Rachel Foundation Lawsuit




PAMELA HOCH FILES BANKRUPTCY

DR. JACK FERRELL ARRESTED. 

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT BEING FILED. ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS.


**********

Recent Updates


Spring 2010: Pam Hoch and the Rachel Foundation are bankrupt. Dr. Ferrell's license has been sanctioned. The Carr children reside fully with Plaintiff Stephanie Carr. Plaintiff Carr has prevailed on every issue she filed on in court. The court has rejected every recommendation made by Pam Hoch and the Rachel Foundation. Plaintiff Carr having prevailed on all issues, she has dismissed the case as of May, 2010.
 

After a detailed court evaluation and order, children of the plaintiff Carr (mother) now continue to reside fully with plaintiff.  All recommendations of Pam Hoch and the Rachel "Foundation" have been rejected. Futile attempts by Pam Hoch to have the mother jailed for "interference" were rejected outright by the court and have created new damages claims against the Rachel Foundation.  -- Fall of 2008

After a six month court evaluation, discovery continuing. Complaints filed with Mental Health Boards. August, 2008

Pam Hoch deposed under oath April 10, 2007.

Pam Hoch disconnects all fax lines etc. from her trailer (where she also runs the "Foundation") and claims she is moving. April 3, 2007


Pam Hoch's pro-bono (free) lawyer asks court to withdraw from her case--no longer wants to represent her. April 2, 2007


**********




NO. 2005-CI-09113

STEPHANIE CARR,                            IN THE DISTRICT COURT

               Plaintiff                                                        

V.                                                                                           
                  
DR. JACK FERRELL, ROBERT              225th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
HOCH, PAMELA STUART-MILLS                                                  
 HOCH AND THE RACHEL                                                              
  FOUNDATION,                                                                               

                       Defendants                     BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

                         


Original Petition

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

COMES NOW Stephanie Carr, ("Plaintiff" or "Ms. Carr"), and complains of Dr. Jack Ferrell, Robert Hoch, Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch, and the Rachel Foundation, Defendants, and for cause of action shows:

Discovery Control Plan

1. Plaintiff requests that discovery be conducted pursuant to Level 2 of Rule 190.3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Parties

2. Plaintiff, Stephanie Carr, is an individual residing in New Jersey.

3. Defendant, Dr. Jack Ferrell, an individual, may be served at his usual place of abode, 14310 Northbrook Dr., San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas 78232.

4. Defendant, Robert Hoch, an individual, may be served at his usual place of abode, 3021 Klein Branch Rd, Harper, Bexar County, Texas 78631.

5. Defendant, Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch, an individual, may be served at her usual place of abode, 3021 Klein Branch Rd, Harper, Gillespie County, Texas 78631.

6. Defendant, the Rachel Foundation, a Maryland non-profit corporation, whose registered office is 3021 Klein Branch Rd, Harper, Gillespie County, Texas 78631, may be served with process by serving its director, Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch, at 3021 Klein Branch Rd, Harper, Gillespie County, Texas 78631.

Jurisdiction

7. This Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding because the claims arise from Defendants’ negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy. The amount for which Plaintiff sues in this case exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.

Venue

8. Venue is proper in Bexar County, Texas under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 15.001 et seq. Venue is proper against Dr. Jack Ferrell because Dr. Jack Ferrell lives and works in Bexar County. Venue is proper against the Rachel Foundation because the Rachel Foundation enlisted the services of Dr. Jack Ferrell and brought the Children, who were under the Rachel Foundation’s care and control, to Dr. Jack Ferrell’s office in Bexar County for "treatment". Venue is proper against Robert Hoch and Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch because Robert Hoch and Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch, natural persons, are both the directors and employees of the Rachel Foundation and personally brought the Children to Dr. Jack Ferrell’s office in Bexar County for "treatment".

Factual Background

9. Plaintiff and her ex-husband, Alan Carr ("Mr. Carr"), were divorced on March 8, 2005 in New Jersey. Plaintiff and Mr. Carr are the parents of two minor children (the "Children").

10. The Carr family was ordered to undergo therapy with Dr. Barry Bricklin and Dr. Gail Elliot. In October of 2004, at the behest of Dr. Bricklin and Dr. Elliot, the Court ordered Mr. Carr and the Children to participate in a family "reunification" program at the Rachel Foundation in Harper, Gillespie County, Texas.

11. To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, the Rachel Foundation is not a licensed medical facility or child care facility and the Rachel Foundation does not appear to fall under the regulatory umbrella of any Texas agency.

12. Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch and Robert Hoch are the directors and employees of the Rachel Foundation. To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, neither Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch nor Robert Hoch is a licensed health care provider in the State of Texas.

13. The Children resided at the Rachel Foundation from approximately November 17, 2004 through December 17, 2004. During this month-long stay, the Rachel Foundation enlisted the services of Dr. Jack Ferrell to propagate the Children’s "reunification" with Mr. Carr.

14. Dr. Jack Ferrell is a licensed psychologist in the State of Texas. Between August 19, 2003 and April 21, 2004, Dr. Jack Ferrell was cited for two criminal DWIs and was involved in a third alcohol related incident (See Exhibits A-C). Currently, Dr. Jack Ferrell’s methodologies and ethical practices, and the status of his license, are under review and investigation by the State Board of Examiners of Psychologists.

15. During their stay at the Rachel Foundation, the Children were mentally and emotionally abused by Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch, Robert Hoch and Dr. Jack Ferrell.

16 The Children were also threatened on more than one occasion. (See Exhibits D-F). Specifically, the Children were told that they would not be able to leave Texas nor would they be able to see their mother unless they cooperated with the Rachel Foundation’s "reunification" program.

17. While at the Rachel Foundation, one of the Children was attacked and bitten by Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch’s and Robert Hoch’s dog. It appears that the dog has subsequently died or been destroyed.

18. The Rachel Foundation, Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch, Robert Hoch and Dr. Jack Ferrell applied numerous circumspect methodologies in their evaluation and "treatment" of the Children and have used their influence to purposefully harm Plaintiff, acting outside the scope of any implicit or explicit permission granted Defendants by Plaintiff or any court or other agency.

19. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, Plaintiff has suffered considerable emotional distress.

Causes of Action

Count One - Negligence

20. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 19 and all subsequent paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth below.

21. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Defendants were engaged in performing services for Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s children, under the laws of the Sate of Texas.

22. Defendants had a duty to exercise ordinary care and perform these services reasonably and prudently. Defendants breached that duty by failing to use ordinary care in the treatment of Plaintiff’s children, possibly working with them while under the influence, failing to have meetings, coercing and threatening the children, providing them with no reasonable safeguards and acting outside the scope of any implicit or explicit permission granted Defendants by Plaintiff or any court or other agency.

23. Such actions, among others, caused damage to Plaintiff. Defendants’ negligence was a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages.

Count Two – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

24. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 23 and all subsequent paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth below.

25. Defendants’ knowing or reckless conduct constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants’ conduct was the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s emotional distress that no reasonable person could expect to endure. Further a reasonable person would likely suffer severe emotional distress as a result of Defendants’ conduct.

26. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered damages exceeding the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

Count Three – Conspiracy

27. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 26 and all subsequent paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth below.

Dr Jack Ferrell, Robert Hoch, and Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch, on behalf of the Rachel Foundation, acted together in the propagation of the Rachel foundation’s "reunification" program.

28. Dr Jack Ferrell, Robert Hoch, and Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch, on behalf of the Rachel Foundation, had a meeting of the minds on the methodologies to be used in the propagation of the Rachel Foundation’s "reunification" program. These methodologies involved mental and emotional abuse as well as threats and intimidation.

29. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered damages exceeding the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

Damages

30. As a proximate and producing cause of Defendants’ negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy, Plaintiff suffered actual and economic damages, including, but not limited to, "medical" expenses, therapy, costs of court, and various out-of-pocket expenses. Plaintiff seeks unliquidated damages in an amount "not less than" that which will make Plaintiff whole or in an amount not less than the minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court.

31. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover pre- and post-judgment interest, at the statutory rate or at such other rate as is set by this Court.

Attorneys Fees

32. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable and necessary attorney fees under both Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and Texas Business & Commerce Code section 17.50(d).

Prayer

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff hereby requests that Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon final hearing or trial of this case, Ms. Carr recover judgment against Defendants for:

1. All actual, exemplary and treble damages;

2. Plaintiff’s costs including reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses, as well as costs of court and other costs of collection, through entry of judgment and for any appeals;

3. Pre- and Post-judgment interest on all such amounts from the date of judgment until paid at the maximum rate allowed by law; and

4. Such other and further relief, general or special, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff may show herself justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

Robyn L. Strelitz
State Bar Number: 24028020
Matthew J. Meese
State Bar Number: 24026874
100 Congress Ave., Ste. 700
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: (512) 651-0295
Fax: (512) 482-0526
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
STEPHANIE CARR









Your Feedback:

 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

First Name
Last Name
E-mail Address
Comments