Issue: No. 42            
June 4, 2014
  The Enos Law Firm
  17207 Feather Craft Lane, Webster, Texas 77598
  (281) 333-3030    Fax: (281) 488-7775
  E-mail: [email protected]              
  Please forward this e-mail newsletter to everyone who cares about our family courts!  
  
Click here for an archive of past issues of The Mongoose.  
Recently, I was in a hearing with two female lawyers who looked and acted like angry bag ladies arguing over a grocery cart of soda cans.  They interrupted each other, called each other names, muttered about the other under their breathes loud enough for all to hear, made faces and talked over the judge.  Finally, the judge (also female) had enough and she stopped the hearing and chewed the ladies out about their behavior and demeanor.  Within a minute, they were back at it!

Here are a few tips for courtroom behavior given to me by a retired judge with decades of experience:
  •  All attorneys, male and female, should dress like lawyers.  Pajama pants and a canopy blouse are not lawyer attire.  Dress for court like you would for a job interview at a big, stuffy law firm. 
  • Never interrupt the judge and do not interrupt other attorneys.
  • Stay calm and professional, even if the other attorney makes a "misstatement" of facts.
  • Do not stand too close to the bench and do not waive papers in the judge's face.
  • Emulate the best behaved class of fourth graders you can imagine, where kids use polite voices and speak only when it is their turn.  

 

I do not expect to win every case.  I just want an efficient system in which my client gets a fair hearing before a judge who works hard, knows the law, and does not play favorites.  I also expect judges to appoint qualified amicus attorneys who zealously look after children (and actually visit the kids in their homes).   Is that asking too much?  Stay tuned.

 

Greg Enos
The Enos Law Firm                  
 
questioningQuestioning the Traditional Method of Calculating Child Support When Possession is Split 50/50


Here is a good motto for life: Do not just blindly do things they way they have always been done without asking questions and testing the assumptions.

When parents compromise and agree to split visitation exactly 50% to each parent, there is a "traditional" method for calculating child support that simply is not fair when one parent earns well above the $124,800 level that results in the maximum guideline support.

Consider this example to understand the "traditional" method of calculating child support in a 50/50 possession case: 
  • Paula earns $100,000 a year and pays $300 a month for insurance for the two children.
  • Rico earns $50,000 a year. 
Child support that Paula would owe for 2 kids would be $1,466.22 a month and what Rico would owe would be $840.64 a month.  The difference is $625.58 and that is what Paula in this example would owe Rico monthly for support using the "traditional" method.

Now, think about a slightly different example with possession split 50/50: 
  • Paula earns $200,000 a year and pays $300 a month for insurance for the two children.
  • Rico earns $50,000 a year. 
Child support that Paula would owe for 2 kids would be $2,137.50 a month because her gross pay results in net resources well over the current cap of $8,550 a month.   Rico would still in theory owe $840.64 a month. 

Using the "traditional" method, Paula would owe Rico $1,296.86 a month, which is the difference between her $2,137.50 and his $840.64.

I suggest a different methodology when one parent earns over the cap amount (currently $124,080 a year for employed persons) and the other parent does not:
  1. Compute the difference in the gross wages.  In this example, Paula earns $150,000 more than Rico.
  2. Compute what the higher wage earner would owe in child support based on that difference.  In this example, $150,000 a year is still over the cap so if Paula's gross annual income was $150,000, then Paula would owe $2,137.50 per month.

 Compare the results:

  • "Traditional" method: Paula pays $1,296.86 monthly.
  • "Enos" method: Paula pays $2,137.50 monthly.

In this second example, Paula earns $76,000 more than the cap amount, which is more than Rico's total annual pay.  How is it fair for the judge to ignore the amount Paula earns over the cap?  Paula is still paying well less than 25% of her net income for two kids because she earns so much over the cap.

 

There is no Family Code provision or case law that tells judges how to calculate child support when possession is split exactly 50/50.  Sec. 154.123(b) provides factors a court may consider in determining if the presumptive guideline amount should not apply, including (3) the financial resources available for the support of the child and (4) the amount of time of possession of and access to a child.  One could argue that Sec. 154.126  does indeed require a judge to ignore amounts a parent earns over the guideline cap unless the child's proven needs exceed the guideline amount of support. Yet, if the child lived primarily with Rico in this example, the court would set child support that Paula owes using the guidelines without considering Rico's income at all.   

 

Paula could argue that if I owe $2,137.50 if the kids live 35% of the time with me under an expanded Standard Possession Order, why should I pay that same amount if they live with me 50% of the time.  My answer would be to tell Paula,"because you earn so much more than Rico and so much over the guideline amount!"   If Paula has the kids for 54 more days in a year in a 50/50 arrangement compared to an expanded SPO and that results in her paying $10,000 less in child support a year, she is saving $185 per each extra day she has the kids, which is more than Rico is paid in a day. 

 

I would very much like to hear your thoughts about this proposed alternative methodology.  Please e-mail me at [email protected] with your comments.

 


pratt_affairThe Pratt Affair: The Good, the Bad and the List of Shame  

Now that Denise Pratt is officially gone and only the disaster that was once her court remains, it is time to review the "heroes" and "villians" of the Pratt affair.

Family lawyers at least know how extraordinary it was that a large number of prominent attorneys put their signatures on a public letter calling on Pratt to resign, be removed or defeated.  Up until this episode, that sort of public opposition to an incumbent judge was simply unheard of.  Here is the list of those brave lawyers:

Harry Tindall
 
Warren Cole
 
Joan Jenkins
 
Ellen Yarrell
John Pavlas
Patricia Wicoff
Reginald Hirsch
Craig Haston
Debra Herndon
Judith Blanchard
 
Peggy Bittick
 
Rob Clark
 
Dianne St. Yves
Angela Pence England
Greg Hughes
 
Dawn Renken
Maisie Barringer
Marcia Zimmerman
Matt Waldrop
Denise Khoury
Christina Tillinger 
Robert Teir
 David Salinsky
 Lori Laird
Jacqueline Smith
Amy Harris
Robert Clements
Stefani Shapiro
 
Suzanne Radcliffe
 
Greg Enos

Judy Ritts 

Attorneys who filed motions to recuse Pratt include David Brown, Matt Waldrop, Rob Clark, Anna Stool, Donn Fullendweider. Sharon Hemphill, Maisie Barringer, and Steve Schweitzer.  Marcia Zimmerman filed an important, early mandamus.  Steve Lindamood also filed a mandamus against Pratt.

The Republican candidates who ran against Pratt and kept the political pressure up were important: Phil Placzek, Anthony Magdaleno, Donna Detamore and Alicia Franklin.  District Clerk Chris Daniel was an early, vocal critic of Pratt, when few other elected officials would speak out.  Doug York did a lot behind the scenes to organize and encourage opposition to Pratt, as did Patsy Wicoff and Lynn Kamin.

Republican bloggers such as David Jennings and Ed Hubbard informed the public, but no one was a bigger hero in this story than Houston Chronicle reporter Kiah Collier, who has promised to invite me to her Pulitzer Prize after-party.

Attorneys who went to Pratt political events or who helped me with my protest at the Republican County Convention included Mary Ramos, Matt Waldrop, Dawn Archer, Amy Harris, Rob Clark, Amy Carlin, Judith Blanchard, Maisie Barringer, and Christina Tillinger. 

The attorneys in the District Attorney's Public Integrity Unit made the final deal with Pratt to resign rather than face criminal charges.  The brave mother who found me and provided an affidavit for my third criminal complaint, Karen Hyde, is the person who finally did Pratt in.  I am told that the deal with Pratt was made primarily because of the strength of the evidence of Karen Hyde and her husband who saw and heard Pratt backdate an order for capias right in front of them in open court.

Several family judges helped as best they could behind the scenes while we struggled with Pratt.  Administrative Judge Olen Underwood sometimes really helped the cause.  Judge Farr and his staff continue to amaze with their efforts and we are all grateful to Judges Doug Warne and Tom Stansbury for working this Spring to fix the disaster Pratt left behind.

I know I am missing some other "heroes" in the Pratt fight and I will try to list the rest in my next issue.

Unfortunately, while these good people were sticking their necks out and trying to stand up to Pratt, most attorneys watched and gossiped and did nothing really. 

A few attorneys ignored what they surely knew was best for their profession and county and looked out after their own selfish interests.

Here is the additional "List of Shame" of attorneys who contributed to Pratt after the New Year's Eve Massacre and dismissal of hundreds of cases and two more criminal complaints had been filed by your's truly;

Bruman & Baer  3/25/2014 $2,500
George Clevenger 3/26/14 $2,563.92
Earle Lilly 3/26/14  $1,000
Bobby K. Neuman 3/26/14 $2,500
Bobby L. Neuman 3/26/14 $2,500
Mark Lipkin 3/25/14 $2,500
Karen McKay 3/26/14 $3,000
Nichols Law PLLC 3/26/14 $2,500
Ricardo "I'm on it" Ramos 3/26/14 $2,500
The Shepherd Law Firm in Katy 3/26/14 $2,500
Therese Thiebeau 3/26/14 $210
Deborah Thompson 3/24/14 $500
Theodore Trigg 3/26/14 $1,000
John Van Ness 3/26/14  $2,500
David Wukoson 3/26/14  $5,000

We all need to ask these attorneys when we see them if they truly thought Pratt was the best candidate against Alicia Franklin at that late date or whether they had some other reason to support the worst judge in living memory.

Most of the despicable contributions were made at a March 26 dinner hosted by George Clevenger, just two days before Pratt resigned.  Interestingly, Pratt's most recent campaign finance report shows these refunds to a few attorneys on the above list:

Bobby L. Newman $2,500 refund
Nichols Law PLLC $2,500 refund
Karen McKay $3,000 refund
Mark Lipkin $2,500 refund
Shepherd Law Firm $2,500 refund

It is curious that only a few of these toadies got refunds and the others did not.  Pratt's most recent campaign report shows she had a remaining balance on hand of $7,075.64.  Maybe she is holding some back for a criminal defense fund or effort to hold on to her law license.

Last and most certainly most worthy of radical reform or elimination in the pantheon of Pratt villains, are the:
  • Dr. Hotze, who stuck with Pratt in his endorsements and refused even after Pratt resigned to endorse Franklin.  Hotze said he stuck with Pratt to the end because,"she is a good Christian woman."  Hotze, who seems to spend most of his waking hours fearing and hating homosexuals, must be reading from a different Bible than the one most of us were issued.     
  • The totally worthless Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, that received dozens of complaints about Pratt and never managed to do anything to help us get rid of her. 
 



 



be him
"Together, attorneys can improve our family courts!"
  
June 4 is the 25th anniversary of China's crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square in Beijing.  We should all spend at least a moment today to honor those brave souls who lost their lives asking for the freedom we take for granted and which their country still lacks.  The CNN footage of the lone man stopping a column of tanks is still one of the most inspiring video's ever.  Click here to see this video that makes questioning wacko family judges seem like nothing. 

 


 
chartNew Courtroom Chart for Lawyers 

Click here to download a map and chart of the Harris County family courts showing their new locations after four courts moved last week to the 16th floor of the Civil Courthouse.  My map shows parking lots and garages and is a handy thing to give clients who have never been to court downtown before.  My next issue will include my detailed two page chart showing court staff and times of docket calls and important rule requirements.


 

 
whenWhen Will Alicia Franklin Be Appointed?

Supposedly, the paperwork to appoint Alicia Franklin to be judge of the 311th is sitting on Governor Perry's desk, but may be covered by travel brochures for Iowa and New Hampshire and cheat sheets reminding Perry which governmental departments he wants to eliminate.  Given that Pratt resigned over two months ago, it makes no sense to not immediately appoint Franklin since she now has won the Republican primary.
    
ChipMeet the Democrats:
  "Chip" Wells
 Candidate for 247th District Court 
Now that the mayhem of the GOP primaries is over, it is time to remind folks that there are Democrats running for Family District Courts in Harris County.  In my next few issues, I will introduce them to you.

Clinton "Chip" Wells is running for the 247th District Court, to replace the retiring Bonnie Hellums.  Wells graduated from South Texas College of Law in December of 1976. Over the next thirteen years, Chip's practice focused on family law and civil litigation.  In 1990 Chip joined with John McDowell and together they have practiced law for 23 years. Today their firm, McDowell Wells LLP, specializes in family and civil litigation law.  Click here to see Mr. Well's campaign web site.

Mr. Wells provided this explanation of why he is running for this bench and why he should be elected:

I am running for Judge of the 247th Family District Court because justice matters to the citizens of Harris County and the State of Texas. Our Family Courts are more likely to touch the lives of the people of Harris County than any other branch of the court system. It is imperative that these courts be served by judges with integrity who can apply the  law fairly, compassionately and as efficiently as possible to assist Texas families and individuals in resolving the issues that challenge us in our daily lives.  Our courts must be open to all Texans without preference or prejudice. Our children and families depend on it
 
I will bring 37 years of experience to the bench if elected. I have served my clients well over those 37 years and humbly offer that experience back to the citizens of Texas. My opponent in November cannot make that offer or deliver that experience. As a 5 year lawyer he does not have sufficient experience to serve as judge. He was selected by special interests that voted special interests over experience. I believe that experience and common sense solutions are fundamental assets to judicial service. If you agree judges should have those qualities then,  I am the only choice for Judge in the 247th Family District Court. 
 

 

 


 
 
 

  




Attorney Greg Enos has been through his own divorce and  child custody battle (he won) and understands  what his clients are going through.  Enos  graduated from the University of Texas Law  School and was a very successful personal injury  attorney in Texas City before he decided his true  calling was to help families in divorce and child  custody cases. Greg Enos is active in politics and in Clear Lake area charities.  He has served as President of the Bay Area Bar Association and President of the Board of  Interfaith Caring Ministries. 


Attorney Greg Enos