Why would they remove a judge from the bench who cared enough about the children to investigate DV alligations

Question

Like the way they did to this Virginia family law judge?
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1371
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1372
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1373

Gaiaa: And how many experts are present when mother files TRO's against dad with no evidence and the judge issues them as if it is halloween and he is giving out candy? This guy actually made an attempt to find the truth and he did and he was thrown out because of it. Neither party involved contested his findings. I hope my judge will seek out the truth when my ex starts lying and making up stories that have no verifiable evidence accept that she said so.

Answer 1

Why this judge is coming under fire is very simple. The anti-male bias in courtrooms is well-known enough to be palpable so I won't belabor that point but the problem is a judge that chose to question a woman's motives in DV allegations which is, well, just unheard of.
It is common knowledge that when a woman seeks a TRO, it is given with or without merit; more or less rubber-stamped. When women then seek to extend the TRO into a permanent one, the thinking is that there was sufficient reason for the TRO and it is rubber-stamped as was the TRO.
He rocked the leaky boat of the legal community by finding that the TRO was baseless.

If one examines the evidence (testimony from others that she has harmed herself along with testimony about doing similar things previously) that led to his decision to personally inspect the wounds of the proported "assault". The "need to protect the children by ruling correctly in this difficult, contentious case vastly outweighs Tammy’s privacy concerns. Most importantly, no party in the dispute is even claiming that Shull made the wrong decision in finding that the wounds in question were self-inflicted."

I am quite sure that had he extended the order without gathering any evidence at all, there would be absolutely no question from the legal community that he acted "properly" but since he chose to question the woman's motives, he is guilty of the crime of impartiality. If things like this catch on, the next thing you know, some judge will announce that a father has a right to be a parent and we just can't have that.

Answer 2

I agree with Jennifer. The point was a false accusation first. Second, if indeed she cut herself, then a psych. exam would be appropriate.

I think viewing the wounds could have certainly been handled better. And for that he should have received a warning, not dismissal. He called the hospital to verify this claim? Sounds like he worked hard to find the truth. I've sat in family court and saw judges abuse people far worse and they're still on the bench. I firmly believe false DV claims and unwarranted ROs are rampant and make a joke out of family court.

I didn't see anything on the outcome of this hearing - did I miss it?

Answer 3

i think of the ACLU is lots off base right here. whilst a guy is chosen to be a choose, he's chosen on the inspiration of his ethical character, his fairness, and his intelligence. the actual indisputable fact that he's a Christian is obviously an imperative part of his character and he grew to become into chosen with the full know-how that his Christian ideals could impact his judgements. If the human beings of Alabama did no longer desire a Christian on the bench, they could desire to have denied him the nicely suited to be a choose on the outset. for sure doing so could be against each thing the ACLU stands for. If watching the ten Commandments enabled this opt to make morally sound and honest judgements, then that's an infringement upon his freedom of religion to do away with them from the courtroom. it may be merely as unfair to tell a Muslim choose he could desire to no longer save a duplicate of the Koran on the bench or forbid a Jewish opt to positioned on the movie star of David.

Answer 4

The simple answer is that because they couldn't contest the validity of his findings, they instead contested the methods. There is an unspoken rule about custody issues and we all know what it is.

Gaia: I'm sure his issue wasn't whether or not she was a cutter, but rather that she inflicted harm upon herself in order to falsely accuse the other party.

Answer 5

I totally agree that he should not have been removed from the bench, but I still see quite a bit wrong with how he handled it.

1. He should have had a female present, preferably a nurse who works with psychological issues, when he examined this woman. He is not an authority on judging psychological issues. He left himself wide open there.

2. How dare he presume to know that a person who cuts on themselves is an unfit parent!!! Being a cutter has absolutely nothing to do with parenting ability! I have friends who cut, and who are wonderful parents. The entire purpose for cutting is to have a way to get out your feelings without affecting others...including children. If he does not understand the psychological disorders he is judging, then he needs to have some help in judging them!

By the way, I am not a cutter, but I work with cutters, and people with other psychological disorders. A little understanding goes a long way...and if you don't have any understanding, you have no right to judge.

Answer 6

Jennifer C get's my vote... she says it all without saying it. Well said Jennifer.

I also have experience with cutters, both professionally and personally (no, not myself) and can assure you in MY experiences, it IS a factor on the ability to care for others. A simple query - would you trust someone who headbutted brick walls when they were stressed (frequently) to look after your kids? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Answer 7

They needed to remove him.
There are somethings you just don't do.

Answer 8

good question...