What’s the excuse this time?
Share this story:
The “dog ate my homework” sometimes works for kids in school, but high-priced lawyers in the Harris County Family Courthouse certainly can’t use that as a reason for not showing up for an important
court date.
So, let’s ask Woodland’s attorney Mary Van Orman what she does.
Van Orman now wants a redo for her client Marek Menger, even though his wife got her divorce granted in February. Four months ago. Finally, an ugly, expensive fight that had lasted two years.
Now Van Orman wants a new trial, in part because she claims she couldn’t show up in Judge Millard’s court in Houston on February 27 th , because she was in a trial in Conroe in Judge Gilbert’s court. She even produced a signed protective order from the Judge in Montgomery County.
What is a lawyer to do?
But here is the problem. The final judgement in the Menger divorce had long been scheduled for that very day in February. You know what time the Judge in Conroe gave Mary Van Orman her get out of
court free card? 10:30 in the morning, on the very same day.
Mary Van Orman had only notified the Houston judge in the Menger case of a possible conflict at the very last minute, even though she had agreed to the court date to end the Menger divorce earlier that month. A court transcript shows Van Orman tried to convince the Judge that these things just happen, saying “I have tried everything to accommodate.”
Really? Except admitting to Judge Millard in Houston that she knew about the court date in Conroe for a very long time.
We have court records from that other case in Conroe showing Mary Van Orman knew about the trial date since October 2017, five months earlier.
Oops.
Guess who was on the phone during the Menger hearing, asking Judge Millard to let her off the hook because she had a protective order and just can’t get out of it? If you guessed Mary Van Orman, you may win a prize in our continuing Family Injustice Investigation.
Judge Millard said too bad. Good for her.
But Mary Van Orman was still allowed to say anything she wanted to. She was on the phone during the
entire hearing.
So, don’t you think it’s a stretch to now claim you would have said different stuff if you had been there in person, instead of on the phone?
Is that really a reason to start a long nasty divorce case all over again?
We know it means more money for lawyers, like Mary Van Orman.
Is that what Family Court should really be all about?
Keep up with us on social media:
