Texas Supreme Court Orders Rehearing in Case of Lifetime Parental Ban

HOUSTON — The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that a Houston mother, who was barred from contacting her three children under a lifetime protective order, must be granted a new hearing. The court’s decision clarifies the high legal standard required to justify separating parents from their children for extended periods — especially permanently.

The ruling, issued Friday, reinforces that a long-term protective order interfering with a parent’s right to see their children must meet a stricter standard of proof than previously applied. Writing for the court, Justice Jane Bland emphasized that the constitutional rights of parents require robust protection.

“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,” Bland wrote. She noted that lengthy protective orders resemble the legal effect of terminating parental rights and therefore must be supported by “clear and convincing evidence.”

Background of the Case

The protective order was issued against Christine Stary in 2020 after her arrest on charges of felony family violence. According to court records, Stary assaulted her 9-year-old son by grabbing his head and hitting his face on the floor and carpet. The boy reportedly suffered visible injuries, including a bloody nose. Stary was charged with injuring a child, a third-degree felony.

Following the incident, her ex-husband, Brady Ethridge, sought a protective order extending beyond the standard two-year limit. A Harris County judge approved a lifetime order later that year, effectively cutting off all contact between Stary and her children.

Legal Questions Raised

At the heart of the case was the burden of proof required to justify such an extreme measure. Under existing Texas law, a “preponderance of the evidence” — meaning more likely than not — is sufficient for issuing civil protective orders lasting up to two years. However, the court held that orders exceeding that length, especially those barring contact entirely, demand a higher threshold.

“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.

A ‘Landmark’ for Parental Rights

Stary’s attorney, Holly Draper, called the decision a major step forward for parental rights in Texas.

"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 in a statement to KERA News.

She argued that the new standard will prevent parents from using protective orders to bypass the more rigorous legal process required to terminate parental rights.

Case Sent to Lower Court

The Supreme Court’s decision sends the case back to the lower court for a new hearing, this time under the correct legal standard. The outcome could reshape how long-term protective orders are issued in family violence cases involving parents and children.

The ruling is expected to influence future cases where courts weigh the balance between child protection and parental rights.