Lovejoy ISD Attempts to Frame Parent
frame - to incriminate (an innocent person) through the use of false evidence, information, etc.
coercion - the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will


Laura Goodson is a parent in Lovejoy ISD whose child is dyslexic.
She has advocated for her child to get required services she is legally entitled to, so her child can learn to read and write on grade level. Ms. Goodson has also fought against Lovejoy ISD's Pre-AP for All curriculum, which discriminates against children who require a regular class track.

Ms. Goodson, (as have many other parents), followed the proper channels in her requests for help for her child and appropriate classes and was turned down by Lovejoy ISD. She then filed a complaint with the Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights.

Ms. Goodson also filed a public information request with McKinney ISD concerning Lovejoy ISD Asst. Superintendent, Mr. Muizers, alleged misappropriation of funds in the McKinney ISD district.

McKinney ISD's attorney, which is also Lovejoy ISD's attorney sent the public information request to the Attorney General in an attempt to keep the public information out of the public eye.


Ms. Goodson attended a Lovejoy Open House and spoke with a Lovejoy ISD teacher, Ms. Hendrix about transferring her child into her class.

Shortly after Open House, March 11th, 2008, the teacher, Ms Hendrix was called into an administrator's office concerning the conversation she had with Ms. Goodson.
Ms. Hendrix did not implicate Ms. Goodson in making defamatory statements about Mr. Moore, as claimed by Lovejoy ISD's attorney, Mari McGowen. Ms. Hendrix was put on leave and banned from campus and eventually terminated.
Below is Ms. Hendrix's written statement about her conversation with Ms. Goodson at Open House March 11th and with another teacher, Tonya Vaughn, on March 24th, 2008.
Hendrix Statement

Hendrix's statement matches what Lovejoy ISD "investigator" submitted as interview notes. (below)

Hendrix Meeting Notes

Ms. Hendrix clearly states in her interview with Tonya Vining (Mr. Moore's direct employee) on March 26th and again in her statement April 4, 2008 that no one had ever mentioned anything about allegations about Mr. Moore. Ms. Hendrix's statement clearly states that Ms Goodson never mentioned Mr. Moore or ANY defamatory comments concerning the Lovejoy ISD superintendent.


On April 10th, 2008, OVER TWO WEEKS after Ms Hendrix's interview and six days after Lovejoy ISD has her written statement, Ms Goodson was in a meeting concerning her daughter with 504 modifications. Gavan Goodrich, the middle school principal excused himself from the room and returned with a surprise visitor, Mari McGowen, Lovejoy ISD attorney with Abernathy, Roeder, Boyd, and Joplin.

Lovejoy ISD's representative, directed by the Lovejoy School Board, ambushed an unsuspecting parent advocating for her child. It appears the purpose of this meeting is to intimidate and incriminate, not investigate. Lovejoy ISD used the tactic of surprise and the threat of legal action, plus the humiliation of being banned from campus on charges that were documented to be false.

In Ms. McGowen's opening remarks she falsely accused Ms Goodson of defaming the superintendent.
Lovejoy ISD had in their possession a written statement dated April 4th, 2008 which DENIED any claim that the defamatory remarks were made and specifically denied that Ms Goodson made them, yet Lovejoy ISD coerces, attempts to frame Ms. Goodson, and bans her from campus. In addition, Lovejoy ISD had the March 26th interview notes which also deny that Ms. Goodson said anything about Mr. Moore.

Actual Lovejoy ISD Attorney/ Parent - Goodson Tape:
Listen here
(The complete tape transcript can be obtained from Lovejoy ISD)
Twice Lovejoy ISD's representative tells Ms. Goodson that a teacher, Ms. Hendrix, told Lovejoy ISD that Ms Goodson had made a defamatory statement about Mr. Moore, Lovejoy ISD superintendent.

Tape excerpt:
Ms. McGowen,
Lovejoy ISD Attorney (MM): We have, we being the district, have received an allegation that you, at Open House relayed to a teacher specific allegations that were defamatory about the superintendent. Specifically, you allegedly stated that he had sexually abused both his children and his grandchildren. Naturally I am involved on the school district's behalf, which would be the Board of Trustees .......

Ms. Goodson, Lovejoy ISD Parent (LG): Who did I say this to?
MM-Lovejoy ISD: A teacher.
MM-Lovejoy ISD: are being cited as the source. The person who you allegedly said this to would be a Ms Hendrix, a Ms Laura Hendrix and she relayed it to another teacher

LG-Parent: I did not talk to her about anything like that.
LG-Parent: She said that I told her that?
MM-Lovejoy ISD: That's correct.

Ms Goodson, in disbelief, for the third time asks Mari McGowen to confirm that Ms Hendrix said Ms Goodson made defamatory remarks about Mr. Moore . Lovejoy ISD's representation once again knowingly falsely states that Ms Hendrix did accuse her of making the defamatory statement.

Listen here

LG-Parent: Ms. Hendrix said that I said this to her at Open House?
MM-Lovejoy ISD: That's correct.

It appears based on Lovejoy's own interview notes, and Lovejoy's teacher's written statement which deny that Ms Goodson made defamatory statements about the superintendent, that Lovejoy ISD attempted to frame a parent who is trying to hold Lovejoy ISD accountable financially and academically.

American Legal Ethics Library
Model Rule 4.1
, "Truthfulness in Statements to Others," provides that, in the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly "(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6," the Model Rule on "Confidentiality of Information." Texas Rule 4.01, bearing the same name as Model Rule 4.1, is also comprised of two paragraphs. The text of Texas Rule 4.01's paragraph (a) is the same as paragraph (a) of Model Rule 4.1. Paragraph (b) of Texas Rule 4.01 provides that, in the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not "fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid making the lawyer a party to a criminal act or knowingly assisting a fraudulent act perpetrated by a client."
4.1:102      Model Code Comparison
DR 7-102(A)(5) provides that a lawyer shall not "knowingly make a false statement of law or fact" in his representation of a client. DR 7-102(A)(3) says that a lawyer shall not "conceal or knowingly fail to disclose that which he is required by law to reveal."


Ms. Goodson is further punished and humiliated by being banned from campus on April 10th, 2008.

Banned Letter

In addition to Lovejoy ISD, Mr. Moore as well accuses Ms Goodson of making defamatory statements even though his employee "investigator" finds no evidence of such and later clears Ms. Goodson.
Mr. Moore threatens to sue Ms. Goodson.

Moore Threatens Parent

The Lovejoy ISD "investigator", Tonya Vining, Executive Director of Personnel & Academic Services, reports directly to Mr. Moore. Ms. Vining did not interview the family member who was the source of the allegations. Instead she investigated a parent and teacher based on an alleged statement that "it's going to hit the fan at the admin building".

It is common practice for school districts, as in McKinney ISD/Muizers case, to put administration under investigation on paid leave so the investigation will proceed unimpeded and without interference. Mr. Moore was not put on leave and remained on campus during the investigation, which should have included Mr. Moore as well as the teacher.

No one on the Lovejoy ISD School Board or administration called for an independent outside investigation.

Mr. Moore stated in a public meeting that he had never "banned" a parent from campus. Apparently Ms. Goodson, Mr. Moore's staff, and the general public interpreted his actions differently. (see email below)



Ms. Goodson obtained legal counsel in self-defense.
Ms Goodson is cleared of making defamatory statements.
Ms Goodson has yet to receive an apology, public or private from Lovejoy ISD.

Goodson cleared


Lovejoy ISD refused to give Ms Goodson, the statement from Ms Hendrix that allegedly stated she defamed Mr. Moore. Lovejoy ISD did everything in their power to ensure that Ms. Goodson did not get to see Ms. Hendrix statement used to ban her from campus. Lovejoy ISD's attorney told Ms Goodson that she had to file a public information request to see the charges made against her! Lovejoy ISD must legally respond to any public information request within 10 days. Lovejoy ISD waited until the 10th day to ask for clarification of the request. Ms. Goodson clarified the request.

Lovejoy ISD responded that the public information request for the statement used to ban Ms. Goodson would cost her $871.

Someone posted on the forum and offered to pay for it.

Immediately afterwards, Lovejoy ISD, sent Ms Goodson a letter saying that the request had been sent to the Attorney General's office for an opinion.



Ms. Hendrix was wrongfully terminated. Thankfully, she stood up to this bullying administration and hired legal counsel.

The day before formal depositions, "practice" depositions took place.
Suddenly, Lovejoy ISD decided to settle with the teacher and gave her the maximum settlement that she could have won in a wrongful termination lawsuit.

9. Consideration and Possible Action to Approve the Settlement Agreement
and Release with Ms. Laura Hendrix
The Board of Trustees unanimously approved the Settlement Agreement and
Release with Ms. Laura Hendrix
10. Consideration and Possible Action to Revoke the Notice of Proposed
Termination of Ms. Laura Hendrix
The Board of Trustees unanimously revoked the Notice of Proposed
Termination of Ms. Laura Hendrix.

Ms. Hendrix was finally vindicated, as well as Ms. Goodson.
No public apology has ever been issued by Lovejoy ISD.


Once it was learned that a Lovejoy ISD teacher was fired a Lovejoy ISD resident contacted the TEA to get an independent outside investigation. (June 17th, 2008)

Consideration and Possible Action to Approve the Recommendation of the
Superintendent, as Presented, to Send Notice of Proposed Termination of a Term
Contract Teacher
The Board of Trustees approved the recommendation made by the Superintendent to send
notice of termination to a term contract teacher

Ted Moore and the Lovejoy School Board were outraged that they were going to be subject to an unbiased investigation by the TEA. They called a secret meeting and invited only 75 Lovejoy ISD residents.

Mr. Moore stated at the secret meeting with community leaders July 16th, that a group of five women were intent on destroying Lovejoy ISD. Ms Goodson was referenced as being part of the five even after Ms. Goodson was cleared by Lovejoy ISD. Mr. Moore admonished these citizens for advocating for children in the district and attempting to hold Lovejoy ISD accountable.

The Lovejoy ISD School Board rewarded Mr. Moore by giving him a raise and nominating him for Superintendent of the Year.

Lovejoy ISD School Board voted to pay legal representation to defend the superintendent and Mr. Muizers against a TEA investigation into their activities, even though the activities occurred BEFORE these men were employed by Lovejoy ISD. The TEA administratively closed the investigation. A public information request for TEA investigation has been filed, but not received as of this date.

Mr. Moore wrongfully accused a teacher and parent who have been cleared and Lovejoy ISD had to pay a settlement due to Mr. Moore's actions.

Why is Mr. Moore still employed at Lovejoy ISD?

As of this date, Nov. 13, 2008, Mr. Moore, Lovejoy ISD superintendent continues to harass residents, threatening to sue them.


Did Mr. Moore threaten Ms. Goodson because he thought she was "always complaining and difficult because she was unhappy with the all pre-AP program"?
Is Mr. Moore concerned about bad press for his "Pre-AP for All" curriculum? Is Mr. Moore planning on selling this curriculum or getting consulting work from this curriculum?

Or was Lovejoy ISD and Mr. Moore attempting to frame Ms. Goodson because she had uncovered "alleged misappropriation of funds" in McKinney ISD from Mr. Muizers to Mr. Moore's stepson, Mr. Slavin? Mr. Muizers is Mr. Moore's partner in the "Pre-AP for All" curriculum as Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum at Lovejoy ISD.

In the past Lovejoy School Board members have personally profited from their votes and decisions while on the Lovejoy School Board. Is this continuing today? Is this why the Lovejoy School Board members approve of strong-arm tactics against taxpayers who questions their spending and academic decisions?

Is the Lovejoy ISD sending a message to the community that it is best not to question administrative decisions?
Is the message that it is safer for community members who do not expose financial improprieties in the district?

Regardless of the motivating factors, framing a parent on trumped up charges is WRONG!

Lovejoy ISD OWES the public an explanation for their actions and choices BACKED UP with documentation, rather than misinformation and emotional rhetoric.

The Lovejoy ISD School Board members OWE a public apology to Ms. Goodson, Ms. Hendrix, Ms. Rizos.

Who approved these actions?

Lovejoy School Board:
Rich Hickman, President, Sr. VP Bank of America
Lisa Ellridge, Gallagher Construction - Family business that builds schools
Lynette McDonald,
Julie James,
Ann Casey,
Elena Westbrook,
Mike Guilbeau


November 13, 2008