Taxpayers Footing the Bill for a Questionable Strategy in the ‘Interest of IBP’ Custody Battle

In the Rusk County family law case, In the Interest of IBP, a Child (Case No. 2020-06-225), presided over byJudge Ashley Wysocki, a disturbing pattern has emerged that calls into question the integrity of judicialprocesses and the motives of Ethan Perkins’ legal team. As an advocate for judicial accountability, I am alarmed by what appears to be a calculated misuse of a civil custody case to bolster Perkins’ criminal defense in Dallas County (Case No. F2400562)—a strategy knowingly enabled by judicial orders, funded by taxpayer dollars, and now further exposed by Perkins’ counter-suit for sole exclusive custody and attorneys’ fees, including those for his criminal defense attorney. The fact that Dallas County Judge Nancy C. Mulder approved public funds for this tactic, fully aware that the civil case involving Perkins’ minor daughter—the alleged victim of his criminal conduct— (and the custodial parent a prior victim of Perkins’ 2020 guilty plea for assault impeding breath) was still pending, raises urgent concerns about judicial oversight and the misuse of public resources to prioritize a criminal defendant’s interests over a vulnerable child’s welfare.

Having attended the final hearing in Rusk County on August 25-26, 2025, I observed Perkins’ legal team, led by his criminal defense attorney, focus not on the child’s best interests but on attacking the credibility of the custodial parent, herself a victim of Perkins’ 2020 assault where he pleaded guilty to impeding breath after “popping” her in the back of the head, choking her, and holding a gun to her head. This approach, coupled with Perkins’ counter-suit for sole exclusive custody and criminal defense attorney fees, seemed less about securing custody for the child’s benefit and more about crafting a narrative to sow “reasonable doubt” in the Dallas County criminal case involving his minor daughter. The strategy’s intent became undeniable through a Dallas County court order, dated July 25, 2025, signed by Judge Mulder, which approved up to $1,500 in taxpayer funds to cover transcripts from the Rusk County civil case, explicitly noted as “pending” (Document: F2400562 Order). Labeled as “material, relevant, and potentially exculpatory” Brady evidence, these transcripts were sought not for their relevance to the daughter’s welfare but to serve Perkins’ criminal defense—a move that burdens taxpayers and implicates judicial complicity, as Judge Mulder knew the civil case involving the alleged victim and her assaulted mother was ongoing yet authorized public funds to support this tactic.

A critical piece of evidence supports this concern: an order from Dallas County Criminal Court No. 6, dated July 25, 2025, signed by Judge Nancy C. Mulder, approving funds for transcripts from the Rusk County family law case (In the Interest of IBP). The order explicitly deems these transcripts “material, relevant, and potentially exculpatory” under Brady v. Maryland, a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense (Document: F2400562 Order). This ruling suggests that Perkins’ defense team sought the civil case transcripts not for their relevance to the child’s custody but to bolster his criminal defense by creating a record that could sow “reasonable doubt” in the Dallas County case. Such a strategy raises ethical and procedural red flags, as it appears to misuse a family law proceeding—intended to prioritize a child’s welfare—to serve the self-interest of a criminal defendant.

The American Bar Association highlights a stark contrast between civil and criminal discovery rules, noting that civil discovery is “broad” and allows parties to obtain “anything that is relevant and unprivileged,” while criminal discovery is “more restricted” due to constitutional protections like the right against self-incrimination (Discovery: Criminal and Civil? There’s a Difference, ABA, 2025). This disparity creates an opportunity for criminal defendants to exploit civil proceedings to access evidence or testimony that would be inaccessible under criminal law’s stricter standards. In Perkins’ case, the focus on undermining the custodial parent’s credibility in the Rusk County hearing, coupled with the Dallas County court’s approval of civil case transcripts as “Brady evidence,” suggests an intentional effort to bypass these criminal protections. Such tactics undermine the integrity of both civil and criminal justice systems, as they risk transforming a child custody case into a pretext for criminal defense maneuvering.

The National Crime Victim Law Institute (NCVLI) warns that allowing civil discovery during a pending criminal case can undermine victims’ rights, including the right to refuse defense interviews, protection from intimidation, and a prompt criminal disposition (Protecting Crime Victims from Discovery Requests in Civil Proceedings During the Pendency of a Related Criminal Case, NCVLI, 2023). In In the Interest of IBP, where Perkins’ minor daughter is allegedly the victim of his criminal conduct and the custodial parent suffered his 2020 assault (guilty plea for impeding breath after choking and threatening her with a gun), using civil discovery to challenge the custodial parent’s credibility—while counter-suing for sole custody and criminal defense attorney fees—risks retraumatizing both the child and her mother while circumventing Texas’s victim protection laws (NCVLI, p. 4). This risk is particularly acute given the child’s vulnerability as a minor and the custodial parent’s history of victimization, amplifying the potential for emotional and psychological harm (NCVLI, p. 5). Judge Mulder’s order, issued with knowledge that the Rusk County case was pending, exacerbates these concerns by enabling a strategy that could intimidate a young victim and her assaulted mother, all at taxpayer expense.

Under Texas Family Code § 153.002, family law proceedings must prioritize the child’s best interests, and § 153.004 creates a presumption against custody for those with a history of family violence, such as Perkins’ 2020 guilty plea for assault impeding breath. Permitting Perkins’ team to focus extensively on matters tied to the criminal indictments against the alleged victim—his own minor daughter—and allowing a counter-suit for sole custody and criminal defense attorney fees despite his violent history against the custodial parent, risks enabling a process that subordinates the child’s welfare to a criminal defense agenda. Courts have the authority to stay civil discovery when it overlaps with a criminal case, particularly to protect vulnerable victims like children (NCVLI, p. 2). Failure to limit this line of inquiry or consider a stay, despite the clear connection to Perkins’ criminal case—now subsidized by taxpayers with Judge Mulder’s explicit acknowledgment of the civil case’s pending status—raises questions about whether judicial discretion is safeguarding the child and public trust.

This is not merely a procedural oversight; it is a potential abuse of the judicial system, funded by Texas taxpayers and knowingly facilitated by judicial awareness of the civil case’s ongoing nature. Perkins’ attorney, by leveraging civil discovery and a counter-suit for sole custody and criminal defense attorney fees to build a criminal defense record, exploits procedural disparities in a manner that disregards the emotional and psychological toll on a minor victim—Perkins’ own daughter—and her mother, a prior victim of his violent assault, as NCVLI highlights (p. 5). Judge Mulder’s approval of taxpayer funds for transcripts, despite knowing the Rusk County case involving the alleged victim and her assaulted mother was pending, suggests a lack of scrutiny over how civil proceedings can be manipulated, further eroding justice. The use of public funds—$1,500 for transcripts that serve a defendant’s criminal defense rather than a child’s welfare—adds a layer of public betrayal to this troubling scenario.

The public deserves answers: Why are taxpayers funding a criminal defense strategy disguised as a civil custody dispute, with a Dallas County judge’s full awareness that the civil case involving a minor victim and her assaulted mother is unresolved? Why is Perkins’ counter-suit for sole custody and criminal defense attorney fees permitted to overshadow the child’s best interests, despite his 2020 guilty plea for family violence? And how can our courts protect vulnerable children, like Perkins’ daughter, when civil proceedings, propped up by public dollars and judicial acquiescence, are manipulated to circumvent criminal protections? As an advocate for justice, I demand greater scrutiny of these proceedings and urge courts to prioritize victims’ rights, the responsible use of taxpayer funds, and the integrity of justice over procedural gamesmanship. The child at the heart of In the Interest of IBP—and the Texas taxpayers funding this case—deserve better.

Disclaimer: This opinion is based on observations from the Rusk County hearing, court documents, and publicly available legal resources. It does not assert unproven criminal guilt but raises concerns about procedural integrity and taxpayer resource use. For further details, consult the Rusk County and Dallas County court records.

National Crime Victim Law Institute:

Protecting Crime Victims from Discovery Requests in Civil Proceedings During the Pendency of a Related Criminal Case