Several families have reached out to the Hays Free Press/ News-Dispatch in regards to what they believe are concerning experiences in Judge Karl Hays’ family law court. The following is part one of a four part series discussing assertions against Judge Hays and the alleged failure to consider the best interest of the child(ren) involved in cases in his courtroom. Prior to the families’ stories, an attorney provided her experience in his court.
SAN MARCOS — Sarah Brandon had been practicing family law for more than 25 years until her retirement in 2024, but never, in her time, she claimed, had she met a judge that’s more set on following his own rules than Hays County Family Law Court Judge Karl Hays.
Hays was appointed in May 2019 by unanimous approval of several district judges, as Texas Family Code Section 201.001 (d) states that “if an associate judge serves more than one court, the associate judge’s appointment must be made with the unanimous approval of all the judges under whom the associate judge serves.”
Prior to his appointment, Hays was a practicing attorney and completed his law degree at St. Mary’s University School of Law.
Brandon recalled the first time she had a case in front of the judge, which was shortly after his appointment, where she immediately took note of his arrogance, stating that “he really likes himself. He really enjoys listening to himself.”
So much so, that Hays would often cite lengthy legal statutes and references throughout his cases, as though to emphasize his intelligence, Brandon said. The newly-retired family law attorney explained that this was not simply a nitpick on her end, as she found it interesting, but it was not always to the benefit of her clients.
“I had a case that I took and it was partially a pro bono case and … it’s better to have the clients pay something, [so] it may have been $20 an hour she paid me. I don’t remember, but this [was] a client who had two pairs of shoes and one pair that she wore broke,” said Brandon. “It was a custody case and we’re all sitting there. My client has no money and … he talked [for] 47 minutes about this article that he read in the Texas Bar Journal and I remember that distinctly because I thought, ‘My poor client can’t even afford shoes, let alone an hourly fee, and clocks are ticking.’”
Brandon alleged that she also received a text from Judge Hays’ assistant, that stated, “Here goes Professor Hays,” alluding that this is an ongoing activity.
She is not alone in this experience, the former attorney continued, explaining that often there were times she would be waiting a significant length of time prior to Hays hearing her case, since he would continuously bring up articles he read or cite statutes in rulings. According to Brandon, this is typically only the case if a judgement is challenged, but Hays did this nearly each time she was in court, whether or not attorneys challenged the ruling, therefore backing up the court docket.
Even with his initial kindness toward her, she found Hays to have a lack of transparency about him, which Brandon thought was further proven after noticing a pattern in his rulings.
“He likes a 50/50 custody [ruling] in all cases,” said Brandon. “Let’s say you’re a stay-at-home mom and that was the agreement that you and your spouse had. Let’s say dad travels or dad works five days a week … All of a sudden, that judge is saying 50/50 custody. What is dad going to do with the kids when he’s working? It doesn’t matter. That’s what dads have to do. That’s what being a parent’s all about is finding alternative care, rather than mom [having them],” said Brandon, explaining her experience in the courtroom.
For example, she recalled a case, where, on paper, her client was not the best choice for custody, but Brandon stated that she took the case because she knew that the grandparents would primarily be taking care of the child. She also knew that her client would have a good chance in Judge Hays’ court.
"I’m not exactly proud to say this, but I knew that was the way [Hays] would lean,” revealed Brandon. “If I was the judge in that case and I knew strictly the facts in the case, I wouldn’t have gone with my client.”
This pattern seemed to have no exceptions, she said, as a friend of hers saw Judge Hays and received 50/50 custody, despite Brandon alleging that the court received evidence of her husband raping her.
She also shared that other attorneys have avoided Judge Hays’ court, due to the fear that he would not act in the best interest of their clients: “I’ve taken over other cases because they were afraid of Judge Hays … I can’t protect somebody from Judge Hays,” she said. “I mean, I honestly feel like [for] women — stay-at-home moms or women that are vulnerable — it is dangerous. In my personal opinion, it is dangerous to be in front of Judge Hays.”
Additionally, the former attorney looked back on the custody battle of Rachael S.
She was made aware of the case after a fellow attorney would not take it on because it was in front of Judge Hays. To learn more, Brandon said she read the transcript and was shocked to find that Hays chastised Rachael for sleeping with a man, who, according to a complaint Rachael made to Hays County district judges in regard to Judge Hays, lied to her for three years and told her that he was in the midst of a divorce. Rachael also revealed in the letter that the birth father “was on active duty at the time and did not want the military to know of his extra-marital affair, so he pressured me to abort the child and severely gutted me when I decided to not … When the child was born, [the father] refused to sign the birth certificate as he did not want to adjudicate paternity. He demanded I remove social media posts as he did not want it to be known that he was the father.”
The complaint detailed that the child’s maternal grandfather was actively involved in the boy’s life. So, both Rachael and the birth father agreed that he should live with the grandfather when she — a member of the United States Army — was deployed for nearly 12 months.
While she was away, the birth father filed to establish paternity.
Despite this information, along with the fact that Rachael stated the child had never lived with or met the birth father’s family, Judge Hays still ruled 50/50 custody, said the former attorney.
According to Brandon, there was no therapeutic visitation, where the child could gain familiarity with the new family. Instead, it was decided that he would immediately begin visitation with his father.
“I feel as if [Judge Hays] judged me for ‘my decisions’ to punish me. [The father] was not punished for refusing to sign a birth certificate, demanding that I not share information with his wife or lying to me about his marriage. Worse yet, my son is the one who suffered the abrupt consequences,” Rachael emphasized. “I implore Hays County to take responsibility about Associate [Judge] Karl Hays … I may only be one letter that you receive about Associate Judge Karl Hay[s], but I can say with all confidence, that I am not the only one. I am just a prior litigant free from his superior and unjust rulings of his court.”
Approximately seven months after his appointment, Brandon began urging her clients to settle instead of going in front of Hays’ court because she “knew what he would do. I was confident [in] what he would do because he told us what he was going to do, meaning he told all the lawyers in a general session, ‘This is my personal belief and this is going to be how I rule in it.’”
Though she encouraged her clients to settle, this strategy didn’t always work because Hays often fell behind on signing court orders, Brandon said. She noted that her paralegals witnessed “stacks and stacks and stacks of orders” waiting to be signed by the judge. So much so that in October 2024, two other judges aided Hays in signing them, she alleged. This delay can impact families, continued Brandon, as it determines whether a parent can get passports, if children can go somewhere on spring break and more.
It is possible that Hays could have less orders, if the family law cases were split amongst the other courts, but she stated that Hays prevented this after his appointment.
“When he was appointed, he asked the district judges to sign an order that all family matters, no matter what they were, had to go before him and that was never in existence before he came into that seat,” stressed Brandon. “He said, ‘I am the gatekeeper of all family law cases’ … What you’re doing then, is saying that you have exclusive jurisdiction over all the family law cases, but that’s non-constitutional. He can’t do that; he can’t decide that.”
Although she didn’t file an official complaint, she did express concerns to a Hays County commissioner and multiple district judges. Brandon noted that she feels that she can share her story because she will never have to fear retaliation from Judge Hays, which she claims prevents others, who have similar experiences, from doing so.
“I’ve had strict judges. There was a really, really strict judge in Williamson County that you were always afraid to go in front of, but at the end of the day, he did the right thing, regardless. With Judge Hays, Judge Hays is going to, in my opinion … is going to do what Judge Hays wants to do,” concluded Brandon.
Neither Judge Hays, nor the court administrator, responded to requests for comment.
