When Family Law Judges Get It Right (Part I)
The fathers’ rights movement is often extremely critical of family law judges. While I think this criticism is excessive and overblown, some of it is certainly legitimate. The biggest problem is that family law judges often don’t respect the loving bonds between fathers and their children. One example is the Traub case. In The Future of the American Father, my address to the 2004 Men’s Rights Congress, I explained:
“In the case of DeBrenes v. Traub, a divorced custodial mother remarried and seeks to move with her 13 year-old daughter. Get this–first mom moved, and dad uprooted himself and moved to be with his daughter. Then mom moved again, and dad uprooted himself and moved again to be with his daughter. And now mom wants to move again–to Costa Rica! Yes you heard right, Costa Rica! They have no ties in Costa Rica, the girl doesn’t speak Spanish and doesn’t want to go, but mom remarried recently and her new husband lived in Costa Rica 58 years ago–yes, 58 years ago–and he wants to go back.
“In any rational country the judge would have laughed the mother out of the courtroom, told her she must be joking, or suggested she put the wine bottle down and go sleep it off. Instead the court GRANTED her request, only stipulating that the girl, who is learning disabled, be allowed to finish her studies at her special school. In other words, Eric Traub’s 13 years of loving fatherhood are to be bundled up and thrown away the moment the strong, loving bond he shares with his daughter became inconvenient for mom.”
I do try to be fair, however, and in between criticizing judges and their rulings, I think it is also important to point out when judges get things right. One example of a judge getting it right is a ruling by a Jefferson County Kentucky family court judge named Virginia Whittinghill.
In my recent blog entry Finally, Finally, Finally an Important Point about Paternity Fraud I discussed the case of Ren Hinshaw. According to an article in the Louisville Courier-Journal, Hinshaw is “fighting to retain joint custody of a child he helped raised and loves as his own, even after finding out the boy is not his biological child.â€
“‘He is my son, and I am his dad,’ Hinshaw said in an e-mail to the newspaper.
“The child’s mother says Hinshaw should have no right to custody…
“Hinshaw was in the delivery room when the boy he thought was his son was born in 1999.
“He cut the umbilical cord and later changed the boy’s diapers, taught him to talk and volunteered at his school, according to court records.
“Hinshaw, a technology consultant at the University of Louisville’s Kornhauser Health Sciences Library, described the boy in court records as the most important thing in his life.
“But when the child’s mother, Jacqueline, divorced Hinshaw in 2003, she disclosed he wasn’t the biological father and asked Jefferson Family Court to deny him custody.
“Judge Virginia Whittinghill ordered a counselor to meet with the child. She concluded he had bonded with Hinshaw and that it would be ‘very devastating to him if he was not in his life.’ She described Hinshaw as the boy’s ‘psychological father.’
“Whittinghill not only granted Hinshaw’s motion for joint custody, she also made his home the boy’s primary residence and ordered his ex-wife to pay him $25,000 in attorney’s fees.”
Whittinghill is one of the heroes of this story, standing up for a loving father’s bond with this child against the mother’s selfish demands and family law machinations. I salute her, and she is the initial entry into the Glenn Sacks pantheon of “Judges Who Get It Right.”
Let’s hope her inclusion doesn’t hurt her career…
|
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Yes, Glen, this Judge got it right. And it should be shouted out. What a rarity.
And that’s the problem, isn’t it. What is this? – “While I think this criticism is excessive and overblown….”. Is the criticism excessive? Overblown? The case you noted is the breach episode in the phrase, ‘the rule, honoured more in the breach’. The rule remains general, that the father is right royally f*cked 99% of the time.
Criticise away. The Family Court is the excessive party. I wonder how long Judge Virginia Whittinghill will last before she is made to conform and cease her breaching.
March 24th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Umm, but where is the bio dad?
Was he in on the fraud, if so, he belongs in prison with the mother on charges of fraud and child abuse, and he, along with the mother, should pay the duped dad punitive damages and child support when they get out of prison, including arrearages. His prison sentence should possibly be lighter than the mother’s though, assuming she committed perjury but he simply kept his mouth shut, although he knew crimes were being committed and did nothing to stop it, so then again, maybe not.
If he was scammed out of a life with his own flesh and blood because the mother could get more money by duping another guy she was sleeping around with, the usual reason women abuse children and defraud men with paternity fraud, and he had no knowledge that the mother was abusing his child to cheat an honest guy out some money, then the judge did not get it right, at least not unless he died shortly after conception.
So there is not enough information given to determine whether or not a family law sleazebag finally got one right. Regardless, I didn’t see anything about where the mother was prosecuted and imprisoned for fraud, perjury, and child abuse, so it’s a good bet the judge did not get it right.
The worst criminal in every courtroom is the sleazy lawyer/politician wearing the black robe sitting up front! Even a serial child rapist killer has done less harm to children and society than your typical family law judge, and it is about time we begin treating them as such.
March 24th, 2007 at 9:14 am
DcFather – I could be wrong but I don’t think a family court judge has the jurisdiction to change a custody determination into a criminal trial for fraud etc. If I am wrong then fair enough you have a point but otherwise I think we should positively acknowledge a good and wise decision by a family court judge when it happens,
Whatever we think of family court judges it is THEY who continue to decide such issues (custody and access etc) and whilst I am prepared to criticise the many who get badly wrong it would be churlish not to acknowledge the few who get it right for once.
March 24th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Judges have arrest and incarceration powers.
Judges have contempt Powers which can be used to enforce the legitimacy of the court against contempt as well as Fraud upon the Court.
Judges have more of a duty than the average citizen to not only report illegal activity, but to take specific action that the perpetrators be taken into custody and even act as a witness so that arraignment can be made. Especially for acts within their court.
So while the Judge might not have the Jurisdicton to hear the case, because they are a witness, they have arrest, incarceration powers to stop wymyn and then sign affidavits and act as a witness.
They can also sign a criminal complaint.
Since they do not do these things, they are complicit with criminals.
March 24th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Thurston – if what you say is true and all judges are thus obligated then the family court judge in this case is still better than the vast majority who routinely fall down on carrying out with integrity and fairness what IS in their direct jurisdiction. For that alone I think the judge should receive positive acknowledgement.
March 24th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
This judge should receive positive acknowledgment for his findings in this one case. But I will bet dollars to doughnuts that he commits crimes of peonage every other day he serves on the bench.
March 25th, 2007 at 5:55 am
Roger, the judge in this instance is a woman i.e. Judge Virginia Whittinghill.
I don’t know about her other cases – but if her method of inquiry that she used in this case is typical of her actions then it may turn out she is an example to follow. Still no matter – she has given a good example on how to deal with other similiar cases – lets hope other judges are watching and learning. A chorus of Kumbuyyaa anyone?