El Paso CPS Case Dismissed After Court Rejects Emergency Removal Involving DFPS Caseworker Aubony Karina Hooper
EL PASO, TEXAS — An El Paso County judge denied the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services’ (DFPS) request for emergency custody, dismissed the case, and ordered children returned immediately to their mother, Sara Martinez, after reviewing a §262 removal the court determined should not have been granted.
Court records show DFPS was discharged as Emergency Temporary Managing Conservator and ordered to return the children without services or findings of abuse. The order names Aubony Karina Hooper as the DFPS caseworker and Linda Rivas as DFPS counsel.
But what happened before the judge intervened is what has deeply alarmed parents across El Paso County.
The Court’s Decision: DFPS Denied, Case Dismissed, Children Returned
In Cause No. 2024DCM1247 (65th Judicial District Court, El Paso County), the court issued an Order Denying Request for Temporary Orders under Texas Family Code §262.201 on April 3, 2024.
The order states:
DFPS’s request for temporary orders was DENIED
The case was DISMISSED
DFPS was discharged as Emergency Temporary Managing Conservator
DFPS was ORDERED TO RETURN THE CHILDREN to Sara Martinez
No services were ordered.
No findings of abuse were made.
The case was closed.
Emergency removals under §262 are reserved for immediate danger. When a court rejects one outright and orders reunification, it signals that the legal threshold was not met.
Individuals Identified in Court Records and Testimony
Based on court documents and Sara Martinez’s recorded testimony, the following DFPS personnel were involved at various stages of the case:
Aubony Karina Hooper — DFPS caseworker listed in the §262 denial order
Linda Rivas — DFPS attorney listed in the court order
Amanda Martinez — CPS caseworker identified by Sara Martinez
Joanna Ortega — CPS caseworker referenced during the removal period
John Davis — CPS caseworker named in communications and testimony
These individuals are named because they acted in official capacities and are referenced in public records and sworn testimony.
“I Was Told My Girls Were Gone”
Sara Martinez says the most devastating moment came without warning.
“I was told that my girls were gone.”
She says her two teenage daughters were picked up from school and placed on a plane out of town without her knowledge or consent. According to Martinez, she learned about the flight from a friend — not from CPS.
For days, she says, she could not get straight answers about where her children were, why they had been transported, or what she was required to do to get them back.
Refusal of Consent — and Alleged Disregard
While incarcerated on a charge that was later dismissed, Martinez says she clearly and repeatedly refused permission for CPS to interview her children.
She testified that CPS spoke to them anyway.
Under Texas law, parental refusal of consent is not optional or procedural — it is a constitutional boundary. Martinez alleges that boundary was ignored.
What Happened Next Resembles Grooming Patterns
What followed is one of the most disturbing aspects of Martinez’s testimony.
She alleges that while her daughters were separated from her, CPS personnel:
Took them out to restaurants
Took them shopping
Bought them expensive items, including shoes (“Jordans”)
Placed them in a large home away from their community
Conducted interviews while providing gifts, privileges, and special treatment
Martinez says her daughters later described the experience as “fun” at first — until they realized they were being flown away and not told when or if they would return home.
Experts in child exploitation and coercive control note that isolating minors from a parent, building trust through rewards, and eliciting statements while controlling environment and access are classic grooming dynamics.
This article does not accuse CPS workers of criminal trafficking.
But the patterns described by Martinez mirror grooming and coercive influence tactics — carried out under the authority of the state.
Transported Out of Area Without Notice
Martinez lives in a border city. She testified that her daughters were transported out of El Paso County and placed in Loretto, Texas.
She was not informed beforehand.
She was not provided travel details.
She was not given reunification instructions.
At the same time, she says CPS delayed disclosing their location and failed to clearly document where the girls were for days.
For any parent, this raises a chilling question:
If a government agency can remove children, transport them out of area, restrict parental contact, and control the narrative — how is that meaningfully different from kidnapping?
March 1 Hearing: Initial Rejection and Refiling
Martinez testified that at a March 1 hearing, the court rejected the emergency action due to:
Defective affidavits
Insufficient evidence
Procedural failures
Multiple caseworkers with inconsistent accounts
Despite this, she alleges CPS stalled reunification and refiled, offering shifting explanations about travel, costs, and logistics.
Seven Hours in Court: The Case Collapses
At the final hearing on April 2, Martinez testified for hours.
She says she documented contradictions between reports, testimony, and CPS policy. She challenged interviews conducted after refusal of consent and questioned why CPS escalated rather than reunified.
She recalls a moment when the judge questioned why the children were interviewed after consent was denied — and a caseworker allegedly replied that it “didn’t really matter.”
The court disagreed.
After hours of testimony, the judge asked:
“How fast can you go pick up your girls?”
The next day, her daughters were flown home.
What the Court Record Confirms
While many details come from Martinez’s testimony, the court record confirms:
The emergency removal should not have occurred
DFPS failed to meet the legal threshold
The case was dismissed
The children were ordered returned immediately
The order names Aubony Karina Hooper and Linda Rivas among DFPS personnel involved.
Why This Case Terrifies Parents
This case is not alarming because CPS intervened.
It is alarming because of how it intervened — and how the court ultimately rejected that intervention.
Parents reading this are asking:
How often are children interviewed after consent is denied?
How often are kids transported without clear notice?
How often are incentives used to influence statements?
How many parents never make it to a judge willing to stop it?
“This Felt Like Human Trafficking”
Martinez says she uses those words deliberately.
Her children were removed.
They were transported.
They were isolated.
They were influenced.
And the case collapsed when examined.
Her children came home. Many do not.
Sources and Documents Referenced
Order Denying Request for Temporary Orders under Texas Family Code §262.201 (El Paso County, Cause No. 2024DCM1247)
Order Granting Agreed Motion to Dismiss (Cause No. 2024DCM1248)
Order in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (Cause No. 2024DCM1248)
Recorded interview with Sara Martinez, Father’s Advocacy Network
