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 the finale 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.
This story includes discussion of allegations of child sexual abuse. Please proceed with caution.
SAN MARCOS — Kourtney P. thought she had won: She and her two young daughters escaped what she described as an abusive household, but she quickly discovered that the horrors continued. She claimed that her children detailed several instances of alleged sexual abuse at the hands of their father, which made no difference, said Kourtney, in Hays County Judge Karl Hays’ family law court.
It was early June 2020 when she and her two daughters, both below the age of five at the time, fled Glen G. with nothing more than the clothes on their backs, claiming that they were headed to dance class. Once in a safe location, she was able to file for divorce June 23, 2020, in Judge Hays’ court, where she was granted a temporary protective order three days later.
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.
Because Kourtney left without her possessions, she later went back with her father to retrieve her dog from the couple’s shared house in Wimberley. While out of the house, the children’s grandmother was watching the girls when she observed concerning behavior that was sexual in nature, prompting her to call their mother.
“I asked [my daughter] where she learned to do that … and then, she said she learned it from her dad, that her dad does that to her. So, that’s essentially what started everything,” alleged Kourtney. “I think one of the biggest things at the beginning was we got away [and] we got a protective order, like we can live happy. Then, this whole giant — he was sexually abusing them — that comes out and it’s like, ‘What the f***?’ So, you think you’re protecting your kids and then, you realize there’s so much more.”
The mother then called Child Protective Services (CPS) and began the process of pressing charges against Glen. Following several forensic interviews with the girls, an arrest warrant for Glen was filed July 24, 2020, for aggravated sexual assault of a child.
The charge was only for the older child, explained Kourtney, as it was difficult to confirm the facts of the other, since she was so young.
According to an order on condition of bond filed July 24, 2020, in the criminal court, Glen was required to avoid any communication with his eldest daughter and remain at least 300 feet away from her residence, though court notes on the custody case state that less than a month later on Aug. 17, 2020, Glen was granted supervised possession for two- 4-hour periods each week, along with joint managing conservatorship. Kourtney stated that Hays was aware of Glen’s criminal bond conditions, stating that he said “family [cases] trumps criminal.”
Regarding the joint managing conservatorship, Texas Family Code Sec. 153.004 (b) states that “The court may not appoint joint managing conservators if credible evidence is presented of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect, or physical or sexual abuse by one parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child.” Although, there may not be documented history of alleged physical and sexual abuse against the children, Glen does have a recorded history of supposed physical abuse against the mother. According to a first amended application for protective order, request for temporary ex parte protective order, and notice of hearing, in 2018, Glen shoved Kourtney into a fireplace in New Orleans, Louisiana. Records show that on March 24, 2018, he was arrested and charged with domestic abuse battery.
On Aug. 28, 2020, a court appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) was assigned by Hays to the case, which is an individual appointed by the court to advocate in the best interest of a child. The GAL recommended no visitation, but in January 2021, Kourtney stated that a separate criminal court overruled the bond conditions from the criminal case and stated that Glen should have visitation with the children.
“In the records, the girls have [explained their experiences] to the supervisor … How many people do these girls have to tell that their dad is weird and creepy and does things that are not allowed? So, I guess, in family court they’re like, ‘Oh, as long as they’re not sexually abused again, it’s fine. They’re safe to see him,’” Kourtney said.
During supervised visitations, Glen would bargain for his children’s affection, claimed Kourtney, rewarding them with candy after giving a kiss or laying down and snuggling. She also stated that her eldest daughter revealed that Glen threatened to kill her mother and grandmother during one of these visitations.
She stated that each visitation occurred at a facility, which provided notes and summaries of what occurred, including the inappropriate activities she mentioned prior. The mother alleged that she was told that these notes were then reported to Judge Hays, which never resulted in any action taken.
In the midst of these visitations, Glen received a superseding indictment — an indictment brought later into the case to replace the original — for two charges of super aggravated sexual assault of a child April 28, 2021, which specifies that the child involved in the assault was younger than the age of six, according to court documents.
The same GAL, according to court notes, was given authority to select the therapists for the children Dec. 29, 2022. After the GAL recommended the children stop seeing their therapist of more than two years, Kourtney noted that her children, specifically her eldest, have experienced trauma, due to unexpected contact with Glen in June 2023.
“One day, I take them in [to the therapist] and I’m sitting in the waiting room and I’m thinking, ‘Why do I hear a British accent?’ … ‘There’s no way he’s in that room; they would have told me if he was there’ and sure enough, they had invited him for a reunification session,” Kourtney recalled. “[The GAL] and the therapists, they communicate saying [the session with their father] didn’t go well and that [my daughter] would hide in the waiting room.”
Shortly after this incident, a formal report by the GAL in July 2023 recommended that Glen have supervised access to his children from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday during the first, third and fifth weekends of each month. Furthermore, she stated that the children are inconsistent in their reactions to their father, depending on the environment — reacting one way during supervised visits, in therapy and at Glen’s home. The latter of which is primarily negative, stated the report, a reaction the mother claims is because this is where the abuse occurred.
These supervised visitations continued, said Kourtney, despite a discovery made by her lawyer in October 2023 that the amended bond conditions by another criminal associate judge were never filed: “As discussed last week the January 2021 order was never filed and as we sit here today it’s still not on file. With that being said the current supervised access is in violation of the current filed bond order,” read an email sent to the GAL and other case-related staff by her attorney.
“There’re all these holes where things just slip through in this county and it’s ridiculous. I don’t know if [Judge Hays] even knew that the bond conditions weren’t filed,” said Kourtney.
Though she wanted to voice these concerns to Judge Hays in court, she revealed that, due to Glen’s criminal case, each hearing was treated like it was a criminal trial.
“Because [my ex-husband] has been represented by criminal defense attorneys during family [court], it’s very difficult to get anything in because everything is ‘hearsay’ or has to be submitted as evidence. So, it’s literally [been] like we’re on criminal trial, but in a family court of law. So, statements that the children make — hearsay,” the mother explained.
“You finally leave an abuser and then, you get stuck in this family law case, where you have no voice and you’re literally trapped still and it’s suffocating,” Kourtney stressed.
The GAL made an additional report Nov. 1, 2023, that still recommended visitation and therapy with the father and children, she said.
Court records indicate that Glen’s criminal charges were dismissed July 2, 2024, which Kourtney stated her attorney told her was because the case is “pending further investigation.” Following this, Judge Hays set the final divorce and custody hearing, since she stated that the court wouldn’t move forward until the status of the criminal case was determined.
Kourtney stated that months later, in November, the judgement was finalized orally. Glen received joint managing conservatorship and “exclusive 153.132 rights after meaningful conversation,” read the court notes. According to Texas Family Code, the definition of 153.132 is rights and duties of parent appointed sole managing conservator and has the following exclusive rights and more:
• The right to designate primary residence of the child
• The right to consent to medical, dental and surgical treatment
• The right to consent to psychiatric and psychological treatment
• The right to represent the child in legal action and to make other decisions of substantial legal significance concerning the child
“It seems that in the family court system, everyone works towards reuniting the children,” the mother said. “It’s not about their safety; it’s about keeping children [in contact] with the abusive parent and it doesn’t make sense.”
Kourtney was given custody of the children Thursday through Monday the first, third and fifth weeks and every Thursday, with alternating weeks in the summer.
Additionally, Judge Hays’ court “makes the affirmative finding that the allegations that [Glen] sexually assaulted either of the children are not supported by the evidence. In this regard, the court expressly finds that other than the finding of 'reason to believe' by CPS, (which in no way binds the Court and which was based upon a flawed investigation by CPS) there was no credible evidence presented to the court during 5 days of testimony that would support a finding that either one of the children had ever been sexually assaulted by anyone, including [Glen].”
“Hays imposed a $500 fine on me for ‘making a false report,’ but Hays County indicted him and CPS found reason to believe [that the girls were assaulted],” the mother explained.
According to Kourtney, Hays didn’t allow the forensic interviews to be entered into evidence, as it was labeled hearsay, and requested video footage, which she claims he admitted to not watching in court, yet “he wrote ‘based on the preponderance of the evidence,’ there was no evidence allowed in,” emphasized the mother. “We would go round and round and round [in court] with trying to get evidence submitted and, again, this is not even evidence for a jury, it’s for the judge. So, he would be able to say [whether he] will allow this or not and he chose not to … It’s a nightmare.”
Just three months after the newly imposed custody agreement, Kourtney’s youngest daughter made an outcry about Glen: “I get a call from school and [my youngest] has outcried [sexual assault] in full, tons of detail and [the school] basically said they’ve opened up a CPS investigation in a criminal case and they’re refusing to release the child to [the father] … All of this because Karl Hays allowed this to happen. My children have been sexually abused again.”
According to court documents, the school began a CPS investigation after this incident. Following this, was a motion for writ of attachment, though, in order for Judge Hays to hear the writ, they needed a divorce decree, said Kourtney, as despite the judge’s verbal ruling in November 2024 finalizing the divorce, there was no decree signed on paper.
Kourtney alleged that Hays then signed a decree submitted by Glen’s attorney Feb. 4, 2025, which, upon further review by Kourtney and her attorney, was inaccurate based on his verbal ruling, including the omission of the couple’s former house and car ownership. Because of this, Kourtney’s attorney filed a motion for a new trial and requested to see a different judge, but was told that they must remain in Hays’ court.
Later, in an email to Kourtney’s attorney dated April 23, the judge stated that he planned to set aside the final decree that was signed Feb. 13, as both parties, along with the amicus attorney, requested a new trial, but will not set aside the oral order from Nov. 22, 2024. A hearing has been set for Aug. 25, 2025.
Regarding the additional outcry, an electronic docket entry Feb. 21, 2025, stated that Judge Hays continued the hearing regarding the allegation from Feb. 18, 2025, and later stopped it, following partial testimony from the CPS investigator and full testimony of the forensic interviews, as Kourtney could not “meet her burden of establishing the existence of a serious immediate question concerning the welfare of the children.”
“Everyone’s saying it’s in the best interest of the children, but they’re liars. It's in the best interest of their pocketbooks … [The lawyer ad litem], I’ve given her at least 15 grand now and I don’t even know what she’s ever done,” said Kourtney. “I’m $300,000 in legal fees because [Glen] just decides to take me to court whenever he feels like it. So, I knew that the justice system and the custody stuff was messed up and bad; I didn’t realize how f***ing bad it was … I have a [Master of Business Administration]; I have a successful job. What happens to these people who aren’t as [knowledgeable and] can’t keep advocating?”
Since the start of the custody case, Kourtney noted that her eldest has been diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and depression and that both children have suffered endless trauma, with one trusting men too much and the other not trusting them enough. Additionally, she claims that her youngest has developed a nervous tick after she began living with her father. The experiences not only have embarrassed the girls, claimed the mother, but prevented them from living normal childhoods, as she feels as though she can never let them have a sleepover with others or make new friends in fear of what would happen. The girls do not understand, continued Kourtney, why they must live with him despite their allegations, including a recent statement from them that they are treated “like dogs,” she recalled.
“It’s so hard. [My daughters] ask when their life is going to go back to normal. They said their life was perfect before we [officially] got divorced,” said the mother. “They associate the word divorce with having to stay at his house and they hate it. I’ve seen similar cases … when you’re in an abusive relationship — it’s basically you just tune out and you just go on autopilot. It’s essentially what they do when they’re with him. They don’t remember what they eat for dinner or what they do after school.”
Kourtney stated that she firmly believes that her family’s situation and her daughters’ suffering is a direct result of Judge Hays.
“He makes it a personal vendetta to not believe the people that are claiming abuse and he chooses to manipulate the law and eliminate evidence to make it fit his narrative, so you can’t apply it to the actual case. It’s heartbreaking that someone in power would do this,” concluded Kourtney.
Neither Judge Hays, nor the court administrator, responded to requests for comment.
To read parts one, two and three, visit bit.ly/4n21atH.
Editor’s Note: Following the publication of the first story in this series, “Attorney shares experience with family law judge Karl Hays,” the Hays Free Press/News-Dispatch has been inundated with other people coming forward to share their own stories and experiences regarding Judge Hays’ court. Due to the taxing nature of a series of this magnitude and our small staff, we have decided not to continue the series at this time. We sincerely appreciate everyone who has been willing to share their stories and encourage anyone who believes they have been wronged to file their concerns with the appropriate court.
