Thursday, March 19, 2015

What family court judges do

A legal blog drew this comment:
This means that while our legislatures pass one set of rules and regulations for citizens, family court judges are free to just make up their own rules that have nothing to do with law or reason.

That's what family court judges do. It doesn't have anything to do with guns per se. Could be religion or schooling or health care or parental dating or anything else you can think of. These are decisions in equity, and the judges frequently apply no particular set of principles beyond their own whims.
That's right, and it is completely opposite what 3 millennia of legal theory says judges are supposed to do.

The case involved a dad who won sole custody of a child, but then was ordered to get rid of his guns until the kid is 18yo. The appeals knocked out the gun condition:
In its letter opinion, the trial court noted that extensive testimony was given regarding Kurt’s collection of guns. It acknowledged that Kurt, Andrea, and both of Andrea’s parents testified that the guns were kept in a locked safe in a closet located behind a locked door to Kurt’s bedroom. ... Nevertheless, the court went on to find that it was not in the child’s best interests to have multiple guns and ammunition in a home.

Based upon the evidence presented at trial, as well as the trial court’s own specific findings, it was not reasonable for the court to place such a restriction on Kurt’s lawful possession of ammunition or guns without any evidence of danger to the child. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s ruling on this issue …
Of course the family court judge could still retaliate by taking away his custody.

4 comments:

HeligKo said...

My case fits this. The GAL recommended without any good rational that my wife and step-kids have no contact with my kids. She waved her magic wand and said the magic words "In the best interest of the Children" and it is so. None of these parties posed any danger to my kids. My oldest may present a danger to the other kids, but there is no ruling regarding him.

clay robertson said...

Just lie to the fucker and say all the guns are now gone. Somehow, it's OK for a judge to lie, so what's the difference? Anybody who breaths air will understand and agree that this is preposterous! When will you people finally have enough of this tyranny?

Kurt said...

I am the Dad in that court case, and my lawyer at the time did not want to appeal against that judge, nor did I have anymore money for the courts to take. I represented myself, and fought back. Thankfully the outcome was favorable and I got my rights back.

Kurt

KurtR said...

I just saw that my case was posted all over the internet. I am the father in this case.

There was no legal recourse for me. I had an attorney up through trial, and could not afford him for the appeal. He was hesistant to take on the gun issue in the Appellate. I declared bankruptcy after the trial and wrote the appeal on my own Pro Se and yes I did pervail. However, after the appellate ruling, the same judge who issued the rulings that were overturned ordered me to pay half of opposing counsel legal fees. I may have gotten my rights to own firearms back, but the guns are long gone, and I'm stuck with an approximately $15,000 tab to the losing attorney, and in a second bankruptcy right now holding on for dear life. I have read a lot of what has been posted in comments and it seems that everyone else is smarter than the trial court was. Thank you for brightening up my day.

Kurt