The Daily Populous Tuesday May 6th, 2025 day edition
Authored by keranews.org and submitted by AudibleNod

A Houston mother barred from seeing her three children because of a lifetime protective order will have her case reheard after a Texas Supreme Court ruling Friday.

The ruling makes clear the high bar of proof needed to legally separate children from their parents for more than two years — in this case, forever.

“An order prohibiting contact for such a lengthy duration profoundly interferes with a parent’s fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of her children,” Justice Jane Bland wrote on behalf of the court. “In that paramount sense, lengthy protective orders are similar to the government’s termination of parental rights.”

In an opinion released Friday, Bland held that such a long-term restriction on parental contact — similar to terminating parental rights — requires “clear and convincing evidence,” because it interferes with a constitutional right: a parent’s right to care for and communicate with their children.

A preponderance of evidence is used when proving something is more likely to be true than not true and is used when issuing civil protective orders lasting two years or more. Terminating parental rights requires a higher burden of proof — trial courts must find the evidence “clear and convincing.”

Holly Draper — an attorney for the mother, Christine Stary, told KERA News in an email the court's ruling is a landmark decision for parental rights.

"This case changes the standard for protective orders over two years as to a parent against a child to include the constitutionally required burden of clear and convincing evidence," Draper said. "Now, vindictive parents can no longer use the protective order process as a backdoor around the rigorous requirements of termination."

The trial court originally issued the protective order against Stary after her arrest on felony family violence charges in 2020.

Court documents allege in March 2020, Stary had grabbed her then 9-year-old son by the back of his head, beat his face on the hardwood floor and carpet, then continued to beat his bruised face as his nose began to bleed. Stary was arrested and charged with injuring a child, a third-degree felony.

Stary’s ex-husband, Brady Ethridge, pushed for a protective order of longer than two years. A Harris County district court judge issued a lifetime protective order by the end of that year. That meant Stary would not be allowed to see or directly contact her kids indefinitely, something her attorney argued Stary wasn’t given notice of.

On Friday, the state Supreme Court remanded the case for a new hearing under the proper legal standard.

“Due process demands that clear and convincing evidence support such an order and an evaluation of whether prohibiting all contact between a parent and child for the duration of the order is in the child’s best interest,” Bland wrote.

Penelope Rivera is KERA's breaking news reporter. Got a tip? Email Penelope Rivera at privera@kera.org.

KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.

AwkQthrowaway on May 5th, 2025 at 18:21 UTC »

You all would be shocked at how infrequently they went after parents who hurt their children. I would say it was less than 2%.

I used to do this job. A solid third of my cases were bullshit weed and custody cases that no one cared about. There just weren't enough resources to care about this.

Another third was abject poverty and people living in falling apart plywood trailers with no plumbing or electricity in the middle of Texas summer. Obviously you can't have a newborn baby living in 110° shed. Usually for that we would cram them in with the very unwilling family member and call it a day. There wasn't enough money to do anything else.

A third of my cases were teen parents who didn't know any better and often didn't care but sometimes were trying. It's hard to be 15 and have a baby of your own when you're living on someone's couch. We usually got another unwilling family member to help supervise in these situations and called it a day. There wasn't enough money to do anything else.

In a perfect world I would have gotten them all affordable housing and healthcare and birth control and education and government IDs and bus passes and nutrition and clothes and sooooooo muchhhhhh therapyyyyyyy.

A small portion of my cases were absolute monsters who needed to be locked up and so many of them escaped any sort of actual punishment. Again because of resources.

Very frequently we terminated rights for shit parents but that's usually because the parents didn't even make an effort to complete the court required programs they were ordered to do. Simple stuff like parenting classes and showing up to visits and paying $10 a month in child support. Half the time they didn't even show up. I would tell them in person and in writing and tell the attorney "hey this person has court on this date if they want to continue being a parent they need to show up." Nothing.

Parents who actually made even a half-assed effort got their kids back unless they were complete monsters like incest/rapists.

chillychili on May 5th, 2025 at 18:13 UTC »

I thought this was about ICE and am now disappointed.

AudibleNod on May 5th, 2025 at 17:49 UTC »

> Terminating parental rights requires a higher burden of proof — trial courts must find the evidence “clear and convincing.”

Clear and convincing is the medium level of proof. Below 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

> Court documents allege in March 2020, Stary had grabbed her then 9-year-old son by the back of his head, beat his face on the hardwood floor and carpet, then continued to beat his bruised face as his nose began to bleed. Stary was arrested and charged with injuring a child, a third-degree felony.

She was given a lifetime protective order against all her children. She now gets a new hearing with the new standard needing to be applied.