Kids in divorce case paint a bleak picture
By Gregg Wendorf
Advance News Journal
Okay, let’s say you’re a guy from India, you’ve been married to a woman for 18 years who worked to put you through dental school, helped you get your papers to live in the U.S. on a permanent basis, and one day, now that you’re living in a luxurious house in Sharyland, making good money, you lose your cool and pistol whip your wife in front of your four kids (allegedly) because she (allegedly) forgot to buy propane to heat the stove in time to make dinner.
In fear of her life and that of her four kids, the wife takes the children and flees to her parents’ home in California where a judge grants her a protective order after reviewing signed medical records and photos – bruised face, fractured nose.
Now what do you do? For starters, you’ll want to hire local family law attorney Katie Klein; and probably you’ll want to visit a curandera and see if she can’t work some magic with an egg and some chicken feathers so your case somehow lands in Texas’ 464th state District Court where Judge Joe Ramirez occupies the bench. Can’t do any better than Judge Joe.
Both Klein and Ramirez are also on record (you can find them on YouTube) talking about God and service to mankind, so there is also that to consider; can’t hurt your case, the wife’s battered face and fractured nose notwithstanding.
Three weeks after you, the husband, (allegedly) pulled a gun in the family home, struck your wife, scared the bejeesus out of your kids, Katie Klein will have already filed a temporary restraining order on your behalf, in Judge Ramirez’s court, claiming you are the victim. Not your wife.
Call it the bait and switch?
Five days later, after Klein files the Temporary Restraining Order on your behalf, Judge Joe Ramirez will have signed it. Not only that, but since your wife has taken the kids to California to stay with her parents, the judge will ORDER that you return to Hidalgo County to determine whether the temporary restraining order should be turned into a temporary injunction pending final hearing.
To take the case to another level, your new attorney, Katie Klein, will also file a Petition for Divorce the same day she filed the motion for a temporary restraining order.
Call it a two-fer. It’ll cost you, but what the heck.
Case Drags On
As mentioned in last week’s front-page news story, as opposed to this week’s opinion piece, at some point after the wife left the husband, she was diagnosed with Stage 4 breast cancer.
For that reason, the wife’s privacy and that of her children, their names won’t appear in this opinion piece.
She also employed the services of “Rick” Salinas and Calixtro Villarreal as her attorneys, even though, unlike her husband, she had little to no control over the family assets. Her husband was (allegedly) posting photos of trips he was taking to exotic locales like Dubai and the Grand Canyon, while the wife told the court she was pretty much living in poverty status with her parents in California. Her husband had complete control of the family finances.
Still, the court, time and again, ordered her to fly back to Hidalgo County for court hearings.
In the spring of 2022, Attorney Salinas filed a Writ of Mandamus with the 13th Court of Appeals because the wife said she was worried for the safety of her children, and yet, despite the passage of many months, the court (Judge Ramirez) wouldn’t act on the protective order that sat before the bench.
In the practice of law, a Writ of Mandamus is an order issued by a higher court commanding a lower court to perform a specific legal duty that they have a clear and unequivocal obligation to do but have refused to do without any valid justification.
The appellate court signed off on the Mandamus, basically telling Judge Joe Ramirez to speed up the process and act on the protective order, yay or nay. Do something.
Especially given the fact that the Mission PD had arrested the husband on Aug. 24, 2021 and charged him with Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon.
Kids, a weapon, not a good combo, even though at this point no jury had yet found the husband guilty. Still, it might make most judges sit up and take notice.
That Mandamus, by the way, is posted online in its entirety.
Simply Google “Texas state District Court Judge Joe Ramirez 464th,” and you can find the appellate opinion at www.casetext. com.
To say it’s damning might be an understatement, especially when you read what the children had to say about their dad, AKA, the victim, in the legal world of Attorney Katie Klein.
In this case, the Mandamus was filed by Attorney Rick Salinas with the 13th Court of Appeals because for almost a year, District Court Judge Joe Ramirez had failed to act on the motion for a protective order, filed by the wife. You know, the one with Stage 4 breast cancer and medical records indicating that her husband had assaulted her (allegedly), after which he was subsequently arrested and indicted by a state grand jury.
The Kids’ Disturbing Stories
Here are just a few excerpts from the Mandamus, signed by a justice with the 13th Court of Appeals: “On Feb. 15, 2022, the trial court resumed the hearing on (the husband’s) motion for contempt. (The wife’s) counsel informed the court that his witnesses were present to testify regarding her request for a protective order. However, at the inception of the hearing, the trial court held in-chambers conferences separately with each of the minor children. Their conversations were transcribed and are a part of the record.”
Reading what the children told the court, it makes you wonder how a judge could still allow the father unsupervised visitations, which proved to be the case.
More from the Mandamus: “The fifteen-year-old child told the judge that the last visit was ‘bad,’ that (the dad) waved a gun in front of the family, and ‘he punched mom in the nose.’ She stated that (the dad) ‘used to hit us,’ he hit one of her sisters until she ‘was turning purple,’ and he forced her other sister to eat even when full. She stated that (the dad) would ‘vent his anger out on [the mom] and hit her, and he wouldn't talk to us for weeks.’
Wait, it gets worse (allegedly).
“On one occasion, (the dad) was angry with the children and ‘he made us say that our father is dead for us and we killed our father.’ (The daughter) stated that he was ‘mad all the time.’ With regard to the recent trip to Texas, she advised the trial court (Judge Ramirez) that her five-year old brother threw up in the car and (the dad) would not stop to allow the child to change, so he sat in his vomit for ‘over an hour.’” What kind of dad does that to their own child? Allegedly. Answer me that, Ms. Klein. Maybe quote me a Bible verse about honoring your parents?
More from the Mandamus, signed by the appellate court. This time, the younger sister tells her story to the court, Judge Ramirez, in closed chambers, as part of the official record: “The fourteen-year-old confirmed that (the dad) made their brother sit in his vomit for an hour on the recent trip to Texas. When the trial court asked if she wanted to see her father occasionally, she answered in the negative on two different occasions and explained that ‘he used to hit us’ when they were living in Texas, and she was ‘scared he might hit us again.’
“She stated that she fractured her foot, but (the dad) thought she was ‘faking,’ became angry, and made her walk on it. She stated that he hit her until she turned purple, then recounted an additional incident when (the dad) hit her sister. She stated that (the dad) failed to properly supervise her five-year-old brother outside, and her brother had fallen into a pond on more than one occasion.”
Seriously? “She stated that (the dad) got mad ‘all the time’ and ‘he would hit us for the littlest thing.’” The trial court again asked if she wished to see her father, and she responded with ‘No, I prefer not [to] see my dad.’
Wait, There’s More
The trial court (Judge Joe) attempted to placate the 14-year-old, reminding her that at the end of the day, he was still her father; however, the child reiterated, ‘Yeah, I know that, but I [would] rather not see him.’
“The fourteen-year-old also felt it was important to share with the judge that '[o] ne time [her] dogs weren't listening and [the dad] kicked them.'
The trial court (Judge Joe Ramirez) concluded his visit with the fourteen-year-old by attempting to confirm that, despite everything he had been told, 'everything was ok' for the children's last two visits with their father.
Say what? Maybe this Mandamus should be handed out to law schools across the country under the heading — how not to practice family law. Maybe Katie Klein could weigh in?
“The nine-year old told the judge that she does not like to visit her father ‘[bec]ause we're scared of him’ and ‘[b]ecause he might hit us again.’ She stated she did not want to come back and visit her father.”
The five-year-old told the judge that he likes Texas and wants to visit again.
So Judge Joe listened to three kids, 15, 14, and nine, all telling basically the same story, and yet, the court finds no problems with unsupervised visits with the dad?
Amazing, to say the least. This past Christmas, state District Court Judge Joe Ramirez, who is running unopposed for another term in office this year, with attorney Katie Klein pleading on the husband’s behalf, ordered the wife to send the nine-year-old and the five-year-old to visit the dad here in Texas for approximately 10 days.
Hopefully the dog won’t be around.
As a last resort, last month, the wife and her attorneys filed an emergency protective order so that the children wouldn’t have to stay with their dad over Christmas — DENIED.
Ramirez has also denied a motion for spousal support and denied a motion that Klein reveal how much she has been paid to litigate this case, considering that she is being paid from funds that may be classified as community property.
Meanwhile, the case drags on into the new year.
Only good thing is, Judge Joe Ramirez is off the case. How long will it take for a new judge to get up to speed, considering that this sordid affair has dragged on now for more than 2.5 years, who knows.