Houston

Sex-Assault Court Clash Over Montgomery Judge Rocks Two Texas Counties

AI Assisted Icon
Published on January 31, 2026
Sex-Assault Court Clash Over Montgomery Judge Rocks Two Texas CountiesSource: Unsplash/ Benjamin Brunner

Montgomery County Judge Mark Keough is asking a Harris County court to dismiss a sexual-assault lawsuit filed by his former church assistant, creating an unusual legal dispute spanning county lines. Keough’s defamation and extortion case is filed in Montgomery County, while Susan Kenningham’s Harris County lawsuit accuses him of sexual misconduct. Both sides have submitted audio recordings, emails, and sworn statements to support their claims. With venue and dismissal hearings scheduled for March and April, the case has drawn significant attention from local residents and county observers.

What Kenningham's complaint alleges

In her Harris County lawsuit, Kenningham accuses Keough of assault and battery, sexual exploitation by a mental-health services provider, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, seeking more than $250,000 in damages. The filing cites text messages and alleged behavior that she says began after her hiring as the church’s assistant in May 2023 and escalated over time. Kenningham contends the situation came to a head when she confronted Keough on January 20, 2024, a conversation she says led to his resignation from the church days later. She also alleges that church elders were aware of the conduct but failed to intervene.

Keough's countersuit and the demand letter

Keough has responded in Montgomery County by suing Kenningham and others, calling the allegations a politically motivated extortion scheme. His filings include a 2024 email he says came from Houston attorney Chad Pinkerton, demanding $6.5 million to resolve the dispute. Keough argues that this demand, along with the release of an audio recording intended to damage his reputation, forms the basis of his defamation and emotional-distress lawsuit, which he filed in October 2024, according to the Conroe News.

Secret tape and the public record

The controversy escalated from church matters to public attention in September 2024, when local reporter Wayne Dolcefino published a report featuring a secretly recorded audio of Keough speaking to church elders. The recording and Dolcefino’s reporting have since been referenced in court filings and drawn increased public scrutiny to both the church and the county judge.

Venue fight and the court calendar

Keough is seeking to move Kenningham’s Harris County lawsuit to Montgomery County, arguing that the case should be heard in his home jurisdiction. Kenningham’s attorneys oppose the move, stating that Keough’s high profile in Montgomery County could make it difficult for a jury to remain impartial. According to the Houston Chronicle, a hearing on Keough’s venue request is scheduled for March 23, 2026, while a separate hearing on his motion to dismiss the Harris County case is set for April 27, 2026. Montgomery County district-clerk records currently list Kenningham as unserved in Keough’s Montgomery County lawsuit.

Local context and next steps

The legal proceedings are taking place alongside Keough’s prominent role in county government and local projects, increasing public attention on the case. Community Impact has noted several county initiatives connected to Keough, highlighting his involvement in Montgomery County politics. Attorneys for both sides are exchanging filings and conducting depositions ahead of the spring hearings, which will decide whether the case remains in Harris County or moves to Montgomery County.

Legal issues to watch

A central legal issue is the Texas statute Kenningham cites for her sexual-exploitation claim. The law permits civil suits for sexual exploitation by [a] mental-health services provider, explicitly including members of the clergy while excluding religious, moral and spiritual counseling, teaching and instruction, according to the U.S. Justia Law. Determining whether the alleged conduct falls under this statute and whether the church can be held liable as an employer is expected to be a key point of contention. Currently, both sides are engaged in procedural and evidentiary disputes that will influence whether a jury ultimately considers the underlying allegations.