Family court jurist says as a matter of law, Judge Carlos Cortez is not the father of child at center of support suit

On April 7, a family court judge found that 44th District Judge Carlos Cortez of Dallas is not the father of a child born to Melinda Henry in 2006. Henry filed an "Original Petition in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship" on Feb. 2. In the petition in In the Interest of Henry, a Child, Melinda Henry alleged, among other things, that "Carlos Cortez, Respondent, is obligated to support the child and should be ordered by the Court to make payments for the support of the child and to provide medical child support in the manner specified by the Court." Henry also requested "that Respondent be ordered to pay retroactive support for the child." But yesterday, Cortez’s lawyer, Laurie J. Nowlin, argued before Williamson County Court-at-Law No. 2 Judge Tim L. Wright that Texas Family Code §166.607 set a time limit of four years to bring a proceeding to determine the parentage of a child who has a presumed father and that the child’s fourth birthday already had passed when Melinda Henry filed the suit seeking child support. Wright said the purpose of the hearing was to determine whether there was a presumed father of the child in accordance with the Texas Family Code.  Henry has been married since 2005. Wright found that as a matter of law, Cortez “is not the father of the child.” Cortez, who attended the hearing in Georgetown, declined to comment after the hearing, as did Nowlin, a partner in Akins, Nowlin & Prewitt of Round Rock. Henry’s lawyer, Round Rock solo Teresa Duffin, said that in light of the four-year statute of limitations, she would have to research her client’s options. Henry made a sworn statement (currently filed under seal) in a defamation suit Cortez had filed against a Dallas lawyer in Judge Carlos Cortez v. Coyt Randal “Randy” Johnston. Cortez nonsuited that case on Feb. 11, but he is seeking a protective order to seal his deposition. ALM Media, Texas Lawyer’s parent company, has retained counsel to argue that Cortez’s deposition should not be sealed.
-- Jeanne Graham

Comments

[Mulberry Bayswater Outlet]

So cute! I already like you on FB and also get your posts on Google Reader. :)

[supra shoes for kids]

I "like" you on Facebook. Would love these for my oldest boy!

[Renegade]

"As a matter of law," sure, probably the correct ruling. But, I think the question for Judge Cortez's constituents is whether he is the biological father of a child whom he has abandoned.

For me, that type of behavior is morally untenable, and I would question whether a person who would engage in such behavior is fit for judicial office. While a person in that situation may not be legally obligated to take a DNA test to dispute paternity, it would be better to affirmatively do so, and remove the cloud of questionable ethics.