Factual Timeline — Intersecting Proceedings Involving Trinity, Velda, and Travis

This timeline presents a neutral sequence of observable events and procedural outcomes. It does not assert motive, intent, or conclusions. It identifies who acted, in what capacity, and what occurred at each stage so the reader may independently evaluate the record.

1. Juvenile Representation — Lawrence County (JUV 08-97)

• Attorney Karen Paige Hunt served as legal counsel for Trinity in juvenile proceedings in Lawrence County (Case JUV 08-97).
• At this stage, Karen Hunt’s professional role was limited to representation of Trinity as a juvenile client.

This establishes the initial attorney–client relationship between Karen Hunt and Trinity.

2. Post-Release Events — Protection Order Filing

• Following Dean Snow’s release from incarceration, Karen Paige Hunt assisted Robin in filing a protection order.
• The petition named both Robin and Trinity as petitioners.
• Trinity expressly informed Karen Hunt that she did not want the protection order.
• Despite Trinity’s stated position, Karen Hunt continued to appear as counsel for both Robin and Trinity.

At this point, one attorney represented two petitioners with differing stated positions, one of whom was a minor.

3. Court Proceedings — Conflict Raised

• During the protection-order hearing, the court was informed that:
• Trinity did not want the protection order.
• Trinity did not allege fear of her father.
• The court permitted Karen Paige Hunt to continue representing both Robin and Trinity.

4. Trinity’s Testimony and Objection

• Trinity testified under oath that she was not afraid of her father.
• Trinity began testifying about alleged abuse by her grandfather, Andrew.
• Karen Paige Hunt objected to Trinity’s testimony at that point.
• The court sustained the objection, preventing Trinity from continuing that testimony.

5. Judicial Statements Following the Ruling

• Following the ruling, the judge advised Trinity to stay away from her father.
• This occurred despite:
• Trinity’s testimony denying fear, and
• No finding that Dean Snow posed a danger to Trinity.

The statement was made in the context of a granted protection order favoring Robin.

6. Subsequent Detention and Use of the Protection Order

• Dean Snow was later detained using the protection order as the legal basis.
• During this period:
• Velda became involved in related events.
• 911 audio recordings were generated documenting incidents during this timeframe.
• Velda became a state witness.

7. Actions Involving Velda During the Same Period

• While Velda was cooperating with authorities, Karen Paige Hunt filed paperwork seeking Velda’s commitment.
• Shortly thereafter:
• Travis was removed from Velda’s care.
• Medical records were created documenting Velda’s condition during this period.

8. Marriage, Trauma, and Deterioration

• Dean Snow and Velda later entered into a marital relationship.
• Following Travis’s removal:
• Velda experienced significant psychological distress.
• The trauma related to Travis’s removal became a factor in later proceedings.

9. Denial of Mental Health Services Prior to Termination

• Dean Snow formally petitioned the court for mental-health treatment for Velda.
• The petition was denied.
• As a result:
• Velda did not receive court-ordered mental-health services prior to termination proceedings.
• Medical records documented an inability to meaningfully understand the proceedings or assist counsel.

10. Cumulative Procedural Context (Without Conclusions)

Across these proceedings:

• The same attorney appeared in sequential roles involving Trinity, Robin, and Velda.
• Testimony adverse to Robin was halted during Trinity’s hearing.
• Protective outcomes were achieved despite the named child’s denial of fear.
• Mental-health services required by statute were not provided prior to termination.

Each event is documented by court filings, transcripts, 911 audio, and medical records.

Why This Timeline Matters

This timeline does not explain why these events occurred. It shows how decisions in one proceeding intersected with others, how roles overlapped, and how procedural outcomes accumulated over time. A reviewer may independently assess whether representation remained aligned with client interests, whether testimony was fully heard, and whether statutory safeguards were honored.