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 th e 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 ACCEPTED 05-15-00114-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS 2/18/2015 11:49:04 AM

LISA MATZ CLERKthereto .” 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 u nsupervised access to a period of clean drug tests, her fai lure to meet those strict terms, or the possible resulting danger to the child. All Mother really says is (1) the trial court found S tep 4 access to be in
the child ’ s best interest, and (2) the trial court is scheduled to take this

matter un d er 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 wi th drug testing and possession under the prior judgment. The order says only that
Mother has satisfied the prerequisites for Step 4 access

— something soobviously 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 c lear 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. ” T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 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.In light of Mother ’ s failure to identify any real reason not to grant relief, Fat her asks that this Court err on th e side of caution and protect the child by suspending the orde r. Respectfully submitted, /s/Charles “Chad” Baruch Texas Bar Number 01864300 T HE L AW O FFICE OF C HAD B ARUCH 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 cer tificates). /s/Charles “Chad” BaruchCertificate 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 Februa ry 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