Deceptive Associate Judge schedule arbitary hearing.

When a judge in family court issued a TRO to the father of a child against the mother there was notable surprise. This is not considered normal experience for minority males appearing before family court 246 Houston Texas. The norm seem to be keep the father as far away as possible from the children and ensure the father does not have primary residence. The judge in this case had given a default order to the mother even if there was evidence the father was not aware of the hearing. The default was rendered on 21st June, the father was ordered to appear for a hearing on 25th June. On the 25th, before the trial even began the Associate judge signed the order removing the father from his residence with immediate effect. She said she had to sign the order in order to take up an order to modify that we applied for. That was the essence of the hearing. The judge in a queer sympathetic demean assured the father that she understood his disappointment but she would have a hearing in seven days to resolve the situation. No hearing has been completed to date but in a surprising move the judge requested bringing a child to court for a second time. The child in question was in court 2 weeks earlier at the request of the judge. The judge spoke with one child and said she would only speak with the one So it was a surprise when the second request was made for the other child that was present weeks before, especially since the father had receive a court order granting temporary custody two days prior. It was no surprise when the father arrived in court the judge announced she had concluded the hearing and returned custody to the mother. The judge essentially set a trap to nab the child, because the child refused a police attempt to remove her from the father two days prior. She seemed taken aback when the father's attorney arrived with the father and with no obvious excuse informed the attorney that she had conducted the hearing and had requested CPS interviewed the child. This judge has had 5 scheduled hearings where the father was present but the other party's attorney was more than 2 hours late. The judge informed the father that since the Attorney had informed the clerk he was late she could not conduct a hearing. Forward to the fathers case his attorney did inform the court that he was in the building concluding hearing in another court and would be late about 30 minutes. The judge did acknowledge that the clerk had receive the late message but that she could not wait since opposing attorney was in court. This is the same attorney and same judge who condoned consistent lateness by this opposing lawyer, yet the judge had already concluded the hearing well within the 30 minutes requested by the father's attorney. off course the judge turned over custody to the mother. In perspective the judge had already given primary residence to the mother revoking an order she signed more than almost two years ago. Now she has determined temporary custody, primary residence and awarded child support. She expects to sit in judgment for the final trial with every thing in place for the obvious ruling. Minority fathers can relate to this seemingly systematic approach from family courts in Houston. It may interest Americans to note the disparity between mother and father child support and custody allocated by family court. In most cases the father is able to care for his children without any input from the mother. In fact the father for this story cared for the children for two years refusing to request child support from the mother. The court will have child support for statistical reasons and this favors payment from the father. Family court is better suited to be called family cut with the sole purpose of denouncing fathers as inappropriate parents.