This story begins in the state of Florida. It involves a separation, child custody, and child exploitation. It started during the pandemic. David was diagnosed with a fatal lung disease, so he and his family relocated to Florida for treatment. By the time they got settled, the disease had progressed too far for the treatment they had moved there to receive. The next option was to go to Miami to see about being placed on a transplant list. After discussing it with doctors and his wife, David decided he didn’t want to go that route, opting instead to let nature take its course.
In 2024, Scarlett decided she didn’t want to sit around and watch her Husband David slowly die. At that point, she packed up and left.
Before judging Scarlett too harshly, we must acknowledge that while we all like to believe we’d stay by a loved one’s side through their darkest days, the truth is none of us really know how we’d react until we’re in that position.
But here’s where things took a dark turn.
They have a daughter, whom we’ll refer to as E. Having just entered her teenage years, E had already endured the impact of COVID-19, a cross-country move, and the reality that her father was dying. Now, her mother had left as well, leaving her to cope with it all alone. It was too much for her. She asked her father if she could visit her friends in California. David understanding what she was going through, agreed—on the condition that she stay on top of her homeschooling, which only had a few weeks left.
As her return approached, Scarlett texted David to inform him that she was sending E to Oklahoma because she wasn’t ready to come home yet, and instructed him to verify it with their daughter. David reluctantly agreed, recognizing the emotional strain on his daughter and recalling how he had wished for a safe space during his own parents’ divorce.
However, when it came time for E to return home, the people she was staying with demanded her birth certificate and Social Security card. They claimed they had made an agreement with Scarlett to keep the child and that she would not be returning to Florida. David refused.
Soon after, the North Port Police knocked on David’s door. They were accompanied by Scarlett, who was there to obtain their daughter’s birth certificate and Social Security card. David protested, explaining she was essentially giving their child away to another family in another state. The officers said there was nothing they could do without a court order.
That Monday, David contacted an attorney who advised him to file a police report—which he did. He also took out a $4,000 loan to file an emergency pick-up order. Judge Maria Ruhl of Sarasota County denied the request, citing the lack of a prior court order and stating that no evidence of imminent danger or crisis was provided. She classified it as a custody dispute.
In retaliation, Scarlett attempted to file a restraining order against her husband, alleging domestic violence, stalking, and a bizarre chemical attack. She claimed her husband suffered from mental illness and was a danger to himself and others. Her claims fell apart under scrutiny, lacking credible evidence. The court dismissed the case.
She presented a picture of a broken vase—that her husband admits to breaking. She showed another picture of her car in a truck stop parking lot and somehow claimed it was proof of staking. She also claimed that the alleged chemical attack happened at the airport where she worked, resulting in swelling, redness, and tears, requiring a coworker’s uniform. Yet she failed to provide photos, medical records, or witnesses. The court found her claims baseless.
David, dealing with a degenerative lung disease (with lungs functioning at only 31%), found himself alone, responsible for a 15-year-old daughter and two large dogs—both of which had belonged to Scarlett, who abandoned them. He did his best until he was forced to rehome them. The stress overwhelmed him, leading him to seek counseling and psychiatric support for anxiety and sleep issues. His medical professionals were aware he had firearms in the home but noted no signs of violence or suicidal ideation. Medical documentation supports this.
the restraining order was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
What followed was worse. Just days before David’s custody hearing in Florida, Judge Charles Gray of McClain County, Oklahoma, intervened—without notice, without subpoenaing either parent—and awarded guardianship of the child to Natalie MacQuarrie, the woman scarlett had unilaterally sent the child to.
In his ruling, Judge Gray accused David of:
- Providing unstable living conditions
- Suffering from psychosis
- Failing to provide schooling
- Failing to provide adequate medical care
- Failing to meet basic needs
Every one of these claims is demonstrably false. David has school records, medical records, and financial documentation that disprove all allegations.
Even more disturbing is the fact that Judge Gray cited David’s counseling—therapy and psychiatry—as evidence of psychosis. In doing so, he weaponized David’s efforts to seek help and distorted the reality of why he was receiving treatment. This kind of judicial behavior is precisely why so many people avoid seeking mental health care. When therapy is used against someone in court—as a sign of instability rather than strength—it sends a dangerous message. It tells the public: “If you ask for help, it can and will be used against you.” This exact attitude fuels the stigma around mental health and contributes to the skyrocketing suicide rates in America. The courts should be encouraging support systems, not punishing people for using them.
David’s daughter had attended private school, transitioned to online learning with documented success, and has always received quality medical care with continuous insurance coverage. She’s never gone without food, clothing, shelter, or love.
David continues to support his daughter financially. So when she said she had to buy her own food or go hungry, he investigated. Though her visible bank account seemed normal, she revealed that Mr. MacQuarrie had opened a separate, hidden Navy Federal account, where her paycheck from a local job was being deposited. David was understandably alarmed and believed his daughter was being exploited—with the support of the court.
In desperation, David reached out to Judge Gray:
Dear Honorable Judge Charles Gray
I am writing in response to your ruling dated January 29, 2025, regarding case number PG-24-60. I respectfully request clarification on several findings noted in your decision.
- Unstable Living Conditions:
Your ruling states that my home has unstable living conditions. On what basis was this determination made? To my knowledge, no one has visited my home or assessed the living environment firsthand. - Education:
You claim that I have failed to provide adequate schooling. This is factually incorrect. I have consistently paid for Riley’s private education since preschool and have documentation to support this. - Medical Care:
The ruling also states that I have not provided adequate medical care. Again, this is untrue. I have ensured Riley has received consistent medical care before and after birth. I possess medical records to verify this. - Basic Needs:
You assert that I have failed to meet her basic needs. I provide a clean, safe home with running water, food, clothing, and other essentials. In fact, I continue to send Riley money for food, which, according to her, she would not otherwise receive. I do not deduct anything from what I give her—she spends it freely, as any child should be able to.
Additionally, I would like clarification regarding a Navy Federal Credit Union account reportedly opened by the man residing in the other household. Riley confirmed the account exists but did not explain its purpose. This account lacks parental oversight, unlike the one I opened for her, which is jointly monitored by both parents. I’m concerned about the transparency of her financial handling in that household.
- Psychological Health Allegations:
You suggested I may be suffering from psychosis. This accusation is deeply troubling and offensive. I see a therapist and psychiatrist for stress and anxiety related to a degenerative lung disease—nothing more. I am fully willing to provide my medical records to confirm this. To suggest mental illness as a weapon in a custody matter is deeply harmful and discourages others from seeking help. - Jurisdiction:
I also question why the state of Oklahoma is involved in this custody case, which is taking place in Florida. A Florida police report was filed on July 29, 2024 (Case No. 24-052420, North Port Police Department). We have been engaged in ongoing court proceedings here, and Riley was taken out of state under false pretenses.
I respectfully request to see the evidence supporting the claims made in your ruling and to receive a formal response addressing the concerns outlined above.
Sincerely,
David
Judge Gray’s bailiff responded:
You will need to file a motion to set a hearing. Contact with the Judge is only permitted with all parties present.
If you can not file your motion, please contact an attorney.
Anna Goodman
Bailiff to Associate District Judge
Charles Gray
McClain County
121 N 2nd Street # 225
Purcell, OK 73080
405-527-6651
Yet, the judge had no issue ruling without any parties present. Not the father. Not the mother. No due process. No evidence. Just a ruling.
It’s important to note that David is disabled and lives on a fixed income. He cannot afford to travel back and forth to Oklahoma to file motions, nor can he afford to retain legal counsel in a state hundreds of miles away. It is absolutely ridiculous—shameful, even—that Oklahoma would knowingly take advantage of a disabled and financially vulnerable man in this manner. Oklahomans should be outraged that their judicial system is being used as a tool to harm the poor, the disabled, and the voiceless.
This is the danger of qualified immunity. It shields judges from accountability. It enables false rulings based on personal bias or ignorance—and in this case, has separated a dying father from his only child. Judge Gray either deliberately ignored the truth or lacked the competence to discover it. Either scenario is unacceptable. But with qualified immunity, he remains on the bench, unchallenged.
Unless voters in McClain County take a stand and vote him out—if he is, in fact, elected—he will continue to make rulings that hurt families, unchecked and unafraid. Not for the sake of David. Not for his daughter. But for yours. Because next time, it could be your family caught in the crosshairs of judicial overreach.
