Let'sGetHonestBloghttp://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/here-come-da-judge/
Not a Private Matter – Why "Family" "Law" System Hurts Us All
“Here Come da Judge!”
Some times, hard times, a little humor helps me. I seem to notice things that maybe others don’t (oft-burnt, twice as observant?)…
This is from Womenslaw.org about Custody, and a good question, plus a sidelong plug for (what else) supervised visitation. . . . And no absolute commitment either way on this topic:
Can a parent who committed violence get “custody” or “visitation”?
Maybe. It is possible that a parent who has committed violence will get custody or visitation if the court determines that it is in the “best interest of the child” to do so. Generally, judges beleve it is in the child’s best interest to have frequent contact with both parents.*1
{{so, the “court” kind of being the “judge” who signs the order, we get back to what judges generally believe… For more of that, see the AFCC conference as to what’s being promoted among many of them…}}
Conservatorship / Custody:
If a person is filing for sole or joint managing conservatorship, the court will consider whether the person has been abusive toward his/her spouse, the parent of the child and any person under 18 years old within the 2 years before filing for conservatorship or during the proceeding. A judge may deny joint managing conservatorship if s/he finds that there is a history or pattern of child neglect or physical or sexual abuse of a parent, spouse or child.*2
{{then, again, they also may not. Sounds like a toss-up to me…}}
The judge may not {{OR, may…}} appoint joint managing conservators if reliable evidence is presented of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect, or physical or sexual abuse by one parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child. *3
Likewise, the court [[as opposed to "the judge?"] will consider {{but will it act on?}} any incident of family violence in deciding whether to deny, restrict, or limit the possession of a child by a parent who is appointed as a possessory conservator.*4
Possession and Access / Visitation:
If a parent has been violent within the last two years before filing or during the court proceedings, a judge may {{or may not, we have no committed policy here, right?}} deny that parent possession of or access to the child unless:
the judge decides that allowing the parent access is not a danger to the child and is in the best interest of the child; and
the judge approves a possession order that will protect the child and any other victim from the abusive parent. The order may require:
- supervised access; {{Here’s the Business Model…}}
exchange of the child in a protective setting (see note below);
that the parent not drink alcohol and not use any drugs within 12 hours before or during the time the child is with him/her; or {{See my comments on Oconto, Wisconsin, where the father was caught DUI with the daughter in the car, but still it was the MOTHER who was jailed for failing to force the daughter back into that situation.}}
that the parent attend a batterer’s prevention program or any program the judge finds appropriate. *5
Tell the judge if you have gotten a protective order within the last 2 years against the parent seeking possession of and access to your child. The judge will consider this when determining whether there is a history of family violence.*6
{{Note: Some women get SMART after the first several violent incidents, and survive more than 2 years in a relationship before someone shows them how to get out. In this case, asking what happened in the last 2 years may not indicate that the father/husband/partner has reformed or settled down, or repented, but simply that the mother/wife/partner simply got cagier and smarter in how to avoid them. As many abusers also are control freaks, as toa ccess to transportation and ways to escape their abuse, this may involve shutting down emotionally, and teaching the kids to also, i.e., “walking on eggshells.” how many judges take the time to tell the difference?}}
Note: If the abuser is granted possession and access to your child, ask the court or a local domestic violence program for information about visitation centers or visitation exchange facilities in your county if you think that is a good option for you.
GOT THIS? The judge MAY respect the danger of domestic violence, or the judge MAY instead choose to drop-kick the problem to some cronies in the supervised visitation field.
{{Which of course they will prime you to. . . .. . I asked for this, and was of course, not told that there is federal funding for this, but not available so readily for MOMS… Not being incarcerated, an abuser, or behind on my child support (as the custodial mother), there was no outreach program to help me. And as I wasn’t preventing access, that wasn’t an issue. Thanks, dudes for rewarding me for compliance and good-faith allowing regular access to my growing (and healing) children by totally removing them from me, failing to enforce child support — at all, practically — and allowing him after custody switch to totally cut off contact, failing to report felony child-stealing (meaning, no Victims of Crime compensation), and no help after this event trashed my jobs. Thanks. Merry Christmas to all, and let’ em eat cake…}}
It is assumed by the court that it is not in the best interest of a child for a parent to have unsupervised visitation with the child if there is credible evidence of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect or physical or sexual abuse by that parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child. *7
*1 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.131
*2 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(a)
*3 Tex. Fam. Code §153.004(b)
*4 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(c)
*5 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(d)
*6 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004
*7 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(e)
======================
(Since I’ve already dated, if not geographically marked (as to California) myself, I’ll go one step further and admit, this “well, it depends. . . .. ” approach to whether an abuser (or “a parent who has committed violence”) can get custody of a child approach reminded me (see highlit words, above) on the old comedy routine:
“Here Comes Da Judge!”
A little more judicial humor, even more dated (i.e., not my own…):
“THE INSCRUTABLE WORKINGS OF PROVIDENCE“
My last blog{{whoever this is...}}, on the rather bland exchanges between lawyers and justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, gave me a craving for red meat. So I pulled out my copy of Winston Churchill's marvelous little book, Great Contemporaries, and I turned to the essay on F.E. Smith, a lawyer who later became the first Earl of Birkenhead. Smith was famous for his stilletto wit, which once drew a pompous rebuke from a presiding judge: "Mr. Smith, have you ever heard a saying by Bacon -- the great Bacon -- that youth and discretion are ill-wedded companions?" "Yes I have," came the instant repartee. "And have you ever heard a saying of Bacon -- the great Bacon -- that a much-talking judge is like an ill-tuned cymbal?" Taken aback, the judge resorted to scolding, "You are extremely offensive, young man," "As a matter of fact," said Smith, "we both are; but I am trying to be, and you can't help it." The judge, who apparently had never heard of citing a lawyer for contempt, came back for another drubbing: ""What do you suppose I am on the bench for, Mr. Smith?" "It is not for me, your honor, to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of Providence." That kind of exchange is something we we will never hear in oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Americans are much too dignified for any such thing.
Posted on January 9, 2006 10:40 PM | Permalink
OR:
If I want to quote a Supreme Court justice who was genuinely funny, I usually turn to Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935).Among my favorite Holmes stories is the one concerning how he was supposed to lecture at a college, and discovered that he had arrived at an insane asylum by mistake. The justice was philosophical. “Oh well,” he said to the guard, “I don’t suppose that there is a great deal of difference.” For once, the legal eagle was topped. “With great respect, Mr. Justice,” the guard replied, “there is. Before they let you out of this place, you have to show some improvement.”
Posted on January 2, 2006 7:53 PM | Permalink
More, “HERE COME DA JUDGE” info:
Here comes the Judge!
Here comes the judge!
The court's in session!
The Funky Judge! Updated 8.28.02
That’s right. 1968 was the year of the funky craze (see last issue’s Soul With An African Twist). It may not have showed up on t
Technorati Tags: parent,violence,custody,Here,Come,Judge,LETSGETHONESTblog,LetGetHonestBlog,Private,Matter,System,Some,times,Womenslaw,commitment,topic,Maybe,judges,signs,AFCC,conference,Conservatorship,person,spouse,history,Likewise,incident,possession,Visitation,proceedings,policy,danger,victim,Model,comments,Oconto,Wisconsin,father,daughter,MOTHER,situation,prevention,Tell,Note,SMART,relationship,husband,wife,transportation,kids,difference,abuser,facilities,option,cronies,MOMS,Thanks,compliance,faith,children,felony,Victims,Crime,compensation,event,Merry,Christmas,Code,California,words,comedy,INSCRUTABLE,WORKINGS,PROVIDENCE,exchanges,Supreme,Court,meat,Winston,Churchill,Great,Contemporaries,essay,Smith,lawyer,Earl,Birkenhead,Bacon,youth,discretion,repartee,Taken,fact,contempt,bench,arguments,Americans,January,Permalink,justice,Oliver,Wendell,Holmes,Among,college,asylum,improvement,info,session,Funky,craze,Soul,African,Twist,incidents,dudes,lawyers,companions,whether,sexual,wasn
