The Warrad Sisters:
A Case That Exposes Systemic Failures in Texas Family Courts — and Proof That California Protects Where Texas Did Not
Two Texas girls escaped escalating abuse, coercive control, and an internationally credible murder threat. Texas agencies ignored the warnings. California saved them. And now a rushed court order threatens to send them back.
The Warrad Sisters did everything children are taught to do when they feel unsafe:
they told adults, they told their therapist, they told their teachers, they told their amicus attorney, they told police, they told a judge.
And every Texas system meant to protect them dismissed, minimized, or buried their outcries.
In April 2024, Texas authorities received their first notice of a terroristic threat by their father. In 2025, he escalated that threat, telling the girls he could take them to Jordan where, under “honor killing” practices, he would receive minimal punishment. Law enforcement, DFPS, and the Harris County 257th District Court were notified — repeatedly — and declined to act.
By mid-2025, after years of ignored abuse, the girls fled to California seeking safety and protection. California CPS responded immediately, placing them in therapeutic kinship care, validating their disclosures, and ensuring the first real stability they had experienced in years.
California provided what Texas refused:
safety, credibility, and dignity.
But in December, a newly assigned California judicial officer — who we hope is unfamiliar with the full record — issued a sudden order to return the girls to Texas. This emergency development now places the girls at immediate risk and has drawn significant interest from national and Texas news outlets.
Accountability Matters PMA is releasing documentation, verification, and a full chronology so the public can understand exactly how Texas institutions failed, and why California must retain jurisdiction under UCCJEA emergency-protection statutes.
QUICK FACTS
Credible lethal threat: Father stated he could kill the girls in Jordan and receive minimal punishment.
Mandatory reporters failed: DFPS, law enforcement, and multiple attorneys ignored statutory reporting duties under Tex. Fam. Code § 261.101.
Judicial misconduct & bias concerns: The presiding Texas judge had political donor ties to attorneys involved in the case.
Children’s outcries documented: Recordings capture disclosures of physical abuse, confinement, coercion, and fear.
California intervened successfully: CPS established safe kinship placement and trauma-informed support.
New emergency concern: A rushed order now seeks to return the girls to the same unsafe Texas environment.
This case is no longer just about one family or one court. It reveals:
The dangerous gap between family courts and child-protection realities
How judicial conflicts of interest distort outcomes
How UCCJEA emergency jurisdiction is supposed to function — and what happens when states disagree
How children fall into the cracks when professionals protect institutions instead of victims
The Warrad sisters’ case is now a test of whether state lines or children’s lives matter more.
HOW TEXAS FAILED AND CALIFORNIA PROTECTED
Below is a clear, fact-based sequence showing exactly how the Warrad sisters went from escalating danger in Texas to meaningful protection in California — and why returning them now would be catastrophic.
2018–2023: Early Disclosures Ignored
The girls report escalating physical and emotional abuse by their father, Omar Warrad.
Outcries are made to the court-appointed amicus attorney, their therapist, and later to Texas law enforcement.
Despite the mandatory reporting statute (Tex. Fam. Code § 261.101), no DFPS reports were filed by the attorneys involved.
April 2024: Texas Receives a Formal Notice of Danger
A Magistrate’s Order for Emergency Protection is issued against the father.
The case becomes a family-violence matter under Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004.
Despite this, Judge Sandra Peake refuses to impose the statutory protections required when family violence has occurred.
Mid–2024: Escalation of Threats
In recordings and statements, the girls describe:
being locked in a closet with the lock on the outside
being punished with an ankle monitor
being hit and yelled at
amicus attorney minimizing abuse and calling them “ungrateful”
None of these disclosures are acted upon by the court or by DFPS.
June 2024: Peake Transfers Custody to the Alleged Abuser
Without reviewing evidence, and despite the protective order and criminal case,
Judge Peake signs orders giving Omar Warrad primary custody.She remarks, “He hasn’t done anything yet — and when he does, we’ll deal with it.”
The girls’ risk dramatically increases.
Early 2025: Coercive Control Intensifies
Girls report 20+ surveillance cameras inside the home.
Punishments escalate.
Therapy is stopped for two months.
Father begins preparing for international travel with the children — scheduled during the mother’s court-ordered summer possession.
May 31, 2025: The Lethal Threat Reaffirmed
During a recorded call, one daughter recounts:
“Daddy said if he kills us in Jordan he’ll only get three years.”
This is a credible threat of homicide in a foreign jurisdiction with known leniency toward “honor killings.”
June 13, 2025: Emergency Warnings Sent to Texas Authorities
Advocate Morgan Collier issues a statewide emergency notice to:
Harris County Sheriff
DA’s Office
Houston Constable Precinct 4
Child Protective Services
School administrators
State Senator Paul Bettencourt
No agency intervenes.
June 23, 2025: DFPS Intake Confirmation
A formal DFPS abuse/abduction report is submitted.
Again: no investigation is initiated.
June–July 2025: The Girls Flee to California
After threats, coercion, and unsafe conditions, the girls leave Texas and arrive in California.
California CPS immediately intervenes, interviews them, and places them in state care with trauma-informed support.
July–September 2025: California Provides Protection
Girls disclose full histories of abuse and coercive control.
California documents multiple safety risks related to returning them to Texas.
For the first time in years, the girls experience stability, therapy, and consistent adult protection.
October 2025: Texas Judge Attempts to Reassert Control
Judge Peake refuses to consider police or DFPS records.
She makes factually unsupported statements about “unsupervised contact with men” that do not exist anywhere in the record.
California retains temporary emergency jurisdiction because Texas cannot ensure safety.
December, 2025, Breaking Development: Sudden Order to Return Girls to Texas
A newly assigned California judicial officer who has not reviewed the full danger record orders the girls returned to Texas by Monday.
Media outlets have begun requesting documentation in preparation for national coverage.
Why This Matters
This timeline shows a pattern:
The girls told the truth. California listened. Texas did not.
Returning them to Texas now would place them directly back into the environment they fled — the same environment Texas repeatedly refused to investigate.
CALIFORNIA’S PROTECTIVE RESPONSE: WHAT TEXAS WOULD NOT DO
When the Warrad sisters reached California, something happened that had never once occurred in Texas:
Adults in authority finally listened.
Adults finally believed them.
And adults finally acted.
California’s child-protection response stands in direct contrast to the systemic dismissal the girls endured for years under Harris County agencies and Judge Sandra Peake’s courtroom.
California Took Immediate Protective Action
Upon receiving the girls, California CPS:
Conducted safety interviews with both minors
Documented their disclosures of violence, threats, and coercive control
Confirmed psychological trauma symptoms consistent with long-term abuse
Placed them in safe, stable kinship-style care
Initiated trauma-informed support services
Ensured the girls had consistent adult supervision, education stability, and medical care
This was the first time any state agency treated their outcries as credible.
California Recognized What Texas Ignored
California CPS identified multiple safety concerns that Texas had repeatedly refused to address:
✔ Prior documented threats of lethal harm
Including the father’s statement that he could kill the girls in Jordan and “only get three years.”
✔ Psychological coercion and isolation
Locking them in a closet, threatening punishment, controlling communication, removing therapy.
✔ Retaliatory withholding of possession
Systematically blocking court-ordered visits with their mother.
✔ Manipulation of the Texas system
Using the amicus attorney, selected therapists, and law enforcement contacts to evade accountability.
✔ Flight risk and international-abduction danger
Texas had ignored explicit notice of the June 2025 planned removal.
California recognized these as red flags of escalating danger — and responded accordingly.
California Followed the Law Where Texas Did Not
Under the UCCJEA emergency-jurisdiction rules, California is obligated to maintain temporary jurisdiction until:
the home state (Texas) demonstrates it can protect the children.
California documented that Texas had not met that threshold.
No DFPS investigation
No protective orders
No forensic interviews
No follow-up after terroristic-threat reports
No enforcement of court-ordered therapy
No investigation into runaway incidents
No response to the June 13 emergency warnings
No action after the June 23 DFPS intake
California agencies did what Texas refused to do for more than seven years:
They treated two endangered minors as children worth protecting.
California Centered the Girls’ Voices
California CPS and affiliated professionals reported:
“These girls have clear, credible disclosures of fear and long-term coercive control.”
“We consider them high-risk if returned to the father’s custody in Texas.”
“They are adjusting well in care and should not be disrupted.”
For the first time, the girls’ words were not minimized, rewritten, or filtered through a conflicted amcus attorney or politically-connected lawyers.
Their safety — not institutional self-preservation — became the priority.
California Gave the Girls What Texas Never Did
Stability
Security
Predictability
Safety planning
Trauma-informed therapy
School consistency
Freedom from intimidation
A placement where they do not fear retaliation
These are the basic conditions that every child deserves — yet Texas systematically denied them.
Why This Comparison Matters
The UCCJEA asks a single question:
Which state is acting to ensure the children’s safety?
California has acted.
Texas has demonstrably not.
The stark difference between the two states’ responses is why returning the girls to Texas before Monday — without any protective orders, forensic review, or DFPS action — constitutes a foreseeable and preventable danger.
TEXAS INSTITUTIONAL FAILURES: HOW THE SYSTEM PROTECTED ITSELF INSTEAD OF TWO CHILDREN
What happened to the Warrad girls in Texas was not an isolated judicial mistake.
It was the product of a closed, self-protective system — one where judges, attorneys, amicus counsel, and law-enforcement agencies shielded each other instead of the children trapped inside their decisions.
This case exposes a structural failure larger than one courtroom or one judge.
1. Family-Court Failures Under Judge Sandra J. Peake
Ignored statutory mandates
Texas Family Code § 153.004 requires special protections when family violence has occurred.
Judge Peake had:
the April 2024 emergency protective order,
the pending criminal case,
the danger indicators, and
a documented pattern of coercive control.
Yet she transferred custody to the alleged perpetrator.
Fact-finding without evidence
Peake publicly stated:
“These girls were having a whole lot of unsupervised contact with men… 23, 24, 25, 30…”
There is no evidence in the record to support this claim.
This is extrajudicial fact-making — a constitutional violation.
Refusal to review safety evidence
Police reports, DFPS history, therapy disclosures, runaway incidents — all were refused for “procedural reasons” that have no basis in statute.
Appearance of retaliation
When the mother reported abuse or sought protective orders, Peake responded by:
restricting her access,
transferring custody to the father,
and refusing to hear evidence.
This is the hallmark of judicial bias.
2. Conflicts of Interest and Closed-Door Professional Networks
Every attorney in the case — including the mother’s own counsel — operates within the same political and judicial ecosystem as Judge Peake.
Political donor network
Public campaign records show:
MVS Law (Paula Vlahakos, Roy Moore, Michael Sydow) donated to Peake’s campaign.
Mo Ghuneim (father’s attorney) made multiple ActBlue donations supporting Democratic judicial slates.
Damaris Chavez & Maria Schnebly (habeas attorneys) are ActBlue-linked donors.
Judge Peake is part of the Harris County “Sister Judges” political coalition, endorsed by the same donor base.
None of this was disclosed.
Judicial-influence marketing
MVS Law advertises itself as:
“The only firm in Texas built on the experience of three former Harris County family-court judges.”
In a courthouse where judges rotate, socialize, endorse, and campaign together — this is not neutral.
The Unrealizable Expectation
No attorney dependent on the goodwill of this court could safely challenge:
Peake’s rulings,
Peake’s conflicts,
Peake’s refusal to follow statute,
or Peake’s treatment of the mother.
This is not representation.
It is professional preservation.
3. Amicus Attorney Misconduct
Former amicus attorney Amelia Rodriguez:
ignored direct outcries of abuse,
belittled the girls (“ungrateful”),
coordinated messaging with the father,
supported punitive measures,
and failed to report statutory-mandated abuse.
Under Tex. Fam. Code § 107.003, her duty was to the children.
Instead, she aligned with the institution — and the institution protected itself.
4. Law Enforcement Refusal to Intervene
Across multiple agencies — Sheriff, Constable Precinct 4, Houston PD — the pattern was identical:
runaway reports minimized,
officers openly disbelieved the children,
terroristic-threat reports mishandled,
domestic-violence calls dismissed,
international-abduction warnings ignored.
When the mother asked for enforcement of possession:
“We can’t do anything.”
But when the father falsely accused her of kidnapping, police immediately:
conducted welfare checks in another county,
demanded physical access to the children,
treated her as a suspect.
This is not neutrality — it is preferential enforcement.
5. DFPS Inaction
Texas DFPS:
received multiple abuse referrals from therapists, hospitals, and outcry witnesses,
received the June 23, 2025 abduction report,
received the father’s documented threats and coercive behaviors,
…and took no protective action.
DFPS failure enabled every subsequent escalation.
6. A Pattern of Institutional Alignment With the Abuser
Across every professional role:
Judge ignored statutory protections
Amicus suppressed the children’s voices
Attorneys protected their relationships with the court
Law enforcement refused intervention
DFPS ignored mandated investigations
Court culture favored the abusive parent
This is not coincidence.
It is a predictable output of a system that rewards compliance with judicial power and punishes those who challenge it.
7. The Result: The Girls Fled the State to Survive
After years of being dismissed, punished, and disbelieved, the girls finally did what endangered children do when no institution protects them:
They ran.
They fled Texas for their lives.
And California protected them because Texas refused to.
Why This Matters
California must understand the truth:
Texas did not lose jurisdiction — Texas forfeited it.
Any order compelling the girls to return to Texas is an order sending them back into:
a judicial system that disregarded its own statutes,
an amicus attorney who betrayed them,
a father who threatened lethal harm,
agencies that refused to act,
and an environment proven unsafe.
California is the only state that has acted in accordance with the law and with child safety.
The Truth About Why California Intervened
California did not “take” this case — Texas forced California to step in.
Under both the Texas Family Code and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), a state loses emergency jurisdiction only when it demonstrates it can protect the children. Texas never did. In fact, Texas:
failed to enforce mandatory family-violence statutes;
ignored repeated outcries from two minors;
dismissed sworn threats of lethal harm;
refused to investigate international-kidnapping indicators;
shielded the father while scrutinizing the protective parent; and
operated through a judicial ecosystem riddled with conflicts of interest.
California stepped in because it was the only state that followed the law.
California CPS provided what Texas refused to:
safety, stability, trauma-informed care, and an environment where the girls could finally speak freely without retaliation.
California’s Child-Protection Response: A Model of What Should Have Happened in Texas
Unlike Texas, California:
immediately assessed the reported threats,
placed the girls in safe kinship care,
provided trauma-informed services,
protected their whereabouts, and
ensured they were not returned to the perpetrator or the unsafe Texas judicial environment.
Where Texas created danger, California created safety.
Why Sending the Girls Back to Texas Now Would Be Catastrophic
A forced return to Texas is not a “jurisdiction” decision — it is a child-endangerment decision.
Sending them back means returning them to:
the same judge who disregarded mandatory safety statutes,
the same court officers who suppressed abuse evidence,
the same amicus attorney who betrayed the children’s confidence,
the same agencies that refused to investigate,
and the same father who threatened lethal harm and used international travel to isolate and control them.
A state that refuses to protect children cannot reclaim jurisdiction simply by demanding it.
The Call for Accountability
Government agents who received notice (their version was not redacted) of this case have a legal duty under the Texas and U.S. Constitutions, as well as their oaths of office, to protect the girls’ rights to life and due process. Their failure to act constituted negligence, a breach of state and federal laws (including Texas Family Code Section 261.101), and a violation of agency policies, potentially forfeiting immunity from legal action. We urgently sought an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to prevent Omar from leaving the U.S. with the girls, a measure critical to halting his stated intent. Our pleas were ignored wholesale by every Texan official we contacted.
Notified Parties
This notice was sent to many Oath takers, including:
Harris County Sheriff: Ed Gonzalez, TCOLE ID #1578610 - Sheriff.Gonzalez@sheriff.hctx.net
Harris County District Attorney: Sean Teare, Texas Bar #24054113 - teare_sean@dao.hctx.net | DistrictAttorneyVictimServices@dao.hctx.net
Harris County DA’s Office: Kelcie Davis, Texas Bar #24124315 - Davis_kelcie@dao.hctx.net
Houston Constable’s Office Precinct 4:
Sergeant Andres Rosas, TCOLE ID #1075883 - Andres.rosas@cd4.Hctx.net
Mark Femea, TCOLE ID #1291999 - mark.femea@cd4.hctx.net
Child Protective Services: Alejandro Sanchez Varela - alejandro.sanchezvarela12@dfps.texas.gov
Licensed Attorneys:
Paula Vlahakos, Texas Bar #24010466 - Paula@mvs-law.com
Michael David Sydow, Texas Bar #24046939 - MDSydow@mvs-law.com
Cara Nunnally, Texas Bar #24068399 - cnunnally@justiceforchildren.org
Tomball Memorial High School:
Andy Abbott (Certified Teacher) - andyabbott@tomballisd.net
Linda Lashelle Nix (Lead Counselor) - LindaNix@tomballisd.net
Tomball ISD Board of Trustees: schoolboard@tomballisd.net (Dr. Michael J. Pratt, Mr. Mark Lewandowski, Mr. John E. McStravick, Mrs. Tina Salem, Mrs. Amanda Bass, Mrs. Jennifer Kratky, Mr. Coco White)
Texas State Senator: Paul Bettencourt - Paul.Bettencourt@senate.texas.gov
Take Action
This case proves a brutal truth: Texas family courts, DFPS, and county law enforcement knew these girls were in danger — and still protected the abuser.
California intervened because Texas refused to defend its own children.
Now, a Texas-aligned judicial actor is trying to pull the girls back into the same political machine that minimized abuse, ignored criminal evidence, and silenced mandated reporters.
Help us break the cycle:
► Circulate this page — journalists, lawmakers, and oversight agencies need to see it.
► Follow our investigative updates on X (@MC4Texas).
► Add your voice: demand a full review of the 257th District Court and DFPS failures.
► Support the work: Accountability Matters is the only group coordinating evidence across Texas, Louisiana, and California to protect these girls.