NO. 05-15-00114-CV

___________________________________________________

In the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of

Texas at Dallas

_____________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF H.W.G., A CHILD

MICHAEL GIBB,

 Appellant,

v. 

EMILY STEPHENS

 Appellee. 

___________________________________________

On Appeal from the

366th Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas

Cause No. 366-55837-2009

___________________________________________________

APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 

SUSPEND TRIAL COURT’S ORDER PENDING APPEAL

___________________________________________________

TO THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS:

Mother really has no substantive response to the motion to suspend 

order. 

First, Mother does not even attempt to argue that suspending the 

order would harm or be unfair either to her or the child. The closest she can 

come is a passing, unexplained reference to “an agreement contrary 

001

ACCEPTED

05-15-00114-CV

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

2/18/2015 11:49:04 AM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 2/18/2015 11:49:04 AM LISA MATZ Clerk
thereto.” But she does not explain what this means. And, as the transcript 

excerpts attached to Father’s motion make clear (and Mother does not 

dispute), returning her to the previous access is entirely consistent with that 

agreement.

Second, Mother does not attempt to dispute her recent history of drug 

abuse, her agreement to the strict terms tying unsupervised access to a

period of clean drug tests, her failure to meet those strict terms, or the 

possible resulting danger to the child.

All Mother really says is (1) the trial court found Step 4 access to be in 

the child’s best interest, and (2) the trial court is scheduled to take this 

matter under advisement in March. Neither contention is accurate, and 

neither is relevant.

First, the trial court did not, either in its order or in its on-the-record 

discussion of that order, state that Step 4 access was in the child’s best 

interest. All the trial court mentioned on the record was “continuous serious 

conflict” between the parents—a matter having nothing to do with drug 

testing and possession under the prior judgment. The order says only that 

Mother has satisfied the prerequisites for Step 4 access—something so 

002
obviously untrue that not even Mother made that claim in the trial court (or 

in her response to this motion).

Second, Mother’s pending request for temporary orders on appeal 

concerns matters entirely unrelated to suspension of the order on appeal 

(which only makes sense—why in the world would Mother, as Appellee, 

seek temporary orders suspending the order on appeal?). The trial court’s 

resolution of the request for temporary orders has nothing to do with the 

relief sought by this motion.1

Finally, the trial court’s statements during the hearing made clear the 

futility of seeking suspension of the order. Rather than waste his money and 

the trial court’s time, Father instead sought relief from this Court—as the 

Family Code explicitly permits. 

The Family Code authorizes relief “on a proper showing.” TEX. FAM.

CODE ANN. § 109.002(b). Mother claims Father did not make a proper 

showing. Again, however, she never provides any basis for this argument.

Father made a showing that Mother’s recent drug use poses a risk to the 

child, and that suspending the order will not negatively affect Mother or the 

child, or deny them time together.

 

1

 Mother attached a copy of the motion to her response. The motion concerns complaints 

Mother has about access under the order, and has nothing to do with suspending it 

pending appeal. 

003
 

In light of Mother’s failure to identify any real reason not to grant 

relief, Father asks that this Court err on the side of caution and protect the 

child by suspending the order.

 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/Charles “Chad” Baruch

 Texas Bar Number 01864300

THE LAW OFFICE OF CHAD BARUCH

3201 Main Street

 Rowlett, Texas 75088

 Telephone: (972) 412-7192

 Facsimile: (972) 412-4028

Email: baruchesq@aol.com

Counsel for Relator

Certificate of Compliance

This brief was prepared using Microsoft Word for Mac. Relying on the 

word count function in that software, I certify that this motion contains 501

words (excluding the case caption, signature block, and certificates).

/s/Charles “Chad” Baruch

004
Certificate of Service

The undersigned counsel of record certifies that a true copy of this 

instrument was served in accordance with Rule 9.5 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure on each party or that party’s lead counsel on February 

18, 2015, as follows:

Charles C. Phillips 

Philips & Epperson, LP 

2301 Virginia Parkway 

McKinney, Texas 75071 

By email to: 

rcollins@philipsandepperson.com 

 /s/Charles “Chad” Baruch

 

005