Brittany Kelley
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 three 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.
SAN MARCOS — For more than five years, Greg and Kaylei S. have been in a custody battle for their son. The couple stated that the case has been neglected by Hays County Family Law Court Judge Karl Hays.
The 5-year-old boy should be playing in the yard, mastering reading and perfecting his superhero powers, yet his stepmother and father claim that instead, Judge Hays has court-ordered the child to be shuttled two hours away to a mother who doesn’t want to spend time with him.
Judge 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, Judge Hays was a practicing attorney and completed his law degree at St. Mary’s University School of Law.
Greg and Megan S., his then partner and the child’s biological mother, split in October 2020, which led to a temporary custody agreement, said Greg, where the two agreed to have the child visit him on his days off, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Court documents read that Greg was later given visitation from 6 to 9 p.m. the first, third and fifth Saturdays of each month. In a message entered into evidence, the father stated that he “said yes to 6 o’clock and 9 o’clock because I thought I still had Tuesday and Wednesday with my son … I think, as his father, I deserve more than six hours a month with my son.”
Greg noted that after this, Megan’s parents began to get involved. This was around the same time, explained the couple, that they were forced to move out of Hays County, due to ongoing threats toward their family.
An incident report from the Kyle Police Department, prior to the family’s relocation, stated that Kaylei called 911 March 16, 2021, to report that Megan was at their apartment door yelling. The stepmother “was afraid of what they might do,” since she claimed Megan and her father were making threats toward them. Because of this incident, Greg and Kaylei moved to Temple to provide separation between their family and Megan.
Kaylei and Greg also stated that Megan relinquished her parental rights to their son, giving the rights to her parents instead, though the couple was unaware until they received a call from police in June 2021.
“[The child’s grandmother] called the cops on [Megan] because she kidnapped [our son] and so, then, that was the only reason Greg was able to get the documents stating that Megan had signed her rights over,” explained Kaylei.
An affidavit for voluntary relinquishment of parental rights executed April 9, 2021, reveals that Megan “freely and voluntarily give and relinquish to [the child’s maternal grandmother] and [the child’s maternal grandfather] all my parental rights and duties.”
According to an affidavit in support of application for temporary restraining order against Megan and Greg filed by the child’s maternal grandmother Oct. 5, 2021, Megan’s mother noted that her daughter began making concerning decisions, such as having “sex with strange men she had met online and “abus[ing] drugs,” with “her behavior becom[ing] increasingly erratic. Because of [Megan’s] stated desire to not be involved in [the child’s] life, we sought legal help to address our concerns.”
On Oct. 8, 2021, Megan showed up, again, at Greg and Kaylei’s new apartment in Temple, where the stepmother called the police. Records indicate that Megan was “banging on the door” and “demanding they open the door.” Further, the call log stated that this was a “civil issue between parents. This will be an ongoing custody issue. Mother seems to be shopping for an officer to get her child back.”
The couple eventually maintained a three-day visitation schedule, said Kaylei, in 2022, with the boy staying with them the first, third and fifth weekends, from Friday through Sunday.
Later, Megan executed a revocation of affidavit for voluntary relinquishment of parental rights Aug. 8, 2022, which was filed Aug. 17, 2022, citing the following: “The day I signed the document I was off my medication and for a short time, my life was off the rails and I was acting out in a self-destructive way. At that time my parents were doing whatever necessary to protect my son and they manipulated me to sign the document under duress as I felt that I had no choice at the time.”
Another document regarding termination of parental rights based on Megan’s relinquishment was filed the same day, revealing that the Judge Hays instructed parties to consider the issue of whether Megan’s parental rights should be terminated in July 2022. The document further states that the burden of proof to terminate Megan’s rights was not met, as “while [Megan] has had difficulties with drug use and criminal activity in the past, [Greg] is not able to demonstrate to the Court that [Megan] is currently engaging in acts or omissions that would endanger the child’s physical health or emotional well-being.”
Based on the evidence at the hearing, Hays determined that termination of Megan’s rights was not “in the child’s best interest.”
The following year, in April 2023, Kaylei and Greg stated that they were awarded primary custody of the child. The agreed terms were to have the boy return to his maternal grandparents’ house, where the mother would have supervised visitation with him, biweekly from Thursday through Sunday. Despite the standard two-hour agreement in the court order, stated Kaylei, the family opted to have the child stay for four days since there is a significant drive between the two locations.
“[In] all those ‘supervised visitations,’ [Megan] would only maybe pop in once a month, if then. [The boy] would always tell us that he wasn’t seeing her, that it was just grandma and grandpa,” Kaylei claimed.
According to the mediated settlement agreement, supervised visitations were enforced through Dec. 31, 2023, with Megan receiving unsupervised visitations beginning Jan. 1, 2024.
“They’re still trying to sit there and say that they have supervised visits — she’s never even at pick-up or drop off … She has four days she’s able to spend with him,” emphasized Kaylei. “She’s supposed to get a phone call every single day [and] she literally never tries to call to check on him … [The child] very much so observes everything around him and he’ll just constantly ask us, ‘Why doesn’t my mommy want to spend time with me?’”
Because of this agreement, with Megan allegedly not being present, the maternal grandparents take care of the boy, though Greg claims that they are “getting to the age, where they’re not able to take care of him,” as for nap times and bedtime, the boy tells his father that he’s forced to use a pacifier and wear diapers.
This was entered into court records in a 2024 application for temporary restraining order, where the father stated that despite the boy being potty-trained, he is still required to wear diapers.
According to comments made by the child’s doctor, the young boy has perioral dermatitis subacute, which is most likely from persistent pacifier usage, and “will likely [require him] to report this situation to authorities.”
Greg and Kaylei stated that they have not had the opportunity to voice this concern in court, as Judge Hays keeps approving various hearings against them, but does not give them the chance to speak.
Kaylei noted that Child Protective Services (CPS) had been notified, though it has been stated that there is not enough danger to interfere, with the CPS investigator being told by his supervisor to “slow his role.”
Additionally, every time the child has a small bruise or cut, the couple stated that it is made into a bigger situation. For example, the boy got a cut on his foot after playing outside and, though it was almost healed, they allege that the grandmother took him to the doctor to dig around in his foot, “basically putting him through more trauma than what he needed to do.”
Additionally, Greg claimed that Megan does not and has not properly taken care of the child. Court documents show that Greg stated since the boy was born, Megan would often leave him in a soaked diaper throughout the day. More recently, in November 2023, Megan had the child for a full week, said the court document, and returned him with a fever and a cough that “sounded like bronchitis.” The father stated that he was never notified that he was sick nor was he taken to the doctor.
Greg stressed that he and Kaylei have attempted to get these concerns heard in Judge Hays’ court, with no avail: “It’s nearly impossible to get in there. I don’t think, for five years, no one’s heard any evidence on our side. We’ll get to a point where we’re going to do that, but then, the grandparents, they’ll file all this other stuff to drain my money, so I can’t get my voice to be heard and then, the courts don’t care.”
“Not to mention, after [Megan] threatened to kill us, we tried three times for a temporary restraining order — restraining orders — and they would not even look at them. They were literally just denied within no time,” claimed Kaylei.
The threat that she is referring to occurred Dec. 20, 2023, where Megan stated the following over text: “KEEP ABUSING MY SON ILL KILL YALL WITH MY BARE HANDS!! I dare yall …. THIS IS YOUR WARNING,” as allegedly Megan believed that Kaylei and Greg were using makeup to cover bruising on the child.
In reference to this incident, an application for temporary restraining order was filed Jan. 31, 2024, according to the court docket, both of which reference Megan’s threat.
Greg stated in the supporting affidavit that “This is not the first time that Megan has made false accusations of abuse, so we immediately contacted the police and filed charges … My fiancé and I have move to three different houses due to Megan showing up unannounced, making threats, having a male friend call and threaten to shoot me, and has been harassing us over the last three (3) years.”
Additionally, it is noted in the affidavit that the child informed Greg and Kaylei that he does not feel safe with his biological mother.
An amended application for temporary restraining order was filed Feb. 2, 2024.
“This is why people get killed. Realistically, this is why kids end up hurt because you try, you try [and] you try and nobody wants to take it seriously until it’s too late,” Kaylei said.
The stepmother stated that the police reports have been given to the court in an effort for temporary restraining orders, which have been denied.
Another application for temporary restraining order was filed March 6, 2024, following the denial of the first, said Kaylei. While repeating the same information that was in the previous application, court records show that Greg also noted that the grandparents were allegedly pretending to be Megan through the court-mandated communication service App Close. Greg and Kaylei allege in the document that they knew it was not the child’s mother because they were informed prior that Megan had been arrested and was in custody.
“We are in serious fear for [our child’s] sake if he does go [with Megan] due to the circumstances. Megan has not one, not two but THREE terroristic threat charges filed against her. We came to find out that on February 22,2024, a 16.22 was sealed and put into the Travis County docket on Megan’s behalf,” read the document.
According to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 16.22 is the early identification of defendant suspected of having mental illness or intellectual disability.
“This has me worried that she cannot care and safely provide for [my son] at the visits she’s supposed to have,” said Greg in the supporting affidavit. “I am asking the court to take this into consideration and not put my son through any more than he has already had to go through.”
“Every other Thursday, we tell [our son] that he has to go [to visit]. I’m not exaggerating when I say he won’t eat, he won’t drink, he has diarrhea. He talks about his stomach hurting, his head hurting. He talks to us about how he’s using his words, so he doesn’t understand why he has to go, that he doesn’t want to do,” his stepmother explained.
The 5-year-old was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, said Greg and Kaylei.
“There’s so much that’s going on in this child’s life that nobody is taking seriously,” she said.
The pair have not been given the opportunity to formally present this information regarding the child’s diagnosis to Judge Hays yet, said Kaylei, nor has the discovery of the rash from incessant pacifier use led to any interviews with the alleged perpetrators, which she asserted was reported to the court March 7, 2025.
“The little bit of information that [Judge Hays] has heard, I feel like right then and there, he could have at least done something, but yet, we just keep tiptoeing around the situation,” said Kaylei.
Furthermore, on Jan. 17, 2025, a misdemeanor victim assistance coordinator in Coryell County, stated that Megan “entered a plea of ‘No Contest’ to Terroristic Threat Family Violence at her court hearing yesterday and received 29 days in jail, with 29 days credit and was then released,” stemming from a 2024 incident involving a domestic partner.
The couple noted that the same day that she was released on this charge, their child was required to visit his birth mother.
“[I just want] to change the order, so it benefits [my son],” stressed Greg. “Because right now, no one’s thinking about what it is doing to [him].”
Neither Judge Hays, nor the court administrator, responded to requests for comment.
To read parts one and two, visit bit.ly/4n21atH.
