Attorneys say mother, state agreed to permanent conservatorship in Grimsley case; judge takes terms under advisement

Attorneys in a High Plains Child Protection Court hearing announced an agreement that would give the mother permanent managing conservatorship of Gabrielle Grimsley’s child while keeping the incarcerated father as a possessory parent subject to a strict no-contact order. The court did not enter a final order and the judge said she would take the parties’ proposal under advisement.

Daniel Trapp, attorney for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, told the court the parties had negotiated terms that would "for mom to have permanent managing conservatorship of the child. Dad, even though he's incarcerated, we'd keep him as a possessory, but we would ask for a strict no contact, between the child and the father." He also summarized proposed financial terms: child support tied to minimum wage and medical support at $50 a month, with both to begin after the father’s release from incarceration under timing language the parties debated.

The timing of support payments prompted extended discussion. Counsel debated how to define “release” from TDCJ custody when an incarcerated person may move to parole or a mandatory-release status or to a transitional facility commonly referred to as a halfway house. Trapp proposed language placing the start date "on the first day of the month following 30 days after release from TDCJ incarceration or halfway house, whichever is later, but not later than April 1, 2026." Joel Jackson, counsel for the mother, and Jeff Hill, who represents the father (who is in TDCJ), questioned and clarified how parole, mandatory-release dates and maximum-sentence dates would affect the timing.

The record also reflects an outstanding arrearage from a 2021 support order: the earlier order shows about $1,700 in child-support arrears and a few hundred dollars in medical-support arrears, though Trapp said he did not have current totals. The parties told the court that "all prior arrearages are in full force and effect."

Judge Baker said she would "take all of it under advisement" and render a decision later, leaving no final order in the transcripted portion of the hearing. The discussion included reference to statutory enumerated parental rights; Trapp identified 153.073 and 153.074 of the Family Code as the sections relevant to the possessory-parent rights to be limited, with only the duty-to-support provision to remain.

Because the judge did not announce a final ruling on the parties’ proposed order during the recorded proceeding, no entry granting permanent conservatorship or final child-support directive appears in the transcript excerpt provided. The court indicated it will issue a ruling and circulate orders to counsel at a later time.