relators:Counsel in the trial court:Scheef & Stone, LLPThe Chris Branson Law Firm, PLLCJ ames A.

2 PiklChris BransonTexas Bar No. 16008850 Texas Bar No. 240099142601 Network Blvd., Suite 1025380 West 34th Street, Suite 221 Frisco, Texas 75034 Houston, Texas 77092(214) 472-2100(832) 794-3338 Fax (214) 472-2150 Fax (713) JacobsonState Bar No. Box 992 Kennedale, Texas 76060(817) 714-1545-2-Attorney Ad Litem for KDP:Courtney WorthamTexas Bar No. 24075677114 North Adelaide StreetTerrell, Texas 75160(972) 740-9571 RESPONDENT:Hon. Mike ChittyJudge, 422nd Judicial District Court100 W. Mulberry , Texas 75142(469) 376-4640 Counsel for Respondent:None known to RelatorsREAL PARTY IN INTEREST:Texas Department of Family and Protective ServicesCounsel for Real Party in Interest:Clay WatkinsState Bar No.

3 24103982 Department of Family and Protective Services100 W. Mulberry E. Highway 175, Suite EKaufman, Texas 75142(972) 932-9100-3-TABLE OF CONTENTSI dentity of Parties and Counsel2-3 Index of Authorities5-6 Statement of the Case7 Statement of Jurisdiction8 Issue Presented8 Statement of Facts11 ArgumentIssue:Did the trial court abuse its discretion by not returning KDP tohis parents and by entering the July 24, 2019 Temporary Order Following Adversary Hearing when no evidence before the court indicated the minor child was in danger, was at any risk of harm, had been abused or was being abused in any way, or that remainingwith his parents would pose any threat of future harm, danger, or injury to the minor child s mental or physical well-being?

4 24 Conclusion32 Prayer34 TRAP Certifications35 Certificate of Service36 AppendixpostRecordpost- appendix -4-INDEX OF AUTHORITIESC asesIn re Allen, 359 284 ( Texarkana 2012, orig. proceeding)28In the Interests of , 542 752 ( Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, rev. denied)25 Holick v. Smith, 685 18 ( )25In re Hughes, 446 859 ( Texarkana 2014, orig. proceeding)28In re Justin M., 549 330 ( Texarkana 2018, orig. proceeding)8In re , 291 79 ( Fort Worth 2009, orig. proceeding)26In re , 524 396 ( Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding)27In re Pate, 407 416 ( Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, orig.)

5 Proceeding)28 Santosky v. Kramer, 455 745 (1982)25In re Tex. Dep t of Family & Protective Servs., 210 609 (Tex. 2006)(orig. proceeding)26In re Tex. Dep t of Family & Protective Servs., 255 613 (Tex. 2008)26, 28In re Thompson, 330 411 (Tex. App. Austin 2010, orig. proceeding)26 Troxel v. Granville, 530 57 (2000)23, 25, 34 Walker v. Packer, 827 833 ( )25 Wiley v. Spratlan, 543 349 ( ) ConstitutionAmendment 523-5-Texas ConstitutionTexas Constitution, art. V, 68 Statutes42 5106a (b)(2)(B)(xviii)19 Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code (a)8 Texas Family Code Family Code Family Code Family Code Family Code (a)(1), (2), and (3)21 Texas Family Code (g)(1)23 Texas Family Code (g)(2)23 Texas Family Code (g)(3)24 Texas Family Code (e)24 Texas Government Code Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule of Appellate Procedure (j)36 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure (k)(1)(A)36 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure (a)36 Texas Rule of Evidence 50910 Texas Rule of Evidence 51010-6-STATEMENT OF THE of Proceeding.

6 The underlying proceeding is a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) initiated by the Texas Department of Family &Protective Services (TDFPS) on June 20, 2019 seeking to obtain possession, care,custody, and control of a minor child, KDP, and terminating or severely limiting theparental rights of , Court, and County. Hon. Mike Chitty, 422nd Judicial District Court,Kaufman County, s Action. Respondent entered a temporary order on July 24, 2019removing KDP, a minor child, from the care, custody, and control of his parents andplaced him in the custody of Court.

7 N/A-7-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONThe Court of Appeals has jurisdiction of this MANDAMUS proceeding. TexasConstitution, art. V, 6; Texas Government Code There is no appeal available fromthe ruling under review relating to the possession order. In re Justin M., 549 330( Texarkana 2018, orig. proceeding)( MANDAMUS is appropriate remedy to challengetemporary removal order). Accord: Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code (a)(describing trial court orders subject to interlocutory appeal; rulings in this case not amongthose listed).ISSUE PRESENTEDDid the trial court abuse its discretion by not returning KDP to his parents andby entering the July 24, 2019 Temporary Order Following Adversary Hearingwhen no evidence before the court indicated the minor child was in danger,was at any risk of harm, had been abused or was being abused in any way, orthat remaining with his parents would pose any threat of future harm, danger,or injury to the minor child s mental or physical well-being?

8 ABBREVIATIONSKDPThe minor child of concern in the caseCPSC hild Protective Services, a division of Texas Department of Family andProtective ServicesTDFPST exas Department of Family and Protective ServicesREC__Record (page number)OrderTemporary Order Following Adversary Hearing entered July 24, 2019; appendix , section A-8-RULINGS RELEVANT TO THIS PETITIONThe following rulings found in the Order are improper and should be corrected by thisCourt via emergency MANDAMUS because they violate the statutory parental rights of thePardos and infringe on the general Constitutional rights of parents according to the UnitedStates and Texas Supreme Courts.

9 Most of the findings appear to be nothing more thanboilerplate recitation of statutory language, wholly untethered to the facts and evidence inthis Improper Rulings there was unexplained danger to the physical health or safety ofKDP caused by an act or failure to act by the Pardo parentsthat for KDP to remain in his home is contrary to KDP s welfarethat there is an urgent need for protection of KDP by the statethat efforts were made to eliminate or prevent removal of KDP from hishomethat efforts have been made to enable KDP to return homethat there is any substantial risk of a continuing danger to KDP if he isreturned homethat either Ashley or Daniel Pardo has ever been involved

10 In familyviolence, other than Ashley being a victim of such violence21 The subject Order was submitted to the court by TDFPS after Pardo s counselobjected to various provisions (including the gag order) and without a hearing so thoseobjections could be considered by the trial court before 023, 198. All family violence was perpetrated by Chad Patrick Gannon, and standard possession guidelines under Texas state law and the are somehow not in KDP s best the Pardos submit to mandatory, non-confidential psychological orpsychiatric evaluation as a condition to return of their and the Pardos to simply accept and follow, without the ability toobtain second or further medical opinions.