<\/p>\n
Gary Alton Matthews Jr. (right), a man who has fathered multiple children in Texas and Louisiana, resulting in five child support cases, meets with his legal team before appearing in Judge Andrea Plumlee\u2019s 330th District Court at the George Allen Courts Building in downtown Dallas, March 26, 2026. Matthews appeared before Plumlee to determine child support in one of the cases.<\/p>\n
Tom Fox\/Staff Photographer<\/p>\n
Gary Alton Matthews\u00a0Jr.<\/a> had more than enough money to support<\/a> his children.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n That much was clear from the extensive financial records the state of Texas had subpoenaed in his child support case against Kaitlyn Morris<\/a>. Kaitlyn was one of seven mothers who accused Gary of impregnating them, largely through reproductive coercion<\/a>. She was one of five<\/a> who filed for child support<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n What had also been revealed in those records was a financial relationship between Gary and Sheena Chan. In multiple transactions, the records showed, Gary had paid Chan<\/a>, a Dallas-based private DNA collector, at least $24,000.\u00a0<\/p>\n Even before those payments surfaced, Nadia Sutton, another mother whose child support<\/a> case had overlapped with Kaitlyn\u2019s, had been suspicious of Chan. Chan represented in testimony<\/a> and through testing records that she had collected Gary\u2019s DNA three times in 2024: once in Dallas and twice when Gary supposedly flew her to Bahrain<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n The DNA samples Chan had collected from Gary had erroneously excluded him as the father of Nadia and Kaitlyn\u2019s children. His paternity<\/a> had been confirmed<\/a> in those cases only after his DNA was compelled in court<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n RELATED: The DNA test was supposed to settle everything. Instead, it launched a multi-year legal battle<\/a><\/p>\n Nadia and Kaitlyn had discussed how implausible the Bahrain story sounded.\u00a0<\/p>\n Nadia began digging into Chan\u2019s background. She found her Facebook page, which indicated she also had children.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s amazing to me how a MOTHER can be so concerned about her own kids meanwhile is out here using her COMPANY to defraud the government & a child of her parentage & support,\u201d Nadia wrote in a post on Facebook that linked to Chan\u2019s page. \u201cIllegally defrauding the govt for a known serial predator and putting your business & your livelihood at risk.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Kaitlyn and Nadia had already known Gary manipulated his DNA<\/a> for their paternity tests<\/a>, but they hadn\u2019t known how. The series of payments to Chan indicated he wasn\u2019t operating alone.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Through his attorney, Gary declined to comment for this story. Chan did not respond to requests for comment. \u00a0<\/p>\n A trial in Texas\u00a0<\/p>\n In February 2025, after four years of litigation, Nadia had secured<\/a> a court order legally requiring<\/a> Gary to financially support their child.\u00a0<\/p>\n Now it was Kaitlyn\u2019s turn. In March 2026, the trial to establish Gary\u2019s financial obligation to her child, now 3, would finally come to pass.\u00a0<\/p>\n In the nearly three years that Kaitlyn had battled Gary in court<\/a>, there had been many times she had wanted to give up. For so long, she had felt dismissed, disregarded and disbelieved by people with authority and power \u2014 by attorneys, by judges and by Gary.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n She had pushed past those feelings. She was doing this for her son. She was doing this for herself. And she was doing it for the other women<\/a> who she felt had been silenced and shamed by Gary.\u00a0<\/p>\n Kaitlyn Morris plays with her 4-year-old son she had with Gary Matthews at her Jackson, Mississippi apartment, August 22, 2026. Morris gave birth to Gary Matthews\u2019 son in Baton Rouge in September 2022 and had a sprawling multi-year family court case in Dallas.<\/p>\n Tom Fox\/The Dallas Morning News<\/p>\n Maybe this time, she hoped, Gary would be held accountable. \u00a0<\/p>\n On the morning of March 26, Ashley Philip, an attorney with the office of the Texas Attorney General\u2019s Office<\/a>, arrived on the third floor of the George Allen Courts Building in downtown Dallas pulling a large wagon \u2014 the kind used by TV crews to transport their equipment \u2014 loaded with multiple thick binders. She had brought reams and reams of records for the trial against Gary.\u00a0<\/p>\n In the hallway outside the 330th District Court, Gary conferred with his attorney, Taylor Adler of Walters Gilbreath, a family law<\/a> firm with offices throughout Texas.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Kaitlyn logged into the proceedings on Zoom from her home in Mississippi, where she had recently moved. Her attorney, Rosalyn Lark, was inside the courtroom.\u00a0<\/p>\n RELATED: He told women he wanted to ‘go half on a baby.’ Then he disappeared<\/a><\/p>\n Judge Andrea Plumlee, the presiding judge of the 330th District Court, would be overseeing the trial. Lark had told Kaitlyn that the state, with its extensive evidence against Gary, would handle the bulk of the arguments. \u00a0<\/p>\n Gary\u2019s legal team would have less to work with. In December, an associate judge had sanctioned Gary for \u201cabuse of the discovery process\u201d after he repeatedly failed to respond to the state\u2019s requests for records. His attorney had been prohibited from submitting any evidence at the trial that had not already been previously exchanged with the other parties.<\/p>\n Philip opened with an overview of the case<\/a>. A DNA sample from the father had been requested in September 2023, but Gary did not submit to a test until 2025. In that time, she said, he failed to cooperate with the court and establish child support. He transferred ownership of his business<\/a> to his father to avoid responsibility, she said, and attempted to hide his assets. His lavish lifestyle<\/a>, including frequent travel, Philip added, indicated his ability to pay.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n The state sought the maximum amount in child support<\/a> under Texas law.\u00a0<\/p>\n RELATED: As child support cases mount, a Dallas man faces fraud allegations in court<\/a><\/p>\n Adler, Gary\u2019s attorney, said in her opening statement the case was not about shirking parental duties. It was about a man who was unable to support his child at the level requested by the court due to financial hardship. Tax returns from three years prior, she said, did not reflect his current financial reality, and he was also legally responsible for supporting another child \u2014 Nadia\u2019s. Gary\u2019s reputation and ability to work, Adler added, had been damaged by disparaging social media comments made by the mother.\u00a0<\/p>\n The state called Gary to the stand.\u00a0<\/p>\n Philip asked him if he was the father of Kaitlyn\u2019s child. Yes, he said. It was the first time he had made such an admission. A few questions later, he admitted to being the father of Nadia\u2019s daughter<\/a>, too.\u00a0<\/p>\n In a series of questions, Philip outlined the delays in the case, including the requests for private testing and Gary\u2019s failures to show up for court-ordered tests. Gary reiterated what he had been telling the court all along \u2014 that he had been out of the country. The state\u2019s exhibits, which included three years of his credit card transactions, contradicted that statement.\u00a0<\/p>\n Gary said he currently lived in Dallas, at a townhome south of downtown, with a mortgage of almost $3,000 a month. That bill, and another $5,000 in monthly expenses that Gary listed on a financial worksheet, he said, were being paid by his father, Gary Alton Matthews Sr. So, too, were his legal expenses, which included pursuing restraining and protective orders against three of the mothers<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Gary testified that he transferred ownership<\/a> of his private consulting business, Gary Matthews Healthcare Consulting LLC, to his father at the beginning of 2024 because he was interested in transitioning from project-based work to full-time employment. He said he also donated a group of properties that he previously owned in New Orleans<\/a> to his father that same year because he was no longer living there and was unable to keep up with expenses.<\/p>\n Philip asked if he had bought a Tesla Cybertruck in 2024. There was also another Tesla, a Model 3, and a Corvette Stingray, both purchased in 2022. And a BMW X5 SUV. All of those vehicles, Gary said, were purchased by his father or the company.\u00a0<\/p>\n RELATED: A mother warned a Dallas court Gary Matthews would fake a DNA test. She was ignored<\/a><\/p>\n Then she asked Gary if he had been aware of how much money had been deposited into the bank account associated with his healthcare company during the course of this child support case \u2014 $230,968.60 in 2023, $384,133.29 in 2024 and $402,152.68 in 2025. More than $1 million over a three-year period.\u00a0<\/p>\n Gary said he wouldn\u2019t have access to that information because he no longer owned the company.\u00a0<\/p>\n If that was the case, Philip asked, why was the company still registered to his home address in Dallas? Why did he need to transfer a company making $400,000 a year to his father?\u00a0<\/p>\n Gary said the contracts and the associated profits from that work belonged to his father.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe company is not a traditional company,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s not like a laundromat.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Plumlee, the judge, instructed Gary to answer the question that was asked. It wouldn\u2019t be the last time she admonished him. He said he believed the fact he and his father shared a name had led Chase Bank to erroneously respond to subpoenas with account information that belonged to his father.\u00a0<\/p>\n When Philip asked Gary to provide his father\u2019s age, he said he didn\u2019t know. He was unable to be more specific than somewhere in his 60s.<\/p>\n Philip\u2019s other questions targeted his extensive travel history in the context of his missed court dates<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n She introduced a travel log for Gary that had been subpoenaed from American Airlines. The records indicated that throughout the time Gary said he was working abroad<\/a>, he had been flying frequently within the United States. There were trips to Louisiana, California, Indiana, Massachusetts and Florida. The receipts for the flights were sent to Gary\u2019s personal email address.<\/p>\n \u201cIt has my dad\u2019s name on there,\u201d Gary said. \u201cIt\u2019s his middle name also.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The state of Texas had subpoenaed his records, Philip said. Not his father\u2019s.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWhy is it you can travel to these destinations,\u201d Philip said, \u201cbut you cannot travel to court on these dates?\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Gary stuttered. The judge ruled Gary was non-responsive. She gazed at Gary, her eyebrows raised.\u00a0<\/p>\n RELATED: How establishing and enforcing child support works in Texas<\/a><\/p>\n At different points in his testimony, which had been punctuated with long pauses and moments of apparent confusion, Plumlee had rolled her eyes and propped her face in her hand. At one point, she tossed down her pen.\u00a0<\/p>\n After Gary had been testifying for about an hour, Plumlee called for a recess. She turned to his attorney.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cCounsel,\u201d she said. \u201cYour client is absolutely not believable.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Plumlee said she had never seen the state mount such a detailed case \u2014 not because it couldn\u2019t, but because it usually was not necessary. Plumlee instructed Adler to consult with her client. If Gary made her sit through another \u201cmountain of lies,\u201d Plumlee said, she would come down on him with every available extent of the law.\u00a0<\/p>\n The judge walked briskly out of the courtroom.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u2018Beyond the pale\u2019\u00a0<\/p>\n After the recess, Gary\u2019s testimony continued for more than an hour.\u00a0<\/p>\n During questioning by his attorney, Gary said he had been terminated from a contract and could not find steady domestic work. He testified he had participated in 50 job interviews but said his reputation had been damaged. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cHas Ms. Morris contacted people,\u201d Adler asked, \u201cin a way that reflects poorly on you?\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cYes,\u201d Gary said. \u201cI haven\u2019t been able to find work because of it.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n His legal team had submitted an example, a screenshot of a private conversation, as Exhibit R-18.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cDo you know Gary Matthews?\u201d Kaitlyn asked a woman in a private message. \u201cJust was going to tell you not to let him get you pregnant. He has a lot of children that he doesn\u2019t take care of and will coerce you into pregnancy.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n When he had owned the consulting company, Gary said, he enjoyed a nice lifestyle<\/a>, traveling and working whenever he wanted. That was no longer the case, he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Lark, Kaitlyn\u2019s attorney, asked Gary if he had spoken with her client or sent her any money to support their child. Gary said he had not.\u00a0<\/p>\n A photo of Gary Matthews and Kaitlyn Morris, taken by Kaitlyn.\u00a0<\/p>\n Courtesy of Kaitlyn Morris<\/p>\n \u201cWe have a broken relationship,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Three hours into the testimony, it was Kaitlyn\u2019s turn to take the stand.<\/p>\n She testified she had met Gary online<\/a> and told him she was pregnant within days of finding out. The news, she said, had ended their relationship<\/a>. She had filed for child support in November 2022, while living in Baton Rouge. Gary, she said, had only seen their son once, when they appeared at the Dallas courthouse together<\/a> to give their DNA. He did not help her pay for prenatal care or any expenses related to raising their child.<\/p>\n \u201cHow does that make you feel,\u201d Lark asked, \u201cknowing he\u2019s made hundreds of thousands of dollars and never offered you a dime?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cRepulsed and enraged,\u201d Kaitlyn said, \u201cbeing as he actively family planned with me, and then used his resources to legally bastardize his son and other women\u2019s children<\/a> as well.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Kaitlyn Morris dumps out a baby bottle as she leaves for dinner in Jackson, Mississippi with her sons, ages 4 and 1, on August 22, 2026. Morris had a sprawling multi-year family court case in Dallas.<\/p>\n Tom Fox\/The Dallas Morning News<\/p>\n During closing statements, Philip said Gary had been uncooperative throughout the case<\/a> and had avoided taking responsibility<\/a> for his child. Gary wanted the state to believe he was unemployed, she said, all while tens of thousands of dollars were being deposited into his account each month.\u00a0<\/p>\n Adler said her client was not trying to deceive the court. He just wanted to pay an amount, she said, that was sustainable based on his current finances.<\/p>\n \u201cThis case,\u201d Lark said, \u201cis ultimately about responsibility, delays and fraud.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n After more than three hours, the judge had heard enough. She was ready to rule.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThis court finds it particularly egregious that the respondent, father<\/a>, even after he was confirmed as the father<\/a> of the child, just refused his responsibility as the father,\u201d Plumlee began. \u201cIt would be one thing if he acted in that manner and didn\u2019t know, but we\u2019re going to skip forward to the time when he knew.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cAnd the thing that you have to ask yourself is, really, how could there be tests that were done outside of the courtroom and were only handled by the father, and those came back negative; but when he was required to appear before the court, that that test, and that test only, was positive?\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The judge then articulated what Kaitlyn, and the other mothers<\/a>, had been trying to tell the courts<\/a> for years.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe father is not a reliable witness. He only admits something when he is confronted with evidence to substantiate whatever the question is. He lies when the truth would do him better. When he would just simply say, \u2018Yes.\u2019 He can\u2019t even acknowledge when he should be able to discern when he\u2019s backed into a corner. He refuses to, even then, give an inch.<\/p>\n \u201cThis court finds that he is intentionally underemployed, that he intentionally thwarted the process in determining parentage in this case.\u201d \u00a0<\/p>\n Plumlee granted all requested relief sought by Kaitlyn and the AG\u2019s office \u2014 $2,048 a month in child support, $202 per month in cash medical assistance, $5,000 in attorney\u2019s fees and $72,296 in back child support, to be paid back at a rate of $1,000 per month starting April 1. Those payments, she said, would be in the child\u2019s best interest.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cAnd, quite frankly,\u201d Plumlee said, \u201cthe fact that you would pay attorneys to come down here, sir, to literally spit on a child that has been confirmed as yours, and you know is your child, is just absolutely beyond the pale.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n When Adler asked the judge if Gary should pay Kaitlyn directly on April 1, she said no. He needed to set up an account with the AG\u2019s office and make the payment, she said, \u201cbecause nobody would trust that he would do it anyway.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Kaitlyn logged off from the trial with a sense of closure. For the first time, Gary had admitted to being the father of their child. And for the first time, she had been given an opportunity to talk about how the case and Gary\u2019s behavior<\/a> had affected her. Gary had been exposed, and the judge had taken him to task.\u00a0<\/p>\n Still, she wasn\u2019t under the illusion Gary would pay her the significant sum of child support she had been awarded, even though she believed he still had the money somewhere. After all, he owed Nadia nearly $100,000, more than a year after an order had been issued<\/a> in her case.\u00a0<\/p>\n Kaitlyn didn\u2019t think this setback would deter Gary. Nothing, she believed, would stop him.\u00a0<\/p>\n Conflicts of interest\u00a0<\/p>\n The court proceedings in Dallas<\/a>, and those in New Orleans<\/a>, never publicly answered Plumlee\u2019s question: How was it possible that multiple private paternity tests had excluded Gary<\/a> as the father<\/a> of two of his children?\u00a0<\/p>\n The payments of more than $24,000<\/a> to Chan, who owned Rapid Drug Testing Service in Dallas, were never raised in trial testimony by either court. Neither was the origin of the DNA samples. Nor were the backgrounds of Chan, who collected Gary\u2019s DNA multiple times<\/a> throughout the course of 2024, or Candace Gabriel, who collected his sample<\/a> at a Labcorp location in Houston in 2022.\u00a0<\/p>\n During court-ordered paternity testing, DNA collectors and laboratories are obligated to maintain what\u2019s called a chain of custody \u2014 a documented record of identification, collection and transport of DNA samples by a neutral third party. The person\u2019s identity is verified through the collection of government-issued identification, a signature, fingerprints and a photograph. Samples are certified by the collector, placed into tamper-proof packaging and sent to the lab for testing.<\/p>\n RELATED: The Father: The lengths a Dallas man went to deny paternity in multiple child support cases<\/a><\/p>\n The documentation by Chan and Gabriel for the samples they collected from Gary appeared authentic.\u00a0<\/p>\n Multiple forensic DNA experts who reviewed the paternity test results and accompanying records in Katilyn and Nadia\u2019s cases at the request of <\/a>The Dallas Morning News<\/a> said there did not appear to be problems with how the private and court-ordered tests had been handled by the labs. \u00a0<\/p>\n Labs only have the ability to test the samples they receive, said Matt Quartaro, a private forensic DNA consultant based in Dallas.\u00a0<\/p>\n Instead, the experts said, the most likely explanation was that something happened at the point of collection, since it\u2019s the weakest part of the chain of custody.\u00a0<\/p>\n With court-ordered paternity tests, this typically isn\u2019t an issue. Many states across the country contract with DNA Diagnostics Center, or DDC, a national lab, for their testing services. It provides a standard process for testing that is designed to withstand legal scrutiny.\u00a0<\/p>\n Gary tried to submit his sample using private collectors multiple times. Twice, those samples were accepted by the court. Theoretically, the collection process for those privately submitted samples should have matched the requirements for court-ordered testing.\u00a0<\/p>\n In these two cases, with these two private collectors, there were multiple red flags, including troubling conflicts of interest, an investigation by The News<\/a> found.\u00a0<\/p>\n RELATED: Court records, bank records, family trees: Investigating a Dallas man denying paternity<\/a><\/p>\n The two dozen payments from Gary to Chan<\/a>, were the most visible example. A legally admissible paternity test typically costs from $300 to $500.\u00a0<\/p>\n Chan opened her testing business as a sole proprietorship in Dallas County in April 2018. On its website, the mobile testing company advertises same-day appointments and round-the-clock availability for the collection of samples for drug and DNA testing under court orders \u2014 such as in child support, probation and CPS cases \u2014 or as required by an employer. \u00a0<\/p>\n Two years before Chan created the company where she would drug test customers, she was arrested for possession of two ounces or less of marijuana in a drug-free zone. She was later convicted of the offense.\u00a0<\/p>\n In March, Labcorp, the national private testing chain, sued Chan for breach of contract for failing to pay for $16,902.55 worth of tests that it performed for her company. An exhibit listed dates for Chan\u2019s outstanding bills from the same timeframe she reported having collected samples from Gary. In early July, a default judgment was entered against Chan after she failed to respond to the court and pay her debts.\u00a0<\/p>\n In the chain of custody documentation, Chan indicated she twice flew across the world to collect samples from Gary in Bahrain. Yet there is no evidence Gary ever lived in that country<\/a>, according to three years of financial transactions obtained by the court in Dallas and reviewed by The News<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n The second collector, Gabriel, took Gary\u2019s sample at a\u00a0Labcorp location in Houston in 2022. Two days before that sample was given, financial records show, Gary purchased a pair of plane tickets from New Orleans to Houston \u2014 despite the existence of numerous Labcorp locations in Dallas and New Orleans, where he spent the vast majority of his time.\u00a0<\/p>\n Gabriel grew up in the same area of New Orleans as Gary. She also attended the same high school, Warren East Fundamental Senior High School, as Gary and his brother. Their photos both appear in the 2001 edition of the school\u2019s yearbook.\u00a0<\/p>\n DDC, the lab contracted to perform paternity testing for Texas and Louisiana, requires tests to be collected and administered by a neutral third party. The person collecting the sample, the lab states on its website, cannot have a \u201cvested interest in the outcome of the test\u201d and must not \u201cattempt to falsify the specimens in any way.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The News attempted to reach Gabriel by phone. After a reporter identified herself to Gabriel, she hung up.\u00a0<\/p>\n There were other irregularities with Gary\u2019s cases.\u00a0<\/p>\n In Nadia and Kaitlyn\u2019s cases, he submitted his DNA sample at least six times \u2014 once at the courthouse in New Orleans, once at the courthouse in Dallas and four other times with the private collectors. Forensic DNA experts in the New Orleans case testified<\/a> Gary\u2019s sample in the private tests originated from a different person than the sample that was collected in open court.\u00a0<\/p>\n However, forensic DNA experts told The News<\/a> those two DNA profiles have enough similarities to suggest there was a strong likelihood of a close familial relationship between the two men who submitted the samples.<\/p>\n In other words, there was a good possibility that Gary was related to the person who provided the samples in the private tests that he represented to the courts as his own<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Another analysis of all the tests, including a specific kinship analysis between the two DNA profiles, would be needed to officially confirm a familial link, the experts said.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThey share more genetic information than I would expect from an unrelated individual,\u201d said Cynthia Cale, the co-founder of DNA Mavens Forensic Services, a nonprofit forensic consultant group in Houston.\u00a0<\/p>\n Texas law \u2014 Chapter 160 of the Texas Family Code \u2014 states that a paternity test result is inadmissible if another person provides a DNA sample \u201cwith the intent to affect the outcome of the proceeding.\u201d Falsifying or fabricating genetic evidence in a case determining a child\u2019s parentage is a third degree felony under Texas law.<\/p>\n Joanna Grossman, a legal scholar at the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law who specializes in family and parentage law, has written extensively about misrepresentation of paternity in family court cases. The misidentification of the biological father of a child by a parent, knowingly or unknowingly, she said, is not rare.\u00a0<\/p>\n What is unusual, Grossman said, is the fabrication of DNA tests and the submission of false evidence to multiple courts. She has never seen another case like it.\u00a0<\/p>\n The egregiousness of the conduct in these cases, she said, opens the door for a possible criminal investigation and potential civil suits for fraud by the mothers.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cCertainly there is somebody in the DA\u2019s office who should be looking into that behavior,\u201d Grossman said. \u201cI have no doubt that it violates some laws.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Seeking visitation<\/p>\n Gary\u2019s legal troubles were not over.\u00a0<\/p>\n Child support had been ordered in two of his cases. There were two other open cases to establish his paternity and child support in Texas and Louisiana.<\/p>\n One had been opened in St. Tammany Parish in 2020 for a child born in 2012. \u00a0The other had been opened in Collin County in 2025. Gary had been served in that case at the Dallas courthouse, while appearing for a hearing in Kaitlyn\u2019s case<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Initially, Gary had entered a general denial in the Texas case, filed on behalf of a 2-year-old boy who was born in 2023 and lived in Plano.\u00a0<\/p>\n In late May, Gary filed a counter petition. It was different from all the ones that had come before.<\/p>\n This time, Gary was seeking legal decision-making power for the child. He also wanted visitation. A trial was scheduled for June 3.\u00a0<\/p>\n The mother in the case \u2014 who asked The News not to identify her to protect the identity of her child \u2014 messaged Nadia. The News verified her account through a review of court records and other public records, text messages and other interviews.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI got notified last night that Gary is claiming joint conservatorship,\u201d she wrote to Nadia. \u201cI\u2019m absolutely freaking out right now.\u201d<\/p>\n She didn\u2019t know what to do, she added. She knew she needed to hire an attorney, but she worried it would be too expensive.\u00a0<\/p>\n Nadia tried to reassure the mother. Gary didn\u2019t actually want custody, Nadia said; it was likely a scare tactic, an attempt\u00a0to get her to drop her case.\u00a0<\/p>\n Within a week, the mother was represented by Lark, the same attorney who represented Kaitlyn<\/a>.<\/p>\n Rosalyn Lark, an attorney for two women with child support cases against Gary Matthews Jr., is photographed at the George Allen Courts Building in Dallas, July 28, 2026. Matthews’ child support cases have been contentious, with conflicting paternity test results and rulings by multiple judges that he has intentionally under employed himself.<\/p>\n Tom Fox\/The Dallas Morning News<\/p>\n On the morning of June 3, Lark and the mother arrived at the courthouse in McKinney. Gary arrived with a new attorney, Yoel Zehaie, who ran a solo practice in Arlington. Since 2021, Gary had hired at least nine law firms to represent him in his child support cases and related litigation.\u00a0<\/p>\n The June trial was a greatly condensed version of Kaitlyn\u2019s case, with some deviations.\u00a0<\/p>\n The mother in the case testified through an interpreter that Gary had never met their child, who only spoke Spanish, or provided any financial assistance. She said she was fearful because the last time she had spoken with Gary, he had told her he was living in Japan due to death threats<\/a> from a business associate.\u00a0<\/p>\n The mother said she tracked down Gary on Facebook, where he was going by the name<\/a> Philippe Laurent, to inform him about the pregnancy in early 2023. Gary would later deny that was him.\u00a0<\/p>\n She testified Gary had told her to terminate the pregnancy, even though abortion had been banned in Texas<\/a> the previous year.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWith the new circumstances of my life. I honestly can\u2019t be there or help you financially with this,\u201d Gary had written in a text reviewed by The News. \u201cI will be living in Japan until further notice. Different time zone, different life, and I need to limit my contacts with the US as attempts have been made on my life there. The most viable option is to go the abortion way and that way you can cut ties with me.\u201d \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cStop being a coward,\u201d the mother had texted back. \u201cYOU made this and YOU asked for it, you disappeared 2 days after consciously making it and had the chance to decide about it and now it\u2019s way too late for an abortion I am definitely not going that route.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The mother told the court if Gary were granted visitation, she preferred it to be supervised.\u00a0<\/p>\n Gary testified that he acknowledged the child and had seen the court\u2019s DNA results. He said he had just started a new job as an application support specialist that paid $55,000 annually. He also said he had to pay child support<\/a> for two other children<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe other two women,\u201d Gary testified, referring to Kaitlyn and Nadia, \u201cthey have done a lot of what you\u2019re seeing right now, which is create false accounts.\u201d<\/p>\n Gabriel Arteaga, a litigator with the AG\u2019s office, introduced some of the same records that had been subpoenaed in Kaitlyn\u2019s case, including transactions from the bank account linked to Gary\u2019s consulting business.\u00a0<\/p>\n When Gary\u2019s attorney objected, Arteaga said the records were evidence of intentional underemployment. The judge, Shelly Dukes, allowed the admission the records, limiting them to the date of the child\u2019s birth.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t own this company at all,\u201d Gary protested.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThat doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s not giving you money,\u201d the judge said.<\/p>\n Dukes ordered Gary to pay $1,872 a month in child support starting July 1, plus $44,928 in retroactive support.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0
Gary said he could not keep up with expenses and the company\u2019s business loans.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n