A Harris County judge known for indiscriminately dispensing protective orders imposed a lifetime order on a mother, banning her from contact with her children. By using a protective order, the judge bypassed the state’s standard requiring clear and convincing evidence for termination of parental rights; however, the effect was the same.
Long after voters fired that judge, the consequences of her decision locked the mother into a years-long fight that reached the Texas Supreme Court.
Her case highlights why local judicial races are important; judges’ decisions can rip your children away from you.
This story is based on Texas Supreme Court filings and oral arguments by attorney Holly Draper, representing the mother; attorneys Chris Branson and Eva Guzman of the Family Freedom Project; attorney Bradley Pierce of Heritage Defense; and comments from these individuals and organizations. It also includes the case history, the First Appeals Court’s opinion and dissent, the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion, and a reprimand from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
The Termination
Christine Stary has three children, currently aged roughly 20, 17, and 14, with her ex-husband Brady Ethridge. Their divorce was finalized in May 2018.
Originally, the two shared 50/50 custody. Then Ethridge sought a temporary protective order to keep Stary from their children, according to attorney Draper. Draper told the Texas Supreme Court that Ethridge’s testimony “indicated he believed” the order should last until the children reach the age of majority, “and after that, the children could decide for themselves.”
But on October 20, 2020, Judge Barbara Stalder (D) of the 280th District Court in Houston hit Stary with a lifetime protective order, banning her from all contact with her children except through a court-appointed lawyer or counselor. Unless vacated or modified, the order would forever bar Stary from calling or seeing her children, even as adults. If Stary even attempted to violate it, she’d risk criminal prosecution.
Attorney Marshall Bowen, defending the Texas First Court of Appeals’ decision to uphold Judge Stalder’s permanent order, conceded the record was unclear on how Ethridge’s request for a temporary restraining order resulted in a permanent one.
Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock of the state supreme court expressed concern. “If one side’s arguing for X and I’m arguing against X, and the judge comes back out with Y, and I had no idea I needed to defend against that, that doesn’t sound fair to most people’s ears,” he said during oral arguments.
Ethridge and Stary’s custody dispute began on March 5, 2020 when their 10-year-old child was treated at Texas Children’s Hospital for an injury. The child alleged Stary caused the injury, and the Houston Police charged Stary with injuring a child under 15.
Attorney Draper reported that the criminal case against Stary was dismissed on February 12, 2025. Jeremy Newman of Family Freedom Project noted that Child Protective Services, despite multiple contacts, did not intervene due to insufficient evidence.
But for the past several years, Stary has been under the specter of Judge Stalder’s lifetime protective order. Alongside Heritage Defense and Family Freedom Project, Draper argued that this order effectively terminated Stary’s parental rights and surpassed typical termination by barring contact with her children, even as adults.
During oral arguments, Chief Justice Blacklock noted how unusual this is. In standard termination cases, a parent can still greet their children at a grocery store, but under this order, he said, “she can’t even do that.”
Attorney Pierce noted that Judge Stalder’s order also forced Stary to financially support her children, calling it “the best of both worlds for the applicant” by achieving termination with minimal process.
Stary’s attorney and her legal allies made the question of process a key argument. Under state law, protective orders and terminations of parental rights have to clear different hurdles.
Termination proceedings can be rocky, especially without a felony conviction, as they require clear evidence, extensive discovery, and often a jury trial. Protective orders, however, can rely on unproven allegations, according to attorneys Branson and Guzman.
Research of Judge Stalder’s record revealed an affinity for protective orders.
Unjust Judge
As exposed in a report from Dolcefino Media, Judge Stalder turned her court into a lifetime protective order vending machine.
A complaint covered in that report showed that as of March 2020, Judge Stalder denied only 3 percent (22 of 658) of protective order requests in the 280th District Court. Of those granted, 56 percent were on behalf of children. Of the protective orders Judge Stalder issued in that time period, 69 percent (436 of 636) covered periods of more than two years; 82 percent (358 of 436) were lifetime orders.
The report highlighted multiple cases resembling Stary’s, with one parent stating, “I have a lifetime ban and I had my kids taken away from me like I was in Communist China.”
Stalder, a self-described domestic abuse survivor, has been criticized for alleged bias. Attorney Lory Laird argued that Stalder’s history clouds her impartiality and undermines fair trials for the accused. She went so far as to call Stalder’s questionable methods an “open secret” in Houston’s family-law community; allegedly, everyone knew her court could be relied upon to sidestep evidence rules and constitutional protections for parental rights.
Laird also criticized Stalder for setting “draconian” Zoom rules that hindered defendants’ ability to respond. She wasn’t the only attorney to complain about how Stalder managed her court. In September 2020, Attorney Stacey Valdez alleged that Stalder shouted at her during a Zoom hearing and expelled her and her client but still allowed the state to present evidence. And in April 2022, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct reprimanded Stalder for handcuffing two attorneys to chairs in her courtroom on separate occasions.
This record tracks with arguments made by attorneys Branson, Guzman, and Pierce that Judge Stalder’s process violated Stary’s constitutional rights.
“[Judge Stalder] didn’t allow an offer of proof, she limited cross-examination; she didn’t allow a witness to testify about Mr. Etheridge’s own violence,” Guzman told Texas Supreme Court justices. “The question here is, what process is a parent entitled to before there is a deprivation of parental rights?”
Pierce wrote that it “is unconstitutional” to use a different legal label to circumvent the due process requirements of a parental rights termination.
Latest Updates
Waging war in the courts costs not only money but time, and in Stary’s case, precious time. Draper stated that, as of October 2024, her client had not spoken to or seen her kids in 4.5 years. “One of them is already an adult,” Draper wrote.
As she navigated the criminal investigation against her, Stary simultaneously appealed Judge Stalder’s protective order.
In December 2022, Texas’ First Court of Appeals upheld the order in a 2-1 vote, with Chief Justice Sherry Radack and Justice Julie Countiss voting in favor. Justice April Farris, a Republican, dissented. In her dissenting opinion, she agreed that the lifetime ban effectively ended Stary’s parental rights without the required constitutional standard. She said no appellate court before had upheld that precedent.
Stary then went to the Texas Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on October 29, 2024. More than six months later, on May 2, 2025, the justices unanimously decided to reverse the appeals court’s decision and sent the case back to the trial court for reconsideration.
Justice Jane Bland wrote that it was unclear if a lifetime ban would have been imposed on Stary’s contact with her children under a stricter evidentiary standard that recognized parental rights.
Jeremy Newman of Family Freedom Project celebrated. “The court has prevented bad actors from using the protective order process to effectively terminate parental rights without due process,” he stated.
An unfavorable ruling could have created a legal environment that would have put parental rights at risk in Texas.
Pierce warned Texas Scorecard that an adverse ruling could have allowed anyone, including social workers, to secure protective orders based on felony accusations, separating families for over two years. Draper argued that upholding Judge Stalder’s lifetime protective order would create a loophole that enables one parent to permanently end another’s rights using mere allegations.
Sadly, Stary’s ordeal is not a unique one in Texas. Newman stated that trial and appellate courts often misjudge these types of cases due to unfamiliarity with the law. “Most families cannot afford to pay tens of thousands of dollars to reach the Texas Supreme Court,” he wrote.
In 2022, voters fired Judge Stalder, replacing her with Damiane Curvey in the Democrat primary, who then won the general election. And yet, Stalder’s lifetime protective order continued to haunt Stary, forcing her to seek justice from the Texas Supreme Court.
Fort Worth attorney Tony McDonald noted that court orders, like Stary’s lifetime protective order, persist beyond a judge’s tenure—a feature of a system that allows voter-driven change but often fails to remedy specific cases. He added that new judges can reassess prior orders if they retain jurisdiction, though they rarely do.
How can problems like Stary’s be put to an end? Newman pointed to state lawmakers, urging them to clarify state laws to protect parental rights from overreaching judges. Newman stated that proposed measures Senate Bill 2052 and Senate Joint Resolution 34 would address this.
But it’s not just up to state lawmakers. It’s up to voters as well. Newman used Stary’s case as a cautionary example of the importance of voter scrutiny in judicial races.
Attorney Pierce aptly noted that dangers remain today despite the Texas Supreme Court’s decision. “Parents should know that the fight to protect their parental rights is ongoing,” he said.
Source Documents
For this article, Texas Scorecard reviewed multiple publicly available records.
Petitioner’s Brief, submitted by Draper Law Firm, representing Christine Stary
Brief for the Family Freedom Project as Amicus Curiae
Amicus Curiae Brief of Heritage Defense Foundation
First Court of Appeals Written Opinion
Justice Farris’ Written Dissent
October 2024 Oral Arguments before the Texas Supreme Court
Texas Supreme Court May 2025 Written Opinion
Texas State Commission of Judical Conduct’s Reprimand of Judge Stalder
This article contains highlights from these documents. Citizens wishing to conduct a deep dive should click the links above.
No ads. No paywalls. No government grants. No corporate masters.
Just real news for real Texans.
Support Texas Scorecard to keep it that way!
