Praise for Family Law Judges

[zarby]

I have seen several times a good family law judge solve a problem with just a few words. I have seen problems that continued for many years end instantly with just a few words. I think I am seeing that right now.

My point is that family law judges are not all bad. There are some good ones out there. It may be good to give some praise to the good ones not just attack the bad ones. Use the carrot as well as the stick.

Family law more so than other law is dependent very much on the quality of the particular judge at issue. The problem can be more a problem with individual judges than with the system as a whole.

Of course, if you are unfortunate enough to have a bad judge, the system in many contexts provides little to no effective remedy.

[LSBeene]

Zarby,

Nicely said.  A man who receives a good judge probably won't become an MRA, but you have a good point.

Steven

[woof]

I disagree, the CONTEXT of "good" judges has become to tell parents "HOW" to raise their own children. They have to much power, and just because some don't abuse it ALL of the time doesn't make them "good".
Who is speeking out against the Judicial brotherhood?

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/nov05/05-11-16.html
      
Judicial Supremacists Lash Out At Parents
by Phyllis Schlafly   
Nov. 16, 2005
 
When Hillary Clinton proclaimed that it takes a village to raise a child, many people didn't realize that she was enunciating liberal dogma that the government should raise and control children. This concept fell on fertile soil when it reached activist judges eager to be anointed as elders of the child-raising village.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit just ruled that parents' fundamental right to control the upbringing of their children "does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door," and that a public school has the right to provide its students with "whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise."

Instead of using the "village" metaphor, the judges substituted a Latin phrase that has the same effect. Parens patriae (the country as parent) was a legal concept used long ago by the English monarchy, but it never caught on in the United States and the few mentions of it in U.S. cases are not relevant to this decision.

The Ninth Circuit case, Fields v. Palmdale School District, was brought by parents who discovered that their seven- to ten-year-old children had been required to fill out a nosy questionnaire about such matters as "thinking about having sex," "thinking about touching other people's private parts," and "wanting to kill myself." The parents were shocked and looked to the court for a remedy.

No such luck. We live in times when judges (especially on the Left Coast) seize opportunities to create new law and new government powers even if they have to hide behind a Latin phrase of bygone years unknown to Americans.

The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel unanimously ruled against the parents. One judge had been appointed by Jimmy Carter, one by Bill Clinton, and one by Lyndon B. Johnson.

The decision claimed that the purpose of the psychological sex survey was "to improve students' ability to learn." That doesn't pass the laugh test.

The Ninth Circuit decision stated that "there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children" and that "parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed."

The school had sent out a parental-consent letter, but it failed to reveal the intrusive questions about sex. The letter merely mentioned concerns about violence and verbal abuse, adding that if the child felt uncomfortable, the school would provide "a therapist for further psychological help."

That should have been a warning, but many parents don't realize that the schools have an agenda unrelated to reading, writing and 'rithmetic. Anticipating the new push to subject all schoolchildren to mental health screening, the decision gratuitously stated that the school's power extends to "protecting the mental health of children."

The court didn't bother to defend the nosy questionnaire itself, and said that public school authority is not limited to curriculum. The court made no mention of the need for informed parental consent or a right to opt out of an activity the parents deem morally objectionable.

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the lower court's broad ruling that the fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of one's children does not encompass the right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs."

How did the Ninth Circuit circumvent "the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children," which has been U.S. settled law for decades? The court referred to this as the Meyer-Pierce right because it was first explicitly enunciated in two famous Supreme Court cases of the 1920s, Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and was reaffirmed as recently as 2000 in Troxel v. Granville.

The Ninth Circuit court said that since the government has put limits on parents' rights by requiring school attendance, therefore, the school can tell the students whatever it wants about sex, guns, the military, gay marriage, and the origins of life. The judges emphasized that once children are put in a public school, the parents' "fundamental right to control the education of their children is, at the least, substantially diminished."

How did the court feel empowered to put new limits on the settled law of Meyer-Pierce and give public schools the power to override parents on teaching about sex? Simple. The three liberal judges based their decision on "our evolving understanding of the nature of our Constitution."

Liberal judges have no shame in proclaiming their belief that our written Constitution is "evolving." In this case, the judges bragged that the Constitution has evolved to create the right to abortion, and then ruled that the evolving Constitution takes sex education away from parents and puts it "within the state's authority as parens patriae."

[K9]

Liberal judges have no shame in proclaiming their belief that our written Constitution is "evolving." In this case, the judges bragged that the Constitution has evolved to create the right to abortion, and then ruled that the evolving Constitution takes sex education away from parents and puts it "within the state's authority as parens patriae."

The Founders put in place a procedure to allow The People to "evolve" the Constitution. It's called the Amendment Process. Any judge or politician that acts on a belief that the Constitution can change without this process is guilty of Treason. The Constitution means exactly what it says, and in passages where it may be unclear, laws MUST side in favor of individual Liberty. Liberty is what this country was founded on.

The very first American Document, The Declaration of Independence, had in it's first paragraph the reason for issuing that document; so that the world would see our grievances.
The second paragraph states the reason why governments exist: TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE. It goes on to say that when the government does not meet this requirement, it is the people's right and duty to alter or abolish that government.

It's time for the second Revolution. Whether that revolution be bloody or peaceful is up to They, The People.

I will not take the life of fellow citizens. I will, however, deny them the fruits of my labor which will end up in my inprisonment. I will NOT work my ass off for a government that exists merely to serve itself, a government that declares to the world we are a law abiding nation, yet fails miserably at following its own laws when those laws become inconvenient.

This government of Repugmocrats must be destroyed.

[FP]

The Ninth Circuit court said that since the government has put limits on parents' rights by requiring school attendance, therefore, the school can tell the students whatever it wants about sex, guns, the military, gay marriage, and the origins of life. The judges emphasized that once children are put in a public school, the parents' "fundamental right to control the education of their children is, at the least, substantially diminished."

Reason #4,328 not to send you kids to public school.  

I'd agree with K9 in that the benefit of the Constitution is that it can "evolve" that it is a "living document" but the flipside of that is the benefit that it can't be changed willy nilly, that it provides a strong backbone of laws such that society doesn't become twisted into a pretzel of oppressive/constantly changing laws.

[Sir Percy]

Family Court Judges are generally so bad, so biased, so in thrall to feminists, that even the odd reasonable utterance can shine. But don't be deceived.

The ex-wife of a friend of mine swore on oath in Court that my friend was an International Terrorist and that he had murdered her previous partner. The judge said she was being 'fanciful'.

Wow. What a good chap. What a blow for men's rights.

But he didn't order an investigation into an alleged murder. He didn't immediately alert the Federal Authorities that a terrorist had been identified.

He didn't have her charged with purjury.

None of those.

But he did awarded her custody of the children.

[Sir Percy]

poiuyt:

Moreover family law permits an institutional expression of prejudice, chivalry, sexism, parrasitism, chauvenism, perjury, racism, greed, over-indulgence, vanity, narcisissm, hypocrisy and unconstitutional power.

chivalry?? This is playing into Femonazi hands. It is they who have traduced the meaning of chivalry, creating a calumny on honour and justice and use of strength for good. Chivalry protected men as well as women. It put evil to the sword. Evil women too.

It seems to me that men need to repossess chivalry. Chivalry did not discriminate un-naturally. It recognised men as men and women as women. It recognised that both could be good and bad. It treated all by the virtues enunciated by Martin Luther King, judging people by the contents of their character, the countenance of their soul, not by what is between their legs.

[Assault]

There's nothing more disgustingly self righteous and twisted than family court judges. They just don't care about the family, only the properly accepted transfer of wealth.

Never mind that the "best interest of the child" isn't destroying them and villifying thier father.

I'll actually ammend that to include criminal court judges as well. They're just as bad.

*spits on the court steps*