Judges Have Too Much Discretion

Some say that judges need discretion to determine what's in the best interest of children. But how much discretion do they need? How much can they be trusted with?

There's a chart on the DCSE website showing that 94% of custodial parents in the system are mothers and only 4% are fathers. Fatherless homes are the cause of most social problems: jails filled with men raised without dads, teenage pregnancies, teen suicides, etc.

See http://jlarc.state.va.us/Reports/Rpt248.pdf

Obviously family court judges are making wrong decisions: ignoring the U.S. Constitution and federal case law establishing the constitutional right to be a parent. If judges would simply obey the law and their oath of office by treating parents fairly, many social ills would be remedied and much taxpayer money saved. See http://www.gocrc.com

Blatant gender discrimination by judges causes continuing litigation, and thus more billable hours for attorneys and psychologists, at the cost of ripping a child's world apart.

The best interest of children is for their parents to cooperate, which can only happen on a level playing field. To strengthen families and keep them together, we must remove state statutes which ostensibly allow judges to block shared parenting simply because one party objects. That concept, unequal custody due to one parent's objection, gives quasi-judicial authority to the objecting parent. That's an outrageous absurdity and a mockery of justice and the law.

According to federal case law, the burden of proof is on the government to show cause for denial of the fundamental constitutional right to be a parent.

Absent such a finding, equal parenting should be the default parenting plan promoted by all family courts. Parents may agree to less than equal parenting if they so choose, but the state should not impose unequal parenting on a fit parent. That violates equal protection of the laws, due process and the constitutional right to parent one’s children.

Therefore, all states need to remove any statutes that pretend to allow attorneys to play the "winner-takes-all" blame game which rewards a parent for leaving a partner at the drop of a hat. Children need both fit parents and for parents to be treated fairly.

How long will states keep incurring enormous amounts of debt to all the parents whose civil rights are being violated by family court judges? They need to set parameters on judges that prevent them from violating the rights of fit parents to raise their children, with presumption of equal shared parenting.

 

Mark Young