Pray for Katie

Katie is 13 years old and was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Disease, a lymphatic cancer. This site is a request to pray for her. Call her prayer pager 1-361-333-KATY (5289), enter your ZipCode and # key, to let her know you have prayed for her. Updates of her progress will be posted on the site. The Power of Prayer is Awesome.

Monday, October 31, 2005

After Court Battles Over a Cure, Saddest Case Nears an End

Oct. 31, 2005, 5:52PM
A judge intends to rule on whether a cancer-stricken girl should return to her parents

By TODD ACKERMANCopyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

CORPUS CHRISTI - A judge is expected to rule today whether to return to her parents a cancer-stricken teenager seized by the state because they would not follow doctors' advice that she undergo radiation therapy.

The ruling should resolve whether Katie Wernecke tries her parents' alternative plan — intravenous Vitamin C therapy — or continues to live with Houston foster parents and receive treatment at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.

"We're not going to dillydally another nine months, we're not going to dillydally another week," state District Judge Jack Hunter said Friday. "Every hour we spend in this courtroom is one less hour she'll have to live."

Hunter, a former M.D. Anderson patient, on Friday gave state lawyers the weekend to come up with new evidence on why he shouldn't return the child to her parents.

Since erupting into a battle in June, the case has attracted national attention, pitting those who believe parents should be able to choose their child's medical treatment against those who believe parents' unconventional choices can endanger innocent lives and thus require state intervention.

In Wernecke's case, the prolonged fight has caused both sides to accuse the other of endangering the now 13-year-old child. Her chances of being cured, once put at 85-90 percent, are down to 20-25 percent, according to M.D. Anderson doctors.

Wernecke was diagnosed in January with Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes that oncologists consider very curable.

Treatment involves chemotherapy, radiation or both, depending on how advanced the cancer is. Katie's parents were elated when chemotherapy appeared to destroy the tumor, but balked at follow-up radiation therapy, fearing its long-term toxicity. Her doctors said radiation was necessary because her cancer was advanced.

"Radiation's effects on a child are a lot different than they'd be on me," said Edward Wernecke, 53, Katie's father. "It could shape her whole future — make her sterile, stunt her growth, cause her to get breast cancer in her 20s. The effects would be with her the rest of her life."

In a video shown on television at the time, Katie Wernecke also expressed her opposition to radiation.

But when her doctors told Child Protective Services that the Werneckes were refusing to follow the recommended treatment, authorities intervened. Mother Michele Wernecke fled with Katie, but after an Amber Alert was issued, the girl was found at a relative's ranch west of the family's Corpus Christi-area home. CPS took custody and Katie was placed in a foster home in Houston and taken to M.D. Anderson, where doctors promised to consider all options.

Soon thereafter, doctors said, Katie's cancer reappeared and doctors recommended chemotherapy and radiation.

But despite a judge's order that Katie receive the treatment, little has been done in the months since. For a time, Katie resisted treatment by pulling catheters from her arm and disobeying doctors' orders.

In addition, the matter has been frequently tied up in court. The Werneckes and CPS have fought over whether Katie resisted treatment at her parents' urging, whether the judge should step down because he visited Katie without court officials present and whether an M.D. Anderson regimen represented experimental treatment to which the parents had not given consent.

The delays prompted CPS spokesman Aaron Reed to call the Wernecke case "the most frustrated and saddest case" he's experienced at the agency.

"To go from a 85 to 90 percent chance of a cure to where she is now is heartbreaking," Reed said. "If her parents had just gone ahead with the prescribed treatment all along, Katie most likely would be in good health now, doing the things normal kids do at her age."

Earlier this month, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Edward Wernecke can have supervised contact with Katie, ending four months during which only Michelle Wernecke was allowed such visits. The ruling prompted the judge at the time, Carl Lewis, to remove himself from the case and led to the appointment of Hunter.

Just two days after taking over, Hunter heard the Werneckes request to take Katie to Kansas for the Vitamin C therapy and M.D. Anderson oncologist Dr. Robert Wells' telephone testimony that the therapy has "a long and sordid history in oncology" and that any delay it could cause in her conventional treatment could lead to her death. He added that "she may die anyway."

Wells' quote was alluded to numerous times at Friday's hearing: by the Wernecke's lawyer, who said it showed "what the state's doing isn't working;" and by a state-appointed lawyer for Katie, who said she's decided "she wants to live" and is now open to radiation.

It also was quoted by Hunter, who suggested it brought a new dimension to the debate and pledged to move things forward if it requires holding a hearing every day.

"I don't care who's at fault," said Hunter, whose hairy-cell leukemia was successfully treated at M.D. Anderson. "If it's true she may die anyway, she may need to spend quality time with her family."

Judge Returns Young Patient to Parents

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (AP) -- A 13-year-old cancer patient who was put into foster care after her parents refused to allow radiation treatment will be reunited with her family, a judge ruled Monday.

Faced with her deteriorating health, state district Judge Jack Hunter said Katie Wernecke would be better off with her family in Corpus Christi than in the custody of the foster parents she was assigned by Child Protective Services.

"CPS and the Werneckes are never, ever going to agree," Hunter said. "If I leave it up to CPS and the Werneckes ... this child is going to die for lack of anything being done."

Child Protective Services removed Katie from her family after her parents stopped her cancer treatment. Her father, Edward Wernecke, worried that a move to radiation treatment could put his daughter at heightened risk for breast cancer, stunt her growth and cause learning problems.

Before the ruling, Hunter told Wernecke to "look at me man to man, eyeball to eyeball" and promise he would do the best for Katie. Wernecke said he would.

Katie's parents have made several attempts to stop treatment for the girl's Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes. She was diagnosed in January and began receiving chemotherapy, which doctors recommended be followed with radiation.

Katie's oncologist has said her chances of surviving have fallen from 80 percent to about 20 percent because of incomplete treatment.

State lawyers argued that her life would be endangered if she did not continue treatments at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

"We certainly understand why the judge would want Katie at home with her family at this point of her illness," CPS spokesman Aaron Reed said. "This isn't the outcome we advocated for, but our goal all along has been for Katie to get the treatment she needs and get better and go home."
Wernecke's parents were overjoyed with the judge's decision.

"The good news is we're getting Katie back," Edward Wernecke said. Her mother, Michelle Wernecke, added, "She's going to be home soon, it feels great."

In a statement, family attorney James Pikl said the decision had larger implications for parental rights in Texas.

"When your child becomes sick, you do not have to merely stand by while state CPS workers tell you what care your child will receive," he said. "You also need not fear that CPS will take your child away from you simply because you have a disagreement with CPS about what treatment is right for your child."

Edward Wernecke said he wanted to try alternatives such as intravenous vitamin C before considering radiation as a possible last resort.

"If that were her last hope, and it was the only other thing that would save her life, then I would do it," Wernecke testified.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Find this article at:

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Letter to the Editor Caller Times - LET KATIE LIVE

Let Katie live

Time as we know it can change in a heartbeat. When a life-threatening illness unfortunately happens, time becomes not an infinite given, but a real hourglass that measures life's moments. Value is given to the few years, months, days, and hours that allow us to live, love and laugh in this realm of existence. For this can change in a split second of time; reflect on the "quality" of time and not the "quantity."

This is a thought of hope for those who are battling disease in life-limiting form. Give every opportunity for families, friends to share love and laughter while they can. I pray for this especially for Katie Wernecke, and others involved in her plight. Allow her to live and love with those who love her; she needs her family. In the continuum of time, it is of what matters most.

Cheryl C. Hartzendorf

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

High Court Postpones Decision on Wernecke

Ruling on reuniting girl with her parents delayed for new judge
By Kathryn Garcia Caller-TimesOctober 26, 2005

The Texas Supreme Court postponed a decision on whether to return 13-year-old cancer patient Katie Wernecke to her parents, stating the newly appointed judge first must have an opportunity to examine the case.

The ruling, issued Monday, gave McKinney attorney James Pikl, who is representing Edward and Michele Wernecke, until Nov. 23 to pursue or dismiss an appeal filed Oct. 6. The appeal requests all of Juvenile Judge Carl Lewis' rulings, including her removal from her parents, be reversed because the Werneckes never were found to be medically negligent.

Pikl appealed to the state Supreme Court after the 13th Court of Appeals denied his petition and stated that the Werneckes were found to be medically neglectful when they refused to treat Katie's cancer with the prescribed radiation treatment. Katie's parents have said they are fearful of the treatment's side effects.

Judge Jack Hunter was assigned last week to Katie's case after Lewis stepped aside Oct. 13. Pikl said he might not move forward with the appeal depending on Hunter's decisions. "Depending on what he does, I might have nothing to appeal," Pikl said.

Katie is undergoing chemotherapy at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston for her Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes. Following the treatment, Katie will accompany her parents to Kansas to receive alternative intravenous vitamin C treatments.

Assistant County Attorney Tom Stuckey requested at a hearing last week that Edward Wernecke be prohibited from accompanying his daughter and that a state caseworker supervise the trip. He also asked Hunter to order a bond to give the Werneckes an incentive to return.
Hunter will make a decision on Stuckey's requests at a hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Friday.

An Oct. 7 order issued by the Texas Supreme Court ruled in the Werneckes' favor, reversing a Sept 20 order issued by Lewis barring all communication between Katie and Edward Wernecke.
Contact Kathryn Garcia at 886-3792
Copyright 2005, All Rights

Tuesday, October 25, 2005


I have read so much, for so long, about the dilemma that a brave, seriously ill young girl has had to face. Her name is Katie Wernecke.

I do not understand how Child Protective Services thinks that they are "protecting" this child. They have just jerked her out of the most stable and loving environment she has ever had--her home and her family.

The courts and her doctors are separating Katie from the care, support and security of her parents, and continue to force her to take treatments for Hodgkin's disease. I do not think that's their business, but if that is what they dictate, they darn sure better be right and get her cured.

The ordeal they have put Katie through is enough to make a healthy person sick.

I am not as worried about Katie dying of cancer as I am about her dying of a broken heart, and possibly taking her parents with her. My utmost love and compassion go out to her and her family.

Carolyn Wallen

Letters Caller Times October 25, 2005

Monday, October 24, 2005

Hard on Werneckes

Caller Times Letters October 21, 2005

Thank you for the coverage of Katie Wernecke. I know that doctors and the Family Protection Services help many people ae to be commended, but they at times step over the line. This family should be supported during a time like this, not treated like criminals.

James Milton
(Warren, Ore.)

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Katie Left All Alone in Hospital Undergoing Chemotherapy

Katie has been left all alone in M.D. Anderson undergoing this fourth round of chemotherapy. CPS has not allowed the parents to be present in the hospital during this treatment. I don't have the right words and enough words to express how awful I feel about that. It is unbelievably cruel and just sickening that Katie would have to suffer through that ordeal all alone with no parent beside her. That is emotional abuse and child abuse on the part of CPS. How is Katie supposed to keep up the hope and will to survive without the love and support of her parents. Stella Klein CPS worker who signs all Katie's consent forms is supposed to attend each doctor and hospital admission. She wasn't there Friday because I saw her on TV in court in Corpus Chrisit. I bet she is not there with my Katie this Sunday morning either. Our contact information in the hospital records has been removed by Stella so if something goes wrong they do not even know who the parents are to contact. We can't even talk to her by phone during this time.

Judge Jack Hunter said in the hearing on Friday that he put God first, then family, and then his support group in fighting cancer at M.D. Anderson. The Judge agreed she needs her family there, but it didn't happen Friday. If he believes in God he would know that children belong with their parents and will restore Katie to us. We have done nothing wrong and are just God fearing loving parents that want our daughter back before she dies in their care alone and in isolation. Thank you Judge Hunter for letting us go to Kansas for evaluation.

A judge is supposed to judge between right and wrong and truth vs lies. CPS has fed you with a bunch of lies. We stand for truth and right. Let justice prevail.


Saturday, October 22, 2005


Judge OKs trip to Kansas to look into Vitamin C regimen
By Jaime Powell Caller-TimesOctober 22, 2005

Katie Wernecke's parents will be allowed to take their daughter to Kansas to meet with a doctor who believes he can treat her cancer with intravenous Vitamin C.

But first, Katie must undergo five days of traditional chemotherapy at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

District Judge Jack Hunter, who was appointed to the case just two days ago, ruled Friday that Katie's parents could take her to the Kansas doctor, even though that trip could put her life at risk.

Meanwhile, Dr. Robert Wells, the pediatric oncologist treating 13-year-old Katie in Houston, said the chances of Katie beating her disease are now between 20 percent and 25 percent because of repeated delays in getting her the proper care.

Wells told Hunter on Friday that if Katie had undergone the proper treatment after she was diagnosed in January, she would have had an 85 percent chance of beating the disease.

The attorneys involved in Katie's case were in Hunter's court Friday after Katie's parents tried to stop a round of chemotherapy treatment that was to begin this weekend. They argued that the treatment was experimental and that they had not been properly informed of it.

The move was the most recent of several attempts by Katie's parents to stop treatment for her Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes. They have resisted treatment because they believe the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation could hurt her more than the disease.

"My job is to save this baby, and I'm going to do it," Hunter said.

This summer, Juvenile Court Judge Carl Lewis ordered Katie into the care of state officials after her parents, Edward and Michele Wernecke, were accused of medical neglect.

James Pikl, an attorney for the parents, told Hunter Friday that they want more control over the girl's care and they would like to use a combination of nutrition therapy and a regimen that involves intravenous doses of Vitamin C to treat her.

Pikl asked Hunter to stall chemotherapy for seven days so her parents could take her to Kansas for a consultation.

Wells told Hunter that the consequences could be disastrous. "I think it would harm her, and she may die," he said. "She may die anyway."

Edward Wernecke declined to comment Friday.

Hunter ordered Katie to undergo the next round of chemotherapy, but he also ordered that her parents could take her to Kansas for a consultation on the alternative treatment, despite Wells' testimony that it is not a viable option.

Assistant County Attorney Tom Stuckey, who represents state officials, said if the Werneckes are allowed to leave Texas with their daughter, there must be measures to protect the girl.
Previously, Michele Wernecke fled state officials as they attempted to care for the girl. She was subsequently arrested, but all charges were dropped. Edward Wernecke also has been accused of interfering with the girl's treatment, and Lewis had signed a previous order preventing him from visiting his daughter. The Texas Supreme Court later overruled that decision, and Lewis stepped aside to let another judge hear the case.

Stuckey said he wants to prevent Edward Wernecke from accompanying his daughter and wants a state caseworker to supervise the trip. He also asked Hunter to order a bond to give the Werneckes an incentive to return.

Hunter has not made a decision on those two requests, and the attorneys are working on a compromise.

Contact Jaime Powell at
886-3716 or
Copyright 2005,

Friday, October 21, 2005

Proof M. D. Anderson Experiments With Our Kids

Combination Chemotherapy in Treating Children With Refractory or Relapsed Hodgkin's Lymphoma

This study is currently recruiting patients.Verified by National Cancer Institute (NCI) May 2004
Sponsors and Collaborators:
Children's Oncology Group
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Information provided by:
National Cancer Institute (NCI) Identifier:


RATIONALE: Drugs used in chemotherapy, such as ifosfamide and vinorelbine, work in different ways to stop cancer cells from dividing so they stop growing or die. Combining more than one drug may kill more cancer cells.

PURPOSE: Phase II trial to study the effectiveness of combination chemotherapy in treating children who have refractory or relapsed Hodgkin's lymphoma.

recurrent/refractory childhood Hodgkin's lymphomachildhood lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin's lymphomachildhood lymphocyte depletion Hodgkin's lymphomachildhood nodular sclerosis Hodgkin's lymphomachildhood mixed cellularity Hodgkin's lymphoma
Drug: filgrastim Drug: ifosfamide Drug: vinorelbine Procedure: biological response modifier therapy Procedure: chemotherapy Procedure: colony-stimulating factor therapy Procedure: cytokine therapy

Phase II
MedlinePlus related topics: Hodgkin's Disease
Study Type: InterventionalStudy Design: Treatment

Official Title: Phase II Pilot Study of Reinduction Chemotherapy With Ifosfamide and Vinorelbine in Children With Refractory or Relapsed Hodgkin's Lymphoma

Further Study Details:

Determine the response rate (overall and within strata) in both minimally pretreated, low-risk and heavily pretreated, high-risk children with refractory or relapsed Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with ifosfamide and vinorelbine with filgrastim (G-CSF).

Determine the cardiac, hepatic, renal, and hematologic toxicity of this regimen in minimally-pretreated, low-risk patients.

Determine the toxic death rate in minimally pretreated, low-risk patients treated with this regimen.

Determine whether this treatment regimen can mobilize sufficient hematopoietic stem cells (CD34) for subsequent stem cell transplantation in minimally pretreated, low-risk patients.

Determine the incidence of hypermutability by longitudinal genotoxic biomonitoring of patients treated with this regimen.

Determine the prognostic significance of biological markers, including serum interleukin (IL)-10 receptor, serum IL-2 receptor, p53, and mdm-2 in patients treated with this regimen.
OUTLINE: This is a multicenter study. Patients are stratified by prior therapy (minimally pretreated, low-risk vs heavily pretreated, high-risk).

Patients receive ifosfamide IV over 24 hours on days 1-4 and vinorelbine IV over 6-10 minutes on days 1 and 5. Patients also receive filgrastim (G-CSF) subcutaneously or IV over 15-30 minutes beginning 24-36 hours after completion of vinorelbine and continuing daily until blood counts recover.

Treatment repeats at least every 21 days for 2 courses in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients may receive a third course of therapy at the discretion of the investigator. [Katie is receiving a fouth course of therapy! EDWARD]

Heavily pretreated, high-risk patients who achieve a complete response are eligible for stem cell transplantation. Patients undergo peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) collection during hematopoietic recovery after the second course of chemotherapy. Patients with sufficient PBSCs collected may undergo PBSC transplantation on protocol COG-AHOD0121.


This may be the trial Katie has been placed in. Even if she is not officially in this trial, these are the exact chemicals they are using on her now. This is a phase II trial --not proven therapy. Like I've said before they are using our kids to experiment on for cancer research and they force them into these trials and than don't modify treatment even at the risk of patient dying because that would mess up the results and they would not get their government money for doing the trial. They don't even notify the parents that these are experimental drugs being used. These are people, not animals, and I don't want my daughter experimented on.

Wernecke Case Assigned to Still Another Judge

By neal falgoust and kathryn garcia Caller-TimesOctober 21, 2005

For the second time in a week, there's a new judge overseeing the case of 13-year-old cancer patient Katie Wernecke.

Assistant County Attorney Tom Stuckey removed retired Judge Joaquin Villarreal from the case Thursday, just three days after Villar real was appointed. Fifth Administrative Region Judge Darrell Hester of Cameron County moved the case to 94th District Judge Jack Hunter's court.

Villarreal, the second judge to handle the case, had not heard testimony in a formal court set ting. The first judge, Carl Lewis of County Court-at-Law No. 5, stepped aside Oct. 13.

It was unclear Thursday why Stuckey had Villarreal removed from the case. He did not respond to a call to his office. Either side in a civil case can have a retired judge struck from the bench with out having to provide a reason. They cannot strike Hunter because he is a sitting judge.
Lewis stepped aside after the Texas Supreme Court over ruled his decision to prohibit Katie's father from visiting her. Lewis said the Supreme Court's involvement created a distraction that would make his invol-vement detrimental to Katie's health.

Katie's case began June 4 when Lewis put her in the custody of state officials. Katie's parents had refused treatment for her Hodgkin's disease and had been accused by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services of medical neglect. Hodgkin's disease is a cancer of the lymph nodes, and Katie is undergoing chemother apy at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Attorney James Pikl, who is representing Katie's parents, Edward and Michele Wernecke, filed a brief with the Supreme Court on Thursday arguing that all of Lewis' rulings should be reversed because the family never received a fair trial and never were found to be medically neglectful.

"We need her home," Edward Wernecke said Thursday. "She needs to be home. She's going through a tremendous amount of stress and pressure from being separated from her parents and brothers. No child should ever have to -go through that, especially having cancer." Edward and Michele Wernecke have scheduled a visit with Katie for next weekend. "I look forward to seeing her," Edward Wernecke said. "I wish it were sooner."

Child Protective Services spokesman Aaron Reed said offi cials still believe Katie is better off in state custody rather than at home.

"We believe and Judge Lewis also believed that it was in Katie's best interest to remain in the department's care and receive the treatments that the medical experts at M.D. Anderson deemed was necessary to save her life," he said. "From our perspective, nothing has changed about what we want for Katie. We want her to get the treatments she needs to get better and go home to her family."

Contact Neal Falgoust at 886- 4334 or HYPERLINK
Copyright 2005, All Rights Reserved.

comment: Why did Stuckey have Judge Joaquin Villarreal removed from the case and have it reassigned in Judge Jack Hunters court ? Was it because Stuckey or CPS could not influence his decisions? I appauld and thank Judge Joaquin Villarreal for being above CPS or Assistant County Attorney Tom Stuckey's influence and his prompt attention to this case. Judges should be impartial and unbiased. Edward

Parents Muzzled - Letter to Editor

Caller Times: Letter to the Editor by Jimmy L. Laurence October 19. 2005

I read with disbelief the decision by the Texas Supreme Court to allow supervised contact between Katie Wernecke and her father with the provision he not attempt to discourage her from taking the prescribed treatments for Hodgkin's disease.

In other words, "Don't express any opinions that are contrary to the revolution, or you will be sent to the gulag and not be allowed to see your daughter."

I would encourage the justices to go down to the nearest library, and check out a book on the U.S. government containing a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America.

In the section titles "Amendments," find Number One, and read it. Number One is commonly referred to as freedom of speech.

It is time to turn out the lights and close the door on America if the goverment can tell you what you can and cannot say to your children.

I would like to offer my sincerest apologies to Katie and her family for the injustice, cruelty, and complete lack of compassion the court system and Child Protective Services has shown in this matter.

There is no greater crime against humanity than that of cruelty to a child.

Jimmy L. Laurence

Thursday, October 20, 2005

A Doctor and CPS Destroys Another Family - CPS Works Under Cover of Darkness and Outside the Law

Linda S. said...
In 2000 my family went through an ordeal which was very similar to the nightmare you are experiencing now. For 6 years my husband and I searched for a cure for our daughter's as yet undiagnosed illness which caused her much pain and suffering. At this time my husband and I thought nothing could be worse than having to watch helplessly as our little girl suffered so. But we were wrong. Having our sick little girl taken from us and at a time when she needed us most was much, much harder.

In 1999, while visiting one of our daughter's medical caregivers, we told this doctor our wonderful news that we had at long last found the cause of our child's long suffering. We shared with this doctor how relieved we were to know that there was a very good and simple treatment which would put an end to most of her symptoms. Upon hearing this, the doctor became visibly angry. An odd reaction we thought. But our happiness at the good news did not allow us to ponder this right away and we shrugged it off to her possibly having a bad day. We would later know that this doctor was angry with us for getting another opinoin without consulting her. She may have been afraid that we would file a malpractice law suit as well, even though this thought had never entered our minds. You see, she had evidently been documenting (and without informing my husband or I) that our daughter's medical syptoms were all in her head and she was opposed to us seeking further medical opinions.

Immediately following the doctor appointment which would change our lives forever, this mean doctor picked up the phone and called Child Protective Services. This was the beginning of an 18 month ordeal of our battling the state of Illinois and put our daughter through more torture than any of us could have ever imagined. It was like waking from a dream to begin living a nightmare. And we know first hand the pain that you all are going through. There are no words that begin to go far enough to describe our anguish, to anyone but parents such as yourselves I think it would be impossible. Our daughter was returned to us finally, but not before CPS had put us through the emotional and financial ringer. Just this year we have filed for bankruptsy due to my husband not being able to keep the numberous CPS ordered meetings during his work time and the many thousands of dollars we spent on an attorney who did nothing for us but rather threw our case to the state (very typical of family court attorneys.)

It is true that CPS cares nothing about familes these days, but rather is an agency driven by a lust for money in the form of huge federal grants which reward the states for remmoving children (there are NO incentives, monitary or otherwise for leaving children with their parents).

And when one couples this with the fact that this agency answers to no one but itself we have the recipe for disaster. We found that in the CPS hearing process the Constitution, and any other law of the land which might ensure fair treatment, were not available to us.

CPS had the power punish my husband and I in the most cruel and unusual way imaginable, and we had no rights as US citizens at all. In this court due process is replaced with 'best interest of the child; a legal phrase meaning however the judge feels like ruling and disregarding any truths. It took some months for us to realize that the attack on us was something other than a horrible mistake which could easily be straightened out by one phone call to our daughter's new treating physician. No one was interested in getting at the truth. Having never committed a crime, we were not familiar with this or any other court and wrongfully thought that obviously innocent US citizens prevail in our judicial system. By the time we realized that we were dealing with an agency of the government which worked outside of the law, we had already gone through much needless torment. We came to know that our plight was not at all unusual either.

Countless thousands of parents are experiencing this very sort of pain and injustice every single day, at the hands of those sworn to protect children. If it were not for the fact that we had support from one honest, brave newspaper reporter (and at great personal cost to her)who wrote about our story in the paper, an honest and ethical and psychologist and a doctor who was strong and kind enough to stand up for us...I have not one doubt that our daughter would still be gone today.

The way your family is being tortured every single day is nothing short of a crime and our hearts go out to the Werneke family. We are praying that you find good people such as the ones who stood by us and who will help you in your effort to free little Katie.

One thing I learned about Child Protective Services is that they like to work under cover of darkness, and out of the public sight. And so it is encouraging to see that the media has exposed the CPS abduction of Katie. It is my earnest prayer that this will scare them into releasing her immediately. I am so very sorry to know that your family is going through a nightmare such as we did. Be strong and keep fighting.

God is watching and he is on your side. I would hate to be a CPS worker on judgement day for I'm sure that God has a special punishment for people who torture little children.

Blessings,Linda S.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005



In re §
Edward Wernecke §
and § CAUSE NO. 05-0838
Michele Wernecke, §
Relators. §



Submitted by:

James A. Pikl
P.O. Box 2939
McKinney, Texas 75070

Attorney for Relators

Index of Authorities iii

Supplemental Argument

1. Texas has not yet adopted a test to be used in situations where parental
rights collide with the state’s parens patriae role in cases concerning
medical treatment of minors. However, many other courts have done so, and Texas should follow the majority trend. 1

2. Texas should adopt the reasoning and balancing test from the Newmark case. 8

1. In the alternative, this Court should vacate the July 8, 2005 order and
remand for another hearing since new evidence is available that may be dispositive of the case under the Hofbauer precedent. 13

Reply Argument

4. The State’s Response, while full of misinformation and
inapposite arguments, does not indicate that this Court lacks either the jurisdiction or all necessary information to hear the Petition. 16

Conclusion and Prayer 23

Reply Appendix separate volume

Tab 1 – Letter/opinion of Dr. Ronald E. Hunninghake, M.D. (with resume)

Tab 2 – Letter/opinion of Dr. William M. Wassell, M.D. (with resume)

Tab 3 – Transcript of hearing June 15 and 16, 2005

Tab 4 – Transcript of hearing September 19, 2005

Tab 5 – Motion filed 9/19/05 in trial court (still pending)

Tab 6 – Information from the National Cancer Institute’s website on clinical trials


Bowen v. American Hosp. Ass’n, 476 U.S. 610, 106 S.Ct. 2101,
90 L.Ed. 2d 584 (1986) 4

In re Doe, 19 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. 2000) 6

Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept. Of Health,
497 U.S. 261, 110 S.Ct. 2841, 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990) 7, 11

Custody of a Minor, 379 N.E.2d 1053 (Mass. 1978) 2

In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1990) 11, 12

In re Eric B., 189 Cal. App. 3d 996 (1987) 2

In re Hamilton, 657 S.W.2d 425 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983) 2

Matter of Joseph Hofbauer, 47 N.Y.2d 648, 393 N.E.2d 1009 (1979) 2, 13-16

Holly v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) 4

In re McCoy, 52 S.W.3d 297 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2001, orig. proc.) 23

Michael G.B. v. Angela L.B., 642 N.Y.S.2d 452, 219 A.D. 289 (1996) 3

Miller ex rel. Miller v. HCA, Inc., 118 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. 2003) 7

Newmark v. Williams/DCPS, 588 A.2d 1108 (Del. 1991) 2, 3, 5. 8, 9, 10, 12, 13

Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) 3

Prince v Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed.2d 645 (1944) 7, 8

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) 3

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed.2d 1655 (1942) 6

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) 4

In re Willman, 24 Ohio App. 3d 191 (1986) 2

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) 7


Texas Family Code, §161.001(1)(D) 5

Other Authority

Goldstein, Medical Care for the Child at Risk: On State Supervision of Parental Autonomy, 86 Yale L.J. 645 (1977) 5

If merely objecting to state-recommended medical care for a child is enough to render a parent “unfit” (which is exactly what has happened to the Werneckes), then Texas law is in a crisis of foundational, constitutional proportions. This may well be the most important case in the last 20 years of Texas civil jurisprudence.
There are two scenarios that occur in these cases, both of which are addressed: where the patient has no alternative treatments available (part 2), and where she does (part 3). To make that discussion cohesive, this brief first addresses the foundation for both scenarios (part 1).
1. Texas has not yet adopted a test to be used in situations where parental rights collide with the state’s parens patriae role in cases concerning medical treatment of minors. However, many other courts have done so, and Texas should follow the majority trend.
Texas does not presently have a comprehensive test approved by this Court covering situations such as we have in this case. However, courts in other jurisdictions have confronted the exact same situation, and have adopted two different tests for deciding how the important rights of parents to choose their children’s medical care, and the state’s parens patriae interest, may and should co-exist: the ad hoc test and the tripartite balancing test.
The ad hoc test deems a child “neglected” if parents refuse medical treatment recommended by state-approved doctors—and that is pretty much the end of the analysis. Admittedly, this test is easy to administer. However, it also relegates complex and emotional decisions to a Procrustean formula devoid of any sensitivity to the important, substantive rights and interests at stake. Notably, only the Ohio[1] and Tennessee[2] intermediate appellate courts have adopted this approach. This appears to be the approach taken by the County Court at Law in our case as well.
The tripartite balancing test, on the other hand, has been adopted by the highest state courts in Delaware,[3] Massachusetts,[4] and New York,[5] and by the appellate court in California.[6] This test involves examining the underlying, unique facts of every case and balancing (1) the rights of the parents, (2) the parens patriae rights of the state, and (3) the best interests of the child, to arrive at a fact-specific, logical, and fair decision. The following analysis discusses how courts have employed the tripartite balancing test, and shows why it should be adopted as the Texas standard.
(1) The rights of parents.
“Any balancing test must begin with the parental interest.”[7] It is beyond argument that parents of minor children have fundamental, protected, constitutional rights to parent their children, which includes the right to decide what, if any, medical care their children will be provided.[8]
Admittedly, these parental rights are not without limits, but neither are they vaporous. Because we have a constitution to protect citizens from the government, when the fundamental rights of parents clash with the state’s authority to “step in” when harm is predicted, the burdens of proof and standards of application for these doctrines put all of the burdens on the state, and give all of the presumptions and benefits of the doubt to the parents.[9]
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, parents are presumed “fit” unless they are incapable of participating in decision making or have made decisions that evidence a substantial lack of concern for the child’s interests.[10] Here, Katie’s parents have consistently and repeatedly expressed and attempted to address their legitimate concerns about the undisputed, deleterious side effects of the proposed treatment. If nothing else, this is compelling, unrefuted evidence of their deep concern for Katie’s present and future well-being. The Werneckes are not “unfit” parents under any definition of that term.
(2) The rights of minors.
The interests of children—including their rights to enjoy a measure of physical autonomy and to enjoy the physical and emotional nurture and guidance of their parents—cannot be overlooked nor their importance minimized. This Court has previously held that a “best interests” analysis includes consideration of the desires of the child, the emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the future, and the emotional and physical danger to the child now and in the future.[11] What could be more emotionally and physically dangerous than to forcibly take a 13-year-old child from her parents, place her in foster care 250 miles from home, friends, and school, force her against her will to have experimental, life-threatening medical treatment, and then not even allow the child to speak freely to her parents about her circumstances? This entire case shocks the conscience. The state’s averments that they just want “what is best for Katie” are absurd. “Parental autonomy to care for children free from governmental interference satisfies a child’s need for continuity and thus ensures his or her psychological and physical well-being . . . In many circumstances the State is simply not an adequate surrogate for the judgment of a loving, nurturing parent.”[12]
Texas statutes mandate an equal concern for both the emotional and the physical well-being of Texas children.[13] To a greater extent than we are capable of knowing, to arbitrarily favor Katie’s physical health over her emotional health puts both at risk. Katie’s physical and emotional well-being—and where applicable, her expressed preferences—must therefore be taken into account in any thorough, humane analysis of these issues.
Any child, especially one like Katie who is mature enough to understand the consequences of the proposed options regarding treatment and to intelligent weigh those options and articulate a rational reason for her choice, should have her personal preferences given very great—even conclusive—weight.[14] Katie Wernecke, after being advised of the proposed treatments and their consequences, has repeatedly expressed her desire NOT to undergo the treatments being proposed by M.D. Anderson doctors and has articulated rational reasons for her choice.[15] One of Katie’s main concerns is that she will be rendered sterile by the treatments. For the state to force Katie to undergo such harmful treatment against her will violates Katie’s fundamental rights of personal autonomy, freedom from harm inflicted by the state, and her right to bear children.[16]

(3) The rights of the state.
The state has a limited right to protect children from abuse and neglect by unfit parents. “Parens patriae” is a common law doctrine in which power resides in the state for the purpose of allowing it to step in and protect society’s weakest members from those who would do them harm. The parens patriae power is only properly invoked, however, when there is an immediate threat of serious danger to the health or safety of a child.[17] The doctrine of parens patriae is closely akin to the state’s police power, a power that comes into play when the state is protecting anyone from dangers imposed by others.[18] However, neither the police power nor the parens patriae doctrine are unlimited in their scope or effect, and both must be carefully weighed against the constitutionally-protected—and presumed-superior—interests of the individuals involved.[19] The state carries a heavy burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that its actions are absolutely necessary, not merely convenient or arguably and subjectively “better.”[20]
2. Texas should adopt the reasoning and balancing test from the Newmark case.

When the rights of parents and children to be free from governmental interference in their lives collide head-on with the perceived need of the state to “protect” the children from harm, some procedure or test must be established to resolve the conflict. In our case, the rights of the Werneckes to decide what medical treatment Katie will receive has collided with the state’s perceived need to protect Katie from predicted, future “harm” which may be caused by her allegedly “neglectful” parents refusing one particular form of medical treatment. Fortunately, this Court need not write from scratch the recipe for resolving this conflict, as it has come up before in several other cases.
One of the best analyses on this subject is found in the Newmark case.[21] This 1991 opinion out of the Delaware Supreme Court canvasses most of the other jurisdictions that have addressed this issue, and makes a compelling argument for why a 3-part balancing test should be used to resolve it. The opinion also sets out in detail the roadmap used to navigate the competing rights and interests involved, while maintaining a common-sense, constitutionally-sound concern for the human consequences of a proper decision.
In Newmark, three-year-old Colin Newmark was diagnosed with Burkitt’s Lymphoma, a deadly and aggressive form of non-Hodgkin’s pediatric cancer. Colin’s parents were Christian Scientists, and they objected on religious grounds to Colin receiving certain medical treatment—treatment advocated by one of the top cancer treatment centers in the country. According to the trial court, Colin’s parents did not propose any other “factually supported alternative” to the chemotherapy,[22] so the trial court took Colin away and placed him in state custody to get the treatment recommended by the state’s doctors.
When the case reached the Delaware Supreme Court, the parents’ concerns were finally afforded their due regard, and the trial court was reversed. Specifically relevant to our case was the objection by his parents to exposing Colin to the high-risk, low-probability-of-success chemotherapy and radiation treatments being prescribed because the treatment would harm Colin in many significant ways and there was only a 40% chance of Colin surviving if the treatments were done. Interestingly, the “harms” that would befall Colin are the exact same “harms” doctors have told Katie she will experience from essentially the same treatment: sterility, loss of immune functioning, kidney and heart failure, increased chance of developing other cancers, and a statistically-significant chance that the treatment itself will prove fatal. Katie has also only been given between a 25% and a 50% chance of “success” even if the treatments are done.[23]
The Newmark court said “The linchpin in all cases discussing the ‘best interests of a child’, when a parent refuses to authorize medical care, is an evaluation of the risk of the procedure compared to its potential success. This analysis is consistent with the principle that State intervention in the parent-child relationship is only justifiable under compelling conditions.”[24] The Newmark court began its analysis by stating that courts “must first consider the effectiveness of the treatment and determine the child’s chance of survival with and without medical care. [Citations omitted] The court must then consider the nature of the treatments and their effect on the child.”[25]
The Delaware Supreme Court faulted the trial court for “not explicitly considering the competing interests at stake.”[26] Those same interests have not yet been explicitly considered by the trial court in our case, either. Apparently, our trial court neither considered Katie’s expressed preference to not risk the treatment, nor the admittedly-extreme side effects and the low chance of recovery accompanying the treatment. These other factors can supercede any medical testimony about “harm from lack of treatment” or “success rates,” especially as success is defined in the medical profession. The Delaware court cited numerous opinions from other states that have respected a parent’s wishes to decline treatment when the harm from treatment was high and the chances of success were relatively low. “The State’s interest in forcing a minor to undergo medical care diminishes as the risks of treatment increase and its benefits decrease.”[27]
Applying these balancing rules, the Delaware Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in removing Colin from his parents and forcing him to undergo treatment.
The egregious facts of this case indicate that Colin’s proposed medical treatment was highly invasive, painful, involved terrible temporary and potentially permanent side effects, posed an unacceptably low chance of success, and a high risk that the treatment itself would cause his death. The State’s authority in this case, therefore, cannot outweigh the Newmark’s parental prerogative and Colin’s inherent right to enjoy a modicum of human dignity in the short time that was left to him.[28]
In our case, the facts are stunningly similar with the exception that here, Katie is not three years old but 13 years old, and she has expressed her preference NOT to undergo the treatments being recommended due to their high risk, terrible side effects, and low probability of success. Another difference: in the Newmark case the treatment being proposed for Colin “stopped short” of a bone marrow transplant (also sometimes called “peripheral blood stem cell” transplant),[29] whereas in Katie’s case, stem cell transplantation is being proposed, making Katie’s proposed treatment even more intrusive and life-threatening than that which was recommended for Colin Newmark.
No American court, even in the most egregious case, has ever authorized the State to remove a child from the loving, nurturing care of his parents and subject him, over parental objection, to an invasive regimen of treatment which offered, as Dr. Meek defined the term, only a forty percent chance of “survival.”[30]

The Werneckes pray that their daughter is not the first child subjected to such harsh, unfair, and outrageous treatment at the hands of an American court.
3. In the alternative, this Court should vacate the July 8, 2005 order and remand for another hearing since new evidence is available that may be dispositive of the case under the Hofbauer precedent.
If this Court determines that the trial court did not adequately consider all of the interests involved in this case, the Werneckes ask the Court to vacate the offending orders and remand the case to the trial court for another hearing at which all such interests can have their proper airing.[31]
Since June 15, the Werneckes have been able to obtain two separate medical doctors’ opinions that Katie’s condition may be effectively treated by using high-dosage intravenous ascorbic acid and nutritional therapy. This alternative treatment is completely safe, has no debilitating side effects, and has been successfully used on many other cancer patients. It is truly “cutting edge” medicine.[32]
Because of the existence of this alternative treatment, our case is identical to the New York State Hofbauer case.[33] In that case, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed both the trial and appellate courts’ rulings finding the Hofbauers had not neglected eight-year-old Joseph Hofbauer by refusing to subject him to the same dangerous, high-dosage chemotherapy and radiation treatments being proposed for Katie. Joseph’s parents wanted to have his cancer treated with metabolic and nutritional therapy rather than subjecting him to the harm of more “traditional” treatments being prescribed by Joseph’s oncologists. The court perceptively framed the issue as follows:
Whether a child suffering from Hodgkin’s disease whose parents failed to follow the recommendations of an attending physician to have their child treated by radiation and chemotherapy, but, rather, placed their child under the care of physicians advocating nutritional or metabolic therapy, including injections of laetrile, is a “neglected child” within the meaning of New York’s Family Code.[34]

All three levels of New York’s courts answered this question “No.”
The Hobauers (like the Werneckes) agreed that if the alternative treatments proved ineffective, they would allow Joseph to undergo “conventional” cancer treatments if necessary to save their child’s life. However, the Hofbauers (again like the Werneckes), did not want to take their child through a last-resort-style treatment until their child was in a last-resort-style condition. The Hofbauer case is directly on point to our case, and the sound legal reasoning of that case should be adopted by this Court.
Since the Werneckes did not have the medical opinions of Dr. Hunninghake and Dr. Wassell on June 15 and 16, 2005, the transcript of that hearing does not contain their opinions.[35] However, we have included those letter/opinions in the Reply Appendix to show the Court that this case now exactly tracks the fact pattern of the Hofbauer case. The Werneckes anticipate that one or both of these doctors will testify at any future hearing scheduled for that purpose. The reasoning and analysis adopted by the Hofbauer court thus can be—and should be—adopted by Texas courts.
In the alternative to overruling and vacating in its entirety the July 8 and September 20 orders and placing Katie back into the Werneckes’ permanent care and custody, we ask the Court to adopt the Hofbauer analysis as the law of Texas, and vacate or abate those orders pending a new hearing on the alternative treatments now available to Katie and a determination whether Katie should be allowed to pursue them.
4. The State’s Response, while full of misinformation and inapposite arguments, does not indicate that this Court lacks either the jurisdiction or all necessary information to hear the Petition.

The State’s Response is replete with misinformation and false statements relating to the factual background of this case.
For example, the State disingenuously refers to “Katie’s doctors” (plural) as having testified at the June 15 and 16, 2005 hearing. See, e.g., State’s Response, p. 6. In fact, only a single doctor testified at that hearing: Dr. Jehemie Alter. See Reply Appendix, Tab 3.
The Response also attempts to caste vague aspersions on the Werneckes, particularly Edward, by making out-of-context references to Mr. Wernecke’s time spent with Katie (Response, p. 4), Katie’s alleged response to those visits as “upsetting her” (Response, p. 4), and the hearsay, unexplained, and unreliable statements made by DFPS personnel about their “feelings” (Response Appendix, Tabs A and B). Apparently, the State is hoping to get this Court to dislike Mr. Wernecke so that it might be distracted from dealing squarely with the merits.
Even then, the state walks right into the admission that Katie’s parents were deemed “unfit” by the trial court solely because they objected to the medical treatment being suggested by the state’s doctors. Response, p. 15. Otherwise, if the Werneckes are “unfit” for any other reason, why are Katie’s three brothers back with their parents at this very moment, released to their parents’ care by DFPS with the court’s blessing?
Finally, the Response describes the hearing held on September 19, 2005 as if it “gave the [Werneckes] yet one more opportunity to adopt a more cooperative approach.” Response, pp. 5, 13. This is not true. Many things may be said of what occurred during that hearing, but it may not be said that the judge was giving anyone any chance to do or say anything to change his mind; he had made up his mind, and he was merely holding the hearing to announce it. See Reply Appendix, Tab 4. Indeed, that hearing was temporarily recessed but then never resumed, apparently without effect on Judge Lewis’s ruling issued the very next day while the judge was recovering from open-heart surgery.
But pushing aside all of these groundless diversions and hyper-technical arguments, the State presents no cogent response to the Petition or the legal arguments made therein. The State does not criticize or distinguish any of the authorities cited in the Petition, and makes no attempt to argue why the relief sought is not compelled under both the law and the facts of this case. And the state assiduously ignores the emergency nature of the case caused by the ongoing medical treatments Katie is presently being subjected to and which will or may moot the relief the Werneckes seek if it is allowed to continue until the trial court (now with a new judge) gets around to—someday—having a final trial on the merits.

A. There in no reason to abate this proceeding, and a very good reason not to.
The State argues that this proceeding should be abated because Judge Lewis recused himself from the case. However, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2(b) only relates to situations where the sitting judge dies, retires, or loses an election (i.e., “leaves office”). It does not relate to a situation where the sitting judge recuses himself in order to avoid potential disqualification for violating the Judicial Code, but still remains on the bench hearing other matters. Judge Lewis has not “left office.” Here, Judge Hester, the Administrative Judge for the Fifth Judicial Region, has already appointed a replacement judge (Hon. Joaquin Villarreal, Senior District Judge) to step into Judge Lewis’s shoes for purposes of handling this case only. Judge Villareal has already scheduled a status conference for November 4, 2005, and a permanency hearing is presently scheduled for November 16, 2005. The case below is moving along.
There is no reason to return the case to the trial court to allow Judge Villarreal to merely “reconsider” Judge Lewis’s order. This would only cause more delay—delay that may render the relief sought in this Petition moot.
On the other hand, if the State would agree to abate the force and effect of the July 8 and September 20 orders while such a remand occurs, then the Werneckes would not be prejudiced by such a remand. However, the State will almost certainly want those orders to remain in place (have their cake) while the remand occurs (and eat it, too). This is a bit like giving a criminal a new trial, but continuing to hold him prisoner in the penitentiary, serving his full sentence, while a new trial is scheduled and takes place. If the Court is inclined to allow Judge Villarreal to “reconsider” the offending orders of July 8 and September 20, the force and effect of those orders must be abated during the period of abatement; after all, Judge Villarreal just might decide differently.
B. The procedural requirements of mandamus have been fulfilled.
The State next criticizes the Werneckes for allegedly not dotting every “i” and crossing every “t” in bringing this Petition before the Court (which, by the way, the Werneckes dispute). Regardless of the technical precision with which the Petition was brought, however, what the State conveniently ignores is the emergency nature of the relief sought, and the dismal state of the record below when the Petition was filed.[36]
For every hour that goes by, the Werneckes are being deprived, irretrievably, of precious Constitutional rights: to equal protection; to freedom of speech and association; to liberty; to parent their daughter as they see fit; to avoid state-imposed harm to their child; and to assist Katie in avoiding—or even discussing with her—what everyone agrees is potentially-life-threatening treatment.[37] Katie is presently—this moment—undergoing dangerous, experimental medical treatment at the hands of the DFPS. If this treatment kills Katie or renders her sterile, disease-ridden, or otherwise irreparably harmed, then the alternative treatments the Werneckes would like to attempt will become impossible, or at least rendered largely irrelevant. Surely, “the rules” were never meant to be the deciding factor on the merits of a Petition of this magnitude and importance. Instead, procedural rules are meant to be instruments for getting the necessary information before this Court, in standardized form, for purposes of facilitating an expeditious and just ruling.[38] It is almost a proverb that any time a party has no real arguments on the merits, it stoops to irrelevant, rules-based nitpicking.

C. The Petition was properly verified.
The State next criticizes the alleged lack of verification of the Petition, referring to Edward and Michele’s Affidavits as “hearsay” and contradictory of other information in the record, namely the affidavit-based recollections of the state’s witnesses. But all affidavits are hearsay, by definition—including those submitted by the State itself in its Response! How exactly is a party to “verify” a Petition if not by affidavit? And how exactly is a party to obtain affidavits from its uncooperative adversaries (such as the doctors presently treating Katie) for purposes of putting in what the State mistakenly implies would be the “best evidence” of the facts otherwise set forth in the verifying affidavit of the Relators? The State never says.
As for the Hunninghake[39] (and now, the Wassell) information, that information is presented in the current form because (a) these doctors have not been allowed to examine Katie due to the State’s refusal to release Katie to the Werneckes’ custody for purposes of having those examinations, and (b) they are not making prognoses, diagnoses, or other factual findings for which verification would be required. The information they offer at this time is general information about the alternative treatment being suggested, and a brief statement that Katie “may be” a candidate for this treatment. If the case is remanded for a new hearing, the Court can expect one or both of these doctors to testify, and hopefully they will be able to do so after being allowed to examine Katie.
D. The consequences of an affirmative ruling on the Petition should not deter the Court’s attention from the issues.

Lastly, the State attempts to “scare” this Court into shirking its duties by painting a dismal picture of what might happen if the Petition is granted and the relief ordered. See Response, pp. 14-15 (“This would strip trial courts across the nation (?) of the ability to protect an entire class of vulnerable children prior to a trial such as that provided by Chapter 161"). Not only is the State’s parade of horribles unlikely to occur, but even if it were, that is no reason for this Honorable Court to dodge its responsibility for adjudicating the issues presented, as the State invites the Court to do. “Fiat justitia, ruat coelum”[40] is (or at least should be) the call of this, the highest Court in the State of Texas.
Finally, mandamus is entirely appropriate in emergency situations such as we have here. As this Court is well aware, a good percentage of petitions for mandamus relief are filed with accompanying motions for emergency relief (as was this one). This Court has already found that one order of the trial court below should be modified, on an emergency basis, pending the outcome of this Petition. The precise reason temporary orders in family-law cases are subject to immediate mandamus review is because family courts issue orders every day that may (and often do) involve compunction to do or not do something, for an indeterminate length of time, and which, if obeyed, would severely and irreparably damage a party in a manner for which there is no adequate remedy on appeal.[41]
What the state argues is that trial courts should have a free hand in issuing any type of “temporary orders” they like, and the parties affected have no chance to challenge them save in an appeal from a final judgment that may takes years to obtain. It is embarrassing that the Attorney General of Texas would advance such an argument. The State’s pleas about this Petition being inappropriate, defective, or premature are fatally flawed and hopelessly obtuse.
There are principled ways to distinguish between cases of true neglect (i. e., lack of concern for a child’s health or when a parent lacks capacity to make reasoned decisions), and cases such as this one—where fit, concerned parents are simply trying to find the optimal medical treatment for their child. Sadly, in our case the state and the trial court were unwilling or unable to draw this distinction.
When a child’s illness may cause death with or without treatment, and modern medicine has not developed a “silver bullet” (such as antibiotics to treat infections), the state cannot be allowed to usurp parental authority and subject a child to an experimental, uncertain, highly-invasive, and potentially-deadly treatment regimen which happens to be currently in vogue with the state’s approved doctors. The Werneckes have not “neglected” Katie’s treatment. On the contrary, they had Katie undergo 5 months of chemotherapy, and were in the process of pursuing alternatives to the dangerous, highly-invasive “follow up” treatments of high-dosage chemo and questionable radiation treatments when they found their parental rights suddenly taken away from them by the state. The Werneckes are model parents who have lovingly and actively involved themselves in the process of caring for their daughter’s well-being—past, present, and future. They are not neglectful parents under any definition of that term.[42]
Since the state-recommended treatment entails significant health risks while offering neither a certainty nor even a substantial likelihood of a genuine cure, it is grossly improper for the state to force Katie and her parents to assume those risks. The weighing of risks and benefits of such a proposed treatment should be—indeed, must be—left to the parents, especially where there is a good chance that Katie will be a candidate for effective, alternative treatment.
Mandamus should issue ordering the trial court to vacate the orders of July 8 and September 20, 2005 in their entirety, and the case should be remanded to the trial court with an order requiring DFPS to immediately return Katie to the care and possession of her parents.

Respectfully submitted,


James A. Pikl
State Bar No. 16008850
P. O. Box 2939
McKinney, Texas 75070
(214) 544-7000
Fax (214) 544-7001



I hereby certify that on the 19th day of October 2005, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing RELATORS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS was served on the following by hand delivery, telefax, overnight courier, and/or certified mail, return receipt requested:

Linda J. Rhodes-Schauer
615 N. Upper Broadway, Suite 2200
Corpus Christi, Texas 78477-0017

Richard E. Salisbury
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2120

James A. Pikl


In re §
Edward Wernecke §
and § CAUSE NO. 05-0838
Michele Wernecke, §
Relators. §





Submitted by Relators


In re §
Edward Wernecke §
and § CAUSE NO. 05-0838
Michele Wernecke, §
Relators. §






BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared James A. Pikl, known to me to be the person whose signature appears below, and upon his oath deposed and stated as follows: “My name is James A. Pikl. I am attorney of record for Relators Edward and Michele Wernecke. The facts stated in this Verification are within my personal knowledge and are true and correct. Attached to this Verification are true and correct copies of the following documents:

Tab 1 Letter report and resume, Dr. Ronald E. Hunninghake, M.D.

Tab 2 Letter report and resume, Dr. W. M. Wassell, M.D.

Tab 3 Transcript of hearing in trial court, June 15 and 16, 2005
Tab 4 Transcript of hearing in trial court, September 19, 2005

Tab 5 Motion filed 9/19/05 in trial court (still pending)

Tab 6 Information from the National Cancer Institute’s website on clinical trials”

I also hereby affirm that the documents attached to Relators’ original Appendix are true and correct copies of what they are stated to be.

James A. Pikl

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO this 19th day of October 2005, to which witness my hand and seal of office.

Notary Public, State of Texas
[1] In re Willman, 24 Ohio App. 3d 191 (1986).
[2] In re Hamilton, 657 S.W.2d 425 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).
[3] Newmark v. Williams/DCPS, 588 A.2d 1108 (Del. 1991).
[4] Custody of a Minor, 379 N.E.2d 1053 (Mass. 1978).
[5] Matter of Joseph Hofbauer, 47 N.Y.2d 648, 393 N.E.2d 1009 (1979).
[6] In re Eric B., 189 Cal. App. 3d 996 (1987).
[7] Newmark, 588 A.2d at 1115.
[8] Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); Michael G.B. v. Angela L.B., 642 N.Y.S.2d 452, 454, 219 A.D. 289 (1996)(finding a mere “best interest” analysis inappropriate and requiring a finding of extraordinary circumstances and consideration of parental rights before the state can deprive a parent of their superior custody rights).
[9] The presumption that parents are the appropriate decision-makers for their children is deemed fundamental to our constitutional system of governance. Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 602, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979). This means that before the state can interfere in the exercise of that right, the state carries a heavy burden to prove the necessity of both the goal and the means of its interference. While a good argument could be made that the state must pass constitutional “strict scrutiny” analysis for every attempted interference with parental authority and rights, in cases involving medical care another, less-burdensome approach could be considered that takes into account the parents’ rights to make medical decisions while still respecting the authority of the state to intervene in truly-necessary circumstances. The “balancing test” proposed in this Brief—as opposed to the “ad hoc” test, or worse, a vague, constitutionally-suspect “best interests” standard alone—provides a principled, more-nuanced way to strike this balance.
[10] Bowen v. American Hosp. Ass’n, 476 U.S. 610, 106 S.Ct. 2101, 2113, n.13, 90 L.Ed. 2d 584 (1986). If the state takes over the responsibility for medical decision-making under the facts of this case, then all children will basically become wards of the state, contrary to settled jurisprudence that a child is not “a mere creature of the state.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000).
[11] Holly v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976). Admittedly, the Holly case did not concern medical decisions, but if anything, the needs and desires of the child should be more important, not less important, in a case like ours than in a case where two fit parents are merely fighting over which of them gets to be managing conservator (as in Holly). In both cases, the child’s future is being decided, but in a case like ours, the child’s very life is in the balance. Given the importance of the issue, the choices and decisions made by parents must also be given greater consideration—not lesser consideration—in cases like ours than in ordinary custody disputes.
[12] Newmark, 588 A.2d at 1115-1116, citing Goldstein, Medical Care for the Child at Risk: On State Supervision of Parental Autonomy, 86 Yale L.J. 645, 649 and nn. 13 & 14 (1977).
[13] See Texas Family Code, §161.001(1)(D)(“the parent-child relationship may be judicially terminated if the parent has knowingly place or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings that endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the child”)(emphasis added). It cannot be rationally disputed that removing a convalescing 13-year-old girl from the loving, nurturing environment of her family and indefinitely placing her in foster care 250 miles away, and then restricting her parents’ access and even their communications with her, is extremely harmful to her emotional well-being.
[14] Ironically, in Texas Katie is old enough to have an abortion without her parents’ consent. Texas Fam. Code §33.003(i) allows a minor to have an abortion if the court finds that she is mature enough to understand her options or if notification of her parents would not be in her “best interests” or may result in physical, emotional, or sexual abuse. In re Doe, 19 S.W.3d 346, 350 (Tex. 2000). Since Katie is old enough by statute to make a decision on the ultimate medical-care issue—to end another human life—it is incongruous to argue that she is somehow not old enough to make personal, medical-care decisions about how to treat her own cancer.
[15] That Katie has had doctors reporting to her the side effects of radiation treatments, see Reply Appendix, Tab 4, pp. 36-37. That Katie has repeatedly and vociferously objected to radiation treatment is undisputed, see Reply Appendix, Tab 3, p. 110. See also Reply Appendix Tab 5, the Motion to Modify Placement, filed by Katie’s attorney (which motion is still pending with the trial court), indicating Katie’s adamant refusal to undergo high-dosage chemotherapy and expressing her desires to be returned to her family.
[16] Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-43, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed.2d 1655 (1942)(the right to bear children is a protected, Constitutional right; forced sterilization is unconstitutional).
[17] Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 206, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) (discussing the basis for, and restrictions on, any application of parens patriae).
[18] Prince v Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed.2d 645 (1944)(discussing the concept of the police power and its application to parent/child relations).
[19] Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 110 S.Ct. 2841, 2853, 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990); Miller ex rel. Miller v. HCA, Inc., 118 S.W.3d 758, 766 (Tex. 2003)(necessary corollary to parents’ right to make medical decisions for children is the right to refuse medical treatment as well).
[20] If a court cannot interfere in parental decision-making simply because the judge believes he could make a “better” decision than parents, how much shorter shrift should we give to such a decision made by a government social worker? Prince v. Massachusetts, supra.
[21] Newmark v. Williams/DCPS, 588 A.2d 1108 (Del. 1991).
[22] Newmark, 588 A.2d at 1115.
[23] The testimony of what is considered “success” by the medical community in these situations is stranger than strange: a probability that the patient will “remain alive” for two years after treatment without a recurrence of cancer. Newmark, 588 A.2d at 1119, n. 12. This makes it seem like doctors are choosing how to define “success” based not on genuine recovery from the illness, but based on surviving only a brief time following treatment—treatment that causes debilitating and horrendous side effects that will reside with the patient for the duration of his or her life. Even stranger, if chemotherapy destroys a patient’s immune system and the patient then dies of pneumonia, this is not considered a “failure” of the treatment since, technically, the patient did not die from a recurrence of cancer. This definition would not be considered “success” in any other field of endeavor known to man. It is akin to saying that bad welding on the space shuttle re-entry tiles did not cause the Columbia disaster, it was instead caused by the invasion of super-heated gases into the shuttle upon re-entry when the tiles broke off. Why such an anemic definition of “success” suffices for the medical profession is unknown, but is probably due to the fact that this is the best it can do with such horrendously dangerous and ineffective treatments. This Court should not be mislead by pleasant-sounding words like “success” when doctors are playing fast and loose with semantics solely to make their recommended treatments sound more appealing and effective than they really are.
[24] Id.
[25] Id. at 1117.
[26] Id. at 1115.
[27] Id. at 1117; Cruzan, 497 U.S. at 270. See also In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4, 10 (Fla. 1990), holding that incompetent persons have the same rights to refuse treatment as competent persons, and the decision to refuse treatment may be made by the patient’s family members such as parents. It is incongruous to hold that a parent of a vegetative adult child should be allowed to decide to reject life-saving medical treatment for that child, but that the same parent should not be allowed to make identical medical decisions for a minor child. When discussing the surrogate’s obligation to make decisions that the patient would make, the court in Browning said: “One does not exercise another’s right to self-determination or fulfill that person’s right to privacy by making a decision which the state, the family, or public opinion would prefer. The surrogate decisionmaker must be confident that he or she can and is voicing the patient’s decision” (emphasis in original). There is no rational difference between the situation in Browning and our present case.
Here, the Werneckes are making (or trying to make) medical decisions for a legally-incapacitated person, their minor daughter Katie, which they believe are in Katie’s best interests and which Katie would choose for herself if she could. Indeed, their decision about treatment is backed up by Katie’s own repeated refusals to agree to have the proposed treatments. How much better evidence is there that a parent/surrogate is making the correct decision for a patient than to have that decision expressly agreed with by the patient herself? In a manner of speaking, Katie’s own statements about not wanting the treatments are a form of “living will.”
[28] Newmark, 588 A.2d at 1118.
[29] Technically, Katie’s proposed treatment is not a true “transplant” because the stem cells proposed for use are from her own blood stream rather than from someone else; this procedure is called a “autologous transplant” or an “autograph.” See Stemcellbonemarrowtransplants
/GeneralInformation. Possible side effects of this treatment include development of infections, uncontrolled bleeding, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, loss of appetite, mouth sores, hair loss, skin reactions, sterility, cataracts, cancer, damage to liver, lungs and/or heart, and—of course—death. Id. And these side effects are in addition to the side effects from the high-dosage chemotherapy and radiation treatments being proposed.
See and
/HealthProfessional (the National Cancer Institute’s websites). The latter website says: “The 10-year overall survival rate in this study [patients having stem cell transplants] was 48%. Salvage rates [read: chances of staying alive for 2 years without a relapse] for patients who remained refractory to pretransplant chemotherapy and LD-IFRT are approximately 30% to 50%.” Katie falls in this category.
[30] Newmark, 588 A.2d at 1119.
[31] On Thursday, October 13, 2005, trial court Judge Carl E. Lewis recused himself from further participation in this case. The administrative judge of the region has recently appointed a replacement judge, the Hon. Joaquin Villareal, to take over the case.
[32] Copies of these medical opinions are attached in the Reply Appendix at Tabs 1 and 2. See also references cited at footnote 35 in the Petition, page 19.
[33] Matter of Hofbauer, 47 N.Y.2d 648, 419 N.Y.S.2d 936, 393 N.E.2d 1009 (1979).
[34] Hofbauer, 47 N.Y.2d at 652.
[35] A copy of this hearing transcript, only recently obtained by counsel from the court reporter on October 18, 2005, is found in the Reply Appendix at Tab 3.
[36] For instance, even though the record of the June 15 and 16, 2005 hearing was ordered earlier in the case, and ordered again in mid-September 2005, the court reporter was unable to produce that transcript until October 18, 2005. A copy is now available, and is being submitted herewith at Reply Appendix, Tab 3. This should take care of the state’s claim that this Court cannot review what happened below for lack of the transcript. We also attach the transcript of the September 19, 2005 transcript to the Appendix for purposes of showing that the state’s characterization of that hearing as giving the Werneckes “a last chance to cooperate” in Katie’s treatment is totally inaccurate. See Reply Appendix, Tab 4.
[37] It has recently come to the Werneckes’ attention that the treatment regimen the State is presently forcing Katie to undergo is entirely “experimental” in nature. This fact was never explained to the Werneckes. In fact, the prescribed treatments were always referred to as “necessary” and the “only course of treatment available.” Actually, the treatment is part of a Stage II clinical trial program called the “Phase II Pilot Study of Reinduction Chemotherapy With Ifsofamide and Vinorelbine in Children With Refractory or Relapsed Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.” It is not a proven-effective course of treatment for the treatment of Hodgkin’s disease. Therefore, the state has incorrectly framed the issue for decision as involving a proven treatment (the state’s) versus an experimental treatment (the Werneckes’). If the truth be told, it is one experimental treatment versus another experimental treatment. The fact that the State got a leg up on the Werneckes by getting doctors to “approve” its regimen before the Werneckes were able to line up their own doctors does not make the State’s regimen any less experimental in nature—or any more “correct.” See A copy of this information is provided for the Court’s ease of reference at Reply Appendix, Tab 6.
[38] See Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 1 (liberal construction required).
[39] Dr. Hunninghake is mistakenly referred to as “Dr. Hunningbake” in the State’s Response.
[40] “Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall.”
[41] See In re McCoy, 52 S.W.3d 297, 301 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2001, orig. proc.).
[42] See Reply Appendix, Tab 4, p. 13.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005


“Promoting, Protecting and Preserving the Texas Family”
2205 Ave. I; Suite 121 Telephone: 281-344-8878
Rosenberg, Texas 77471
Fax: 281-633-8816



Judge Carl E. Lewis of County Court at Law #5 in Nueces County has recused himself in the Katie Wernecke case in Texas. In June of this year Judge Lewis issued orders to remove Katie from her parents and place her in the custody of CPS because of a disagreement Katie’s parents had with a doctor over the type of cancer treatment she should receive.

Peter Johnston, President of Texas Center for Family Rights commends Judge Lewis for making the right decision but questions his motive. According to an article in the Corpus Christi Caller-Times , Lewis wrote, “In light of the substantial attention given this case by the [Texas] Supreme Court, I believe my continued participation would create a distraction of no benefit to the parents or the best interest of the child.”

His action follows on the heals of a decision by the Texas Supreme Court last week to modify orders to allow Katie’s parents to visit her. An order by Judge Lewis on September 20th forbad any contact of Katie’s father with her and permitted contact between the mom and Katie ONLY if the mom would encourage her to go ahead with chemotherapy and radiation.

The Texas Supreme Court ruled on a motion filed on September 23rd by James Pikl, attorney for Katie’s parents to void Judge Lewis’s order. The attorney’s motion also requested for the judge to recuse himself.

Pikl filed the motion for the judge to step down based upon a violation of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct (TCJC) by Lewis when he independently visited Katie and interviewed doctors in Houston on or about September 15th without counsel for the parents present.

Additionally CPS apparently independently visited Judge Lewis in a Corpus Christi hospital to obtain his signature on the orders forbidding contact with the parents. Judge Lewis temporarily adjourned a hearing regarding Katie on September 19th because he was not feeling well. Subsequently he was admitted to the hospital and underwent open heart surgery within twenty-four hours. Sometime between the adjournment and the following day CPS obtained his signature on those orders.

Canon 3 of the TCJC forbids this type of personal contact with a party or witness to a suit without the presence of other parties because it calls into question the impartiality of judges.

Peter Johnston questions the judge’s stated motive for recusal, commenting “What about his violation of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct? Is that not reason enough? Would he have considered his actions proper if it weren’t for the publicity of the Texas Supreme Court?”

“According to the canon if another person could reasonably question the judge’s impartiality based on all the circumstance the judge must step down. It should have nothing to do with publicity related to the Supreme Court.”