Affidavit Validity In Texas

Verify, Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § *.* establishes affidavit validity requirements, including personal knowledge, proper notarization, and timely submission. Respondent’s affidavit meets all statutory criteria and should not be struck

Verify, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(f) requires affidavits to contain admissible evidence based on personal knowledge. Respondent’s affidavit complies with this standard, making Petitioner’s hearsay and conclusory claims unfounded.

Verify, Complying with Texas Rule of Evidence *(d) is a direct quote from Petitioner’s own supporting affidavit labeled Exhibit A as a statement against interest and is relevant, which excludes statements made by a party-opponent from being classified as hearsay. Courts have ruled that exhibits attached to sworn affidavits are admissible unless proven fraudulent or irrelevant. Since Petitioner authored and submitted the affidavit, their own words can be used as admissible evidence against them. Opposing counsel cannot claim hearsay or improper authentication when the document originates from their own filing’s. Petitioner has not demonstrated any legal basis for exclusion.

Verify, Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § *.* prohibits filings made for harassment or unnecessary delay. Petitioner’s excessive motions constitute procedural misuse rather than legitimate legal objections.

We received * motions to strike for and * to seal, is a response to these motions applicable

No, just checking.

****

Can you continue to double check my claims?

Verify, Texas Family Code § *.* prioritizes the child’s best interest in custody-related matters. Petitioner’s request fails to establish how immediate possession of passport benefits the child. Respondent has been solely managing the child’s passport and it’s expenses since * to date.

Verify, Petitioner relies on Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § *.* to argue for striking the filing. However, the statute governs the admissibility of mediation communications, not the authority to remove a court filing from the record. The Court retains discretion in determining whether mediation-related statements serve a necessary purpose in adjudicating this matter. Petitioner has failed to establish a basis for outright removal.

Just double check for accuracy not legal advice

verify my assertion, Petitioner’s reliance on Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § *.* is misplaced. The statute governs the admissibility of communications made during an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process—it does not authorize the striking or redaction of filings from the court record

Verify, The Court retains broad discretion to evaluate whether mediation-related references meaningfully advance the resolution of the case. Petitioner has provided no legal basis for the extraordinary step of removing filed materials from the record.

Review and verify, To the extent the Respondent’s submission addresses factual inaccuracies or rebuts mischaracterizations raised by the opposing party, its inclusion serves a lawful and necessary adjudicative function. Obscuring such clarifications under the veil of mediation confidentiality risks distorting the record and undermining the truth-seeking purpose of these proceedings.

verify, II. CONFIDENTIALITY STATUTES PROTECT PROCESS, NOT SUBSTANCE: Section *.* exists to safeguard the integrity of the mediation process by shielding the parties' candid settlement discussions—offers, strategies, hypothetical concessions—from future disclosure. It is not a license to suppress material facts that have legal significance outside of the ADR setting. Courts across Texas have repeatedly affirmed that confidentiality provisions do not extend to factual assertions independently relevant to the underlying dispute. In short, confidentiality is a shield for the settlement dialogue—not a cloak for facts with evidentiary bearing. To permit its misuse in this context would subvert both the letter and spirit of the statute. Mediation confidentiality exists to protect settlement discussions, not to shield misconduct, assessments, or suppress material facts.

check this an interpret To the extent the Respondent’s submission addresses factual inaccuracies surrounding as “flight risk” to the child as issued as a key basis for the request of the TRO or rebuts mischaracterizations raised by the opposing party, its inclusion serves a lawful and necessary adjudicative function

what is ADR in Mediation

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure *.*(b) concerns abuses in discovery—not the proper submission of court filings

check and interpret from a legal lens I. THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS UNWARRANTED *. Respondent’s Filing is Procedurally Proper• Petitioner relies on Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § *.* to argue for striking the filing. However, the statute governs the admissibility of mediation communications, not the authority to remove a court filing from the record. • The Court retains discretion in determining whether mediation-related statements serve a necessary purpose in adjudicating this matter. Petitioner has failed to establish a basis for outright removal. *. Contextual Relevance Justifies Consideration• If the Respondent’s filing clarifies disputed facts or corrects misrepresentations, it serves a lawful and necessary function in proceedings. • Mediation confidentiality exists to protect settlement discussions, not to shield misconduct or suppress material facts.

I revised it, check it out, I. THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS UNWARRANTED Petitioner’s reliance on Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § *.* to justify striking the filing is legally insufficient. The statute governs admissibility, not removal of court filings. Texas precedent confirms that mediation confidentiality does not extend to independently relevant factual assertions. A. Mediation Confidentiality Does Not Mandate Removal • The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that confidentiality provisions protect the settlement process, not factually significant information used in legal proceedings (Youngblood v. Zaccaria, * S.W.3d *, Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] *). • Courts maintain discretion in evaluating whether mediation-related content serves a legitimate evidentiary purpose.

Check this one, B. Preventing Distortion of the Record • Texas law prohibits confidentiality from being used as a legal shield to suppress material facts (Pierce v. Stocks, * S.W.3d *, Tex. App.—Dallas *). • Striking the filing would deprive the Court of critical context, creating an incomplete and misleading record that undermines judicial fairness. II. SEALING THE RECORD IS UNJUSTIFIED Texas courts uphold judicial transparency unless a party demonstrates substantial harm. Petitioner has failed to establish: - Concrete, prejudicial harm from the filing’s accessibility. - A compelling interest overriding public access to judicial records. In Pierce v. Stocks, the Court confirmed that if a statement or evidence is admissible independent of mediation, it is not protected by confidentiality. Denying Petitioner’s request preserves procedural integrity and due process.

and this one, please provide verification, III. SANCTIONS ARE UNWARRANTED A. No Bad Faith or Procedural Misconduct Texas Rule of Civil Procedure * requires proof of groundlessness and bad faith—Petitioner has failed to provide such evidence. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure *.*(b) applies to discovery violations; not legitimate filings submitted for judicial review. B. Sanctions Cannot Be Used to Suppress Legitimate Arguments The Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that sanctions should deter abuse, not silence valid opposing claims (Youngblood v. Zaccaria). Respondent’s filing serves a lawful legal purpose, and there is no procedural basis for penalizing its submission.

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that confidentiality provisions protect the settlement process, not factually significant information used in legal proceedings (Youngblood v. Zaccaria, * S.W.3d *, Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] *).

Is that the correct interpretation as case law

Analyze this, Texas law prohibits confidentiality from being used as a legal shield to suppress material facts (Pierce v. Stocks, * S.W.3d *, Tex. App.—Dallas *).

check this, Texas courts uphold judicial transparency unless a party demonstrates substantial harm. Petitioner has failed to establish: - Concrete, prejudicial harm from the filing’s accessibility. - A compelling interest overriding public access to judicial records. In Pierce v. Stocks, the Court confirmed that if a statement or evidence is admissible independent of mediation, it is not protected by confidentiality. Denying Petitioner’s request preserves procedural integrity and due process.

verify, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure * requires proof of groundlessness and bad faith—Petitioner has failed to provide such evidence.

verify, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure *.*(b) applies to discovery violations; not legitimate filings submitted for judicial review

verify, The Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that sanctions should deter abuse, not silence valid opposing claims (Youngblood v. Zaccaria).

verify, Respondent’s filing serves a lawful legal purpose, and there is no procedural basis for penalizing its submission.

verify, Under Texas Family Code § *.*, all decisions regarding possession and access must prioritize the child’s best interest. Petitioner’s motion fails to articulate how immediate transfer of the child’s passport serves that interest. By contrast, Respondent has reliably managed and safeguarded the child’s passport and all associated travel documentation since *—ensuring continuity, accountability, and full parental involvement.

verify and clarify In Pierce v. Stocks, the Court confirmed that if a statement or evidence is admissible independent of mediation, it is not protected by confidentiality. Denying Petitioner’s request preserves procedural integrity and due process.

verify TRCP * requires a showing of both groundlessness and bad faith

verify, TRCP *.*(b) applies exclusively to discovery abuse, not court pleadings

verify, Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § *.*(a) protects the substance of mediation communications, but not general references to the existence or absence of resolution. Texas courts have recognized this distinction in cases such as Avila v. Lone Star Radiology, * S.W.3d * (Tex. App.—Waco *) and Pierce v. Stocks, * S.W.3d * (Tex. App.—Dallas *).