Monday, July 11, 2016

Georgia upholds free speech for parents

I have quit posting, but here are a couple of things that came to my attention recently.

A family court judge ordered parents not to comment about the court on Facebook, as he took personal offense at some of the criticisms.

A Wash. Post blogger reports:
Georgia appellate court overturns custody order that barred both parents from commenting about the case

As the United States Supreme Court has stated,

[w]hatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. Although it is assumed that judges will ignore the public clamor or media reports and editorials in reaching their decisions and by tradition will not respond to public commentary, the law gives judges as persons, or courts as institutions no greater immunity from criticism than other persons or institutions. The operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern.
Among other things, a parent was complaining that the court transcript did not match the official audio recording of a hearing, and the judge was relying on the inaccurate transcript.

Fathers’ rights campaigners in Israel have long complained about what is surely the most archaic and anti-child feature of Israeli law regarding child custody – its retention of the Tender Years Doctrine. In Israeli law, that’s called the “early childhood clause.” Under it, mothers receive custody of any child under the age of six. All considerations except the child’s age are off the table. Is the mother mentally unbalanced, abusive, a drunk, a drug addict? It makes no difference. Is Dad a paragon of virtue and paternal love? It makes no difference. Mom gets custody. Period.
People complain about the possibility of Sharia law creeping into the court, but they should also complain about Jewish law creeping in.

AP reportw:
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — People who deliberately refuse to pay court-ordered child support can go to jail for consecutive six-month sentences for repeat violations, New York's highest court ruled Tuesday.

State law generally limits Family Court to imposing single six-month sentences.

The Court of Appeals, with six judges ruling unanimously, said Family Court can revisit jail sentences for willful violations that were previously suspended and order an offender jailed on all of them. Those sentences can run consecutively, extending the time an offender can be locked up.
These jail terms are without a jury trial or other due process protections that a criminal defendant is entitled to.


Anonymous said...

Parents that are not married should be entitled to the same constitutional rights to free speech that married parents have.

Anonymous said...

Parents are going to prison everyday from family court in America. No jury trials, this is an outrage and we are living in a police state.

Anonymous said...

"Israeli law" is not "Jewish law," unless you're a neo-nazi!

Anonymous said...

no parent should have to be court ordered to help support their child period. if a judge orders you to pay and you violate that order then you can and should go to jail. if your warned if you dont pay then you will get a sentence that was suspended and you still dont pay well you askd for it. now when your brought in court on charges of others sorts in family court your usually asked if you need a lawyer,at least from what ive seen. free speech is everyone right in the usa but nt if it offends the butthurt ones