JF Gariepy Case Mentally Challenged Mexican Girl Pleading
JF Gariepy Case Mentally Challenged Mexican Girl Pleading
09-16-00293-CV
NINTH COURT OF APPEALS
BEAUMONT, TEXAS
9/19/2016 12:00:00 AM
CAROL ANNE HARLEY
CLERK
In re Jean-François Gariépy
FILED IN
9th COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE ESTATE OF § IN THE NINTH COURT
BEAUMONT, TEXAS
§ 9/19/2016 8:14:00 AM
JACQUELINE CASTELLANOS, § OF APPEALS,
CAROL ANNE TEXAS
HARLEY
§ Clerk
COMES NOW Dr. Jean-François Gariépy (‘relator’), pursuant to Rule 52.5 of the
Response Page 5
Verification Page 27
CASES
A&W Industries, Inc. v. Day, 977 S.W.2d 740, Court of Appeals of Texas,
1998………………………………………………………………………...Page 14
Antonio, 2011……………………………………………………….………Page 15
2008……………………………………………………………….…….Pages 15-16
1. Real Party in Interest claims that the Relator has “lured” the Proposed Ward to
another state, but this statement is not supported by admissible evidence. To the
contrary, the Affidavit of the Relator establishes that her move to North Carolina
was a free choice made by the Proposed Ward herself (see Affidavit of Jean-
François Gariépy, Paragraph 10). These statements were not denied nor objected to
2. Real Party in Interest claims that the Proposed Ward is completely disabled, but
the Relator is objecting to this statement and has not been given a chance to
counter-interrogate the witnesses who claim that she is in the trial court, due to the
striking of his petition-in-intervention. Thus, this court should not assume that she
is incapacitated.
3. Real Party in Interest claims that the Proposed Ward is not pregnant, but this is
not supported by any other evidence than a claim that the Proposed Ward has
undergone a blood and urine test. Relator contends that the tests were performed
too early to have any validity, because they were performed 7 days before the
expected date of the Proposed Ward’s periods, and these tests only start having
before the expected periods. Thus, the tests could not possibly have returned a
positive result because they were performed too early. In any case, the petition-in-
intervention of the Relator does not solely hinge on the fact that the Proposed Ward
may be pregnant, but also on the fact that she was the domestic partner and fiancée
of the Relator. For the record, the Relator still believes that the Proposed Ward is in
all likelihood pregnant, and this is further suggested by the fact that the Real Party
in Interest has not provided newer and valid tests since these inappropriate tests
were performed.
4. Real Party in Interest states that the Honorable Jeff Branick suggested that the
romantic relationship between the Proposed Ward and the Relator may be a crime.
The judge did indeed state this, and it is precisely the reason why the Relator will
health diagnoses in this country were we to taint any romantic relationship they
freely engage in with the specter of criminal accusations. The Proposed Ward has
the right to engage in a romantic relationship and the comments made by the
Honorable Jeff Branick (see Real Party in Interest’s Appendix A, Page 13, lines 15-
should recuse. The Relator notes that the Court Reporter’s report is incomplete in
this part and that the honorable Jeff Branick actually directly addressed comments
to a policeman in the audience, Mr. Alan Roberts, who exchanged with the judge at
that moment. The Relator also notes that the Court Reporter’s attribution of
statements to “Mr. Nichols” is erroneous and that the judge was actually
exchanging with the policeman Mr. Alan Roberts. There is no Mr. Nichols in these
5. Real Party in Interest claims that the Relator is still married. The Relator has
stated numerous times that he was separated, and that he was in the process of
obtaining divorce. The reason there is no filing in North Carolina for divorce is that
the Relator had to wait the prescribed 1-year separation period and then start
negotiating the details of the separation of his goods from those of his ex-wife. In
any case, the Relator is separated from his ex-wife and he is free to commence a
on factual disputes and issues. Relator contends that there are no factual disputes
about the main facts supporting his intervention: that he is the fiancé of the
Proposed Ward, that the Proposed Ward wants to be in a relationship with him, that
the Proposed Ward wants to have a baby with him, and that they were residing
together in North Carolina when the Proposed Ward was brought against her will
back to Texas. The Relator has stated all of these facts under oath in his affidavit
and petition-in-intervention, and these facts were not denied nor objected to in the
trial court. In addition, some of these facts were even later confirmed by some of
the follow-up documents brought to the trial court by the Real Party in Interest.
7. Real Party in Interest claims that the Proposed Ward was found to be
incapacitated by a qualified psychiatrist, but the Relator was not served the
the psychiatrist. The Relator contests the conclusions of the psychiatrist and will do
8. Real Party in Interest claims in this Court that she denies and challenges the
facts in the Relator’s Affidavit, but has not made such denial in the trial court and
denials and claims of the Real Party in Interest in this Court are not supported by
qualifying evidence, were not submitted in the trial court and should be ignored.
9. Real Party in Interest claims that the Proposed Ward is not the Relator’s fiancée,
but she is not a qualified witness because she was not present when the Proposed
Ward and the Relator made a commitment to marry each other. Her claim has not
been proven in the trial court and has no basis in any qualifying evidence.
10. Real Party in Interest admits that “the most important facts in this case come
from the Ad Litem’s Report,” but the Relator has not been provided said report after
requesting it. It would be the end of due process in America if the Relator’s right to
document that he could never get a copy of. Consequently, the report of the ad
litem should be ignored because the Relator has not had a chance to contest the ad
litem’s competence in the trial court. A discussion on the phone between the
guardian ad litem and the Relator was sufficient to confirm that she has not
properly informed the Proposed Ward of her rights in this case, which should also
the Person” contains a report from “Dr. Mark Thompson” establishing that the
child.” The Relator has filed a motion to strike this document in the trial court
because it is hearsay, Mark Thompson is not a Doctor, and the conclusions are
based on unreliable evidence. The Relator could not be heard on this motion
strike Exhibit B, which contains hearsay claiming that the Relator is aggressive
towards women, which is both false and inadmissible in court. The simple fact that
the Real Party in Interest felt the need to include these documents in the underlying
proceeding is perhaps the best demonstration that the Relator should be given the
right to intervene in this matter in order to defend himself against these false
allegations.
12. Real Party in Interest states that the Proposed Ward has been appearing at the
hearing on the Application for Permanent Guardian of the Person and agreed to the
discarded as hearsay. Additionally, this statement would have occurred after the
this Court as the Relator has not been given the right to counter-interrogate the
Proposed Ward.
13. Real Party in Interest submitted to this Court the “Appointment of Permanent
Guardian of the Person,” which contains a psychiatrist report (Appendix 2). This
submission was made in the trial court while the Relator was stripped of his due
process rights and the Relator will challenge several of the conclusions of the
report and the application document. The Relator has not been given a chance to
counter-interrogate the psychiatrist, nor to move for striking the report, which is
14. Real Party in Interest cites Texas Estates Code § 1055.003, providing “(2) the
proposed intervenor has such an adverse relationship with the Ward that the
rights.” However, the Real Party in Interest has not demonstrated that the Relator
had adverse interests to the original parties’ rights. All they have stated is
essentially that they are scandalized that the Proposed Ward has freely decided to
have a baby with the Relator (Real Party in Interest’s Appendix A, Page 4, lines 15-
intervention based on lack of standing, and did not make a specific finding of
adverse interests (see Real Party in Interest’s Appendix A, Page 11, lines 16-18). It
would be highly prejudicial for the sexual and reproductive freedom of individuals
with mental health diagnoses if our courts were to find that their chosen life partner
and the soon-to-be co-parent of their child necessarily has interests that are adverse
probate proceedings; this rule actually provides the right to “any person” to
intervene and contest an application for guardianship, except finding of “an interest
that is adverse to a proposed ward.” The Real Party in Interest shows no qualifying
evidence that the Relator has an interest that is adverse to that of the Proposed
15. Real Party in Interest claims that the Relator must show he has a clear legal
right to the performance of a certain act. Relator has already made the case that he
has the right to (1) contest the venue in a special appearance, (2) demand the
by Mr. Snider during the hearing, (3) contest the fact that the Proposed Ward is
incapacitated, (4) move for recusal of the Honorable Jeff Branick, (5) contest that
guardians, (6) apply himself as a guardian (7) present a defense based on the clean
hands doctrine to ask for dismissal of the lawsuit based on the fact that the Real
Party in Interests have physically assaulted the Proposed Ward and the Relator as
part of this case and (8) contest the competence of the guardian ad litem, who has
not properly informed the Proposed Ward of her rights and of the consequences of
Relator had already filed several motions concerning these matters in the trial
court, but was not given a chance to be heard on these motions. The rights
protected by these motions do not rely solely on disputed facts. Indeed, there is no
factual dispute about the content of the Relator’s Affidavit because it was not
objected to in the trial Court, nor was it countered by any evidence. The facts that
the Proposed Ward is the fiancée of the Relator, that she had decided to live with
him, that she wants to have a baby with him, for instance, are undisputed by any
qualifying evidence.
his petition-in-intervention was an abuse of discretion, and that he must show that
the Trial Court could have reasonably reached only one decision. Relator has
already laid out in his petition how the striking of his petition-in-intervention was
an abuse of discretion.
17. Real Party in Interest claims that the Relator has an appropriate remedy on
appeal and claims that “an Order that a litigant lacks standing disposes of all the
issues in the proceedings for which it is brought,” and in support of this statement
cites Crowson v. Wakeham, 897 S.W.2d 779, Supreme Court of Texas, 1995.
However, Crowson v. Wakeham vastly differs from the current case in that in
Crowson v. Wakeham, the order which was found to be appealable was an order
granting a motion for summary judgment, which means that Crowson was a party
in the original proceedings and was given a chance to file motions and argue
questions of law in the trial court, unlike the Relator in the current case who has
been kept from becoming a party. In addition, the Relator provides several
arguments showing the necessity and emergency of the situation, including the fact
that the Proposed Ward is in all likelihood pregnant, which further justifies an
intervention of appellate courts before the final judgment. Mandamus is the only
proceedings.
18. Real Party in Interest cites A&W Industries, Inc. v. Day, 977 S.W.2d 740, Court
of Appeals of Texas, 1998 and Womble v. Atkins, 334 S.W.2d 294, Supreme Court
of Texas, 1960, stating that “an Order that a litigant lacks standing disposes of all
the issues in the proceeding for which it is brought, such an order is a final
judgment that may be appealed.” The analysis of the case law by the Real Party in
Interest is erroneous. In these two proceedings, the parties making the appeal were
litigants in their respective original proceedings, and were not appealing of the
making the appeal was the original applicant. The proper case law that binds this
2011, even if that case is a child custody proceedings, because the rights of the
Relator have been similarly violated to those of Michelle Chester in her child
custody case.
19. Real Party in Interest invokes In re Peggy Bowie, Cause No. 09-08-118-CV,
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008, and claims that “a party did not have the right to
re Peggy Bowie is not binding nor similar to the circumstance of the Relator,
because in that case, Peggy Bowie was not requesting a reversal of the striking of a
transfer. Furthermore, she made the argument on appeal that mandamus relief was
available to her “without a showing that she has no adequate remedy by appeal,”
which is very different from the emergency argument made by the Relator. Peggy
Bowie still had the right to intervene in the underlying proceeding, she simply had
to wait up to the end of the proceedings to appeal of the dismissal of her motion to
transfer, and thus she had a proper remedy on appeal, unlike the Relator in the
current case, who has been kept from becoming a party to the original proceeding.
20. Real Party in Interest cites In the Estate of Chad Eric McDonald, Cause No.
showing that “a party did not have the right to mandamus relief when they were in
similar circumstances as Relator.” The Real Party in Interest apparently missed the
fact that In the Estate of Chad Eric McDonald was not a petition for mandamus, it
was an appeal from an interlocutory order, and thus it was properly dismissed as
the party appealing the decision still had the chance to intervene in the
Estate of Chad Eric McDonald still had a proper remedy on appeal because he was
was appealing an order that allowed another party to intervene rather than an order
21. Real Party in Interest claims that the facts “as they relate to Relator’s actions
and the mental capacity of the Ward,” “way [sic] heavily in favor of the striking of
adult human beings by the state, since the striking of a motion to intervene, by
definition, occurs before the intervenor has been given any chance to establish
facts in the trial court. It is in part because so much of this probate proceeding
relies on false information about the Relator that the Relator must be given the
right to intervene.
22. Real Party in Interest claims the relief requested by the Relator is moot because
Marsha Castellanos has now been appointed Permanent Guardian of the Ward. If
this argument was ever considered by an Appellate court, this would essentially
this case that looks at the fact as they were at the moment of decision concerning
the striking of his petition-in-intervention, and any decision that has been taken
after this decision is irrelevant given that the Relator was improperly deprived of
23. Real Party in Interest claims that the Relator “could take advantage of a
disabled young lady whose parents have come to the Courts of Jefferson County to
seek help and to protect their daugther,” but cites no qualifying evidence in the
record showing that the Relator is taking advantage of the Proposed Ward. In fact,
the qualifying evidence shows that the Relator has simply committed to loving the
Proposed Ward and caring for her for the rest of his life and that the Proposed Ward
has decided to freely engage in a romantic relationship with the Relator and wants
to start a family with the Relator. It would be highly prejudicial to the sexual and
automatically assumed by the courts that anyone who falls in love with them wants
(Real Party in Interest’s Appendix A). Firstly, on Page 9, lines 20-21 and 23-24, the
reporter wrote what the Relator said as “I’m contesting that Jacqueline isn’t
incapacitated.” To clarify, the Relator meant that he is contesting the allegation that
Perhaps the French accent of the Relator has been misunderstood by the reporter,
or the Relator may have poorly formulated his sentence, but the context was clear
that the Relator was contesting the guardianship. Relator also brings the precision
that he has complained in the trial court that the documents referred to in Page 4
lines 4-5 and 23-24 have not been served to him and that he had no copies of those,
but the Court Reporter apparently omitted to include his complaint in the report.
25. Relator asks this Court to ignore the Application for Appointment of Permanent
Interest’s Appendix 2), since it was filed and heard in a separate, subsequent
hearing, and the Relator has not been given the chance to object to its content, nor
a decision taken in a subsequent hearing, after the Relator was silenced in the trial
court. Relator suggests that the Real Party in Interest could be sanctioned for
bringing as much frivolous arguments of law as they did, and for including
inadmissible evidence in the record that is irrelevant to the matter brought by the
Relator.
27. Relator asks this Court to ignore the guardian ad litem’s report since he was not
provided a copy of the report upon request and has not been given a chance to
contest its content as well as the competence of the guardian ad litem in the trial
court.
28. The entire response of the Real Party in Interest is submitted in violation of
Rule 52.3 (j) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides that “The
person filing the petition must certify that he or she has reviewed the petition and
evidence included in the appendix or record” and Rule 52.4 providing “The
the Real Party in Interest’s response indicating that each of their factual statements
under oath, thus the entire response should be discarded by this Court as
unsupported claims.
29. The entire response of the Real Party in Interest is being submitted in violation
of Rule 9.4 (j) (1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in that it was
rest of the document being unsearchable. The entire response should be stricken
pursuant to Rule 9.4 (k). See also Rule 9.2 (c) (1), providing that attorneys in civil
30. The entire response of the Real Party in Interest is being submitted in violation
of Rule 9.4 (i) (3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in that it does not
include a certificate by counsel stating the number of words in the document. The
31. The Statement of Facts section of the Real Party in Interest’s Response is
submitted in violation of Rule 52.3 (g) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure
in that the statements of facts are not supported by citation to competent evidence
32. To conclude on a more philosophical note, the Relator notes that due process
has been violated in almost every possible way in these proceedings. The Relator
understanding of who she is, and perhaps with a better understanding of her mental
capacities than any of the persons who have been allowed to intervene in this case
up to now, since he is in fact one of the leading neurobiologists in this country, has
directed research projects about autism in leading universities, and has worked in
question which will emerge from these proceedings, if the Relator is ever given a
chance to participate to them, is whether or not an adult individual who has been
making and cognition has the right to choose to start a family and reproduce with
someone she loves, or if such individuals in this country are subject to arbitrary
judicial orders granted by the State of Texas allowing the violent kidnapping of
their person by their biological parents at any time as they start engaging in their
life as an adult. Needless to say that such state-allowed kidnappings are quite scary
sexual and reproductive freedom. However, let us not fool ourselves that whether
our courts should allow such acts without due process for the people victimized by
33. Thus the Relator respectfully asks that this Court strikes the response of the
Real Party in Interest, grants his petition for mandamus, and further grants the
Relator all other relief, either at law or in equity, to which he may be entitled.
The current document contains 4717 words and therefore is in compliance with
Rule 9.4 (i) (2) (C) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
_______________________________
post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal
_______________________________