A High Plains Child Protection Court virtual docket on Nov. 13 produced a string of case‑specific orders: the court ordered hair‑follicle and urine drug screens in multiple matters, amended parental service plans to add domestic‑violence programming where alleged family violence occurred, directed DFPS to pursue kinship home studies and set multiple review and final dates across the docket.

Violet Verlardi (medical status and safety orders)

DFPS reported Violet had undergone a tracheostomy and was progressing in Houston; supervised in‑person visits were reported and DFPS asked for drug screens for both parents and an added domestic‑violence intervention (BIP) for father Lorenzo Velarde after his recent arrest. The judge ordered hair and UA tests, amended father’s service plan to include BIP, found continuing danger and confirmed DFPS as temporary managing conservator with placement to be approved on discharge.

Paisley Langford (safety‑first screening orders)

In the Paisley Langford matter the court heard from DFPS that one parent’s hair‑follicle reading was unusually high; the parent admitted a recent relapse. The court ordered UA and hair‑follicle tests before 4:00 p.m. the same day, prohibited either parent from altering their hair for the life of the case (so hair remains available for testing) and entered family‑plan orders. The judge set the next hearing for March 12, 2026.

Tara Wall, Asher Meeks, additional status reviews

Other status hearings produced routine but consequential orders: Tara Wall — DFPS reported paternity testing was completed and a kinship home study had returned for possible placement; the court ordered mother’s hair and UA by noon the next day. Asher Meeks and other review matters produced orders to continue placements, implement family plans as court orders and to do periodic hair/UA testing where needed.

Oakley Miller (extension granted because of treatment bed shortage)

In Oakley Miller’s final hearing the mother had been admitted to a 28‑day inpatient program after being on a waiting list; DFPS opposed an extension but the judge found extraordinary circumstances based on limited local bed availability and granted an extension (new dismissal date 06/05/2026 and review in March 2026). The court directed the parents to engage in ordered services and drug testing in the interim.

What the court emphasized

Across the docket the judge repeatedly emphasized a continuing danger to return children to parents where drug exposure, missed screens, pending criminal charges, or unstable housing exist; the court used short‑term orders (drug tests, BIP, home studies and service‑plan amendments) to manage risk and preserve options for kinship placement where appropriate.

Key participants

- DFPS attorneys and caseworkers (multiple): requested tests, recommended home studies and amendments to service plans.
- Parents and legal counsel: in several cases parents agreed to service plans; in others DFPS reported missed testing or limited cooperation.
- Judges: issued immediate testing orders, adopted DFPS service plans as court orders and set review/final dates.

Next steps and schedule highlights

Several hearings set review dates in early 2026 (notably March 10–12, 2026) and a range of dismissal/final dates (for extension‑granted cases, through June 2026). DFPS was directed to file test results and to complete ordered home studies and service‑plan modifications.

Local context

The docket underscores systemic constraints in the Panhandle — particularly limited inpatient treatment capacity and delays in accessing assessments or beds — a factor the judge cited when granting a continuance in one matter.