VP Picks and Family Court
by Bonnie Russell, guest commentator

I'm happy for McCain's pick because, in what promises to be a red-hot presidential race involving four solidly married couples, the nation's busiest, yet under-reported court, might finally become an issue.

I'm talking, of course, about family court. Meaning, the public is about to learn the single, most intrusive form of government we have today is a micro-managing, family court judge. How that ties in with police departments is rather disquieting.

Websites describing family court, abound, because media seldom finds families or family break-ups important enough to cover.

Yet family court litigants consistently fail to recognize the business of government is business. And judges make sure business is always booming. Another way of saying it is:

"The circus is always in town."

Most people are now aware Alaska voted 12 to zip to investigate Gov. Palin for abuse of power for firing the guy who wouldn't fire her former brother-in-law, an Alaska State Trooper, over an escalating custody case. Much ink will be spilled over this.

Perhaps the simple truth about family court will emerge, which is: Family court has little to do with "the best interests of the child" or common sense. But it does have everything to do with business.

On August 27, 2007, Adam Liptak wrote the self-evident headline "With the Bench Cozied Up to the Bar, the Lawyers Can't Lose." (NY Times)

The article's first paragraph nailed it:

Dennis G. Jacobs, the chief judge of the federal appeals court in New York, is a candid man, and in a speech last year he admitted that he and his colleagues had "a serious and secret bias." Perhaps unthinkingly but quite consistently, he said, judges can be counted on to rule in favor of anything that protects and empowers lawyers.

The extra wrinkle is Democrat VP pick, Joe Biden, who authored the Violence Against Women Act in 1994. New federal programs began to roll out. Many programs hinged on the all important first link: a restraining order. Yet in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Castle Rock vs. Gonzales that police officers weren't legally "required" to enforce restraining orders.

What does this mean? It means that by now, everyone should know Family Court will always be about business; and sometimes against our Constitution which promises life with the least amount of governmental interference. It means the public can now learn Family Court judges can and do, legally sever parent child relationships. Sometimes casually, and without evidence. In the other extreme, it means Family Court judges are free to ignore crimes committed against children by their parents, and dummying it down to abuse.

Proof of this is in California's Judicial Council approved form for "Supervised visitation."  Of the eight reasons listed, four involve crimes committed against the child ranging from kidnap to sexual abuse. Why a family court judge is involved in criminal activity has yet to be answered.

From a devil's advocate viewpoint, the parent who is alleged to have physically harmed the child doesn't have the same protection in family court as he or she does in criminal court. Instead, often orders are made, without the charged parent, or the child's input. Supposedly to "protect" the child.

(Federal law 42 U.S.C. 2000 h-7 and 2000(d)(2) holds that if a state receives federal funding for any program, it waives immunity to be sued if it discriminates and violates the Equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That's how it works on paper. Sadly, the reality is far different.)

It's troublesome —but not surprising— that the object of the Family Court case in the Alaska probe involves the police: In another example, LA PD in 1997 made certain that Robert Mullally lost his freedom for leaking to media confidential LAPD documents which showed 79 LA PD officers weren't prosecuted for beating their wives and girlfriends. [story].

San Diego has its own issues with the police involving divorce. The DA rushed in to protect Deputy Lowell Bruce who shot his wife in the face at point-blank range. [story].¹

Speaking of San Diego, in 2000 the San Diego the Court of Appeals ruled that family court judges needn't bother with reading the pleadings before ruling (click here). And then there's the Dan Broderick Integrity Award.

Eventually, for this country to thrive, we must decide families are a higher priority and treat family court as important enough to merit change, perhaps by eliminating family court altogether to reduce instances of cronyism and bad blood.

But we need help. Change comes with media deciding families are important enough to assign a "beat" reporter to family court. Change comes with neighbors saying, "How can I help," instead of "I don't want to get involved." With two vice-presidents involved in family courts, now seems the time insert this issue into the national debate.

Bonnie Russell
Del Mar, CA
www.FamilyLawCourts.com

__________________________
¹ More examples at www.FamilyLawCourts.com/badcop.html