Judicial Bias in Family Court
Let's talk about judicial bias in the context of family court cases. Family court is the wild, wild west of the judicial system complete with rogue judges who don't follow the law and often appear to be above the law. The family court system is a place where rules are ambiguous, oversight is minimal if any, and outcomes are predictable depending on the income levels of the litigants. Lower to middle class litigants are typically pushed through the system like cattle and middle-class to upper class litigants are targeted by unscrupulous professionals who are quick to turn their children into revenue streams. One of the glaring issues is the lack of checks and balances within the family court system - when a rogue judge has been identified, there is little recourse or avenues for accountability.
One of the most pressing issues in family court is the absence of effective oversight. Unlike criminal courts that are subject to stringent regulations and review processes, family courts often operate with a level of autonomy that can lead to inconsistent rulings. Judges wield considerable discretion, which can result in starkly different outcomes based solely on the individual judge's perspective or biases.
Many states allow judges to make decisions without requiring them to provide detailed justifications, leaving families to navigate a system that feels arbitrary and capricious. This lack of accountability can foster an environment where decisions are made based on personal beliefs rather than established legal principles or solid, evidence-based research. This is highly concerning given that judicial officers in family court are cradling the lives of the most vulnerable members of our society; children.
Many family court professionals seem to prioritize parental rights, leading to agreements that may not be in the best interest of the children. Without proper checks on these professionals, families may find themselves at the mercy of individuals who may not fully understand or appreciate the complexities of their situation or worse, may be financially motivated to breathe fire on the flames of litigation. Labeled as reunification profiteers, those who work in the "alienation industry" are making ungodly amounts of money by forcing children into relationships with abusive parents.
Many argue that what is happening to children in our family court system will go down in history as one of the biggest scandals (and tragedies) of our lifetime.
There are two judges who have recently hit our radar, unmistakable examples of judicial bias however, these are just two examples of many:
The first is Judge Tametrice Hodges-Linzey of Hinds County, Mississippi. In this video, Judge Hodges-Linzey openly discusses her background as a father's rights attorney and her affinity for helping fathers. Her bias is apparent in the rulings coming out of her court room and there is a recent case where she jailed a loving mother for over 30 days. The mothers offense: protecting her child.
The second is New Hampshire Circuit Judge Jennifer A. Lemire who came out with guns blazing against legislation that would prohibit reunification therapy. In fact, Judge Lemire offered the following testimony:
Judge Lemire’s testimony opposing New Hampshire HB 306 is highly concerning for the following reasons:
She discusses cases where a child might resist contact with a parent and suggests that this could be due to “alienation” by the other parent despite the fact that alienation is a theory that has been strongly denounced by reputable organizations and medical bodies around the world. Her stance overlooks the legitimate fears or concerns a child has if they have witnessed or experienced abuse. There is limited acknowledgment that a child's resistance may actually stem from an abusive parent's behavior.
The judge emphasizes the use of "reunification therapy" as a tool despite the fact that it is both experimental and expensive. For survivors of domestic abuse, forced reunification without adequately addressing the abuse dynamics can be traumatic and dangerous. The insistence of utilizing this experimental treatment places emphasis on maintaining parental contact over addressing safety concerns and places children in harms way.
While the judge mentions consulting professionals to make informed decisions, the professionals who work in the reunification industry are rarely trained in domestic violence and child trauma, and do not adequately consider abuse dynamics or worse, completely ignore abuse allegations and findings.
The judge’s testimony stresses the constitutional rights of parents, but this emphasis overshadows the need to prioritize a child’s safety and well-being, particularly in cases involving allegations or findings of abuse.
The judge's description of high-conflict cases generalizes and minimizes these cases that often involve domestic abuse which means that power and control are significant factors that must be taken into consideration.
Heightening our concern about judicial bias, Judge Jennifer A. Lemire also teaches a course on the pseudo theory of "parental alienation," titled: Identifying & Addressing Severe Parent/Child Contact Problems in Parenting & Divorce Cases.
We need oversight and transparency in our family court system - in an effort to shine a light in the darkness, we are starting a formal court watch program (OMB Court Watch) during the month of November and it is open to members of our OMB State chapters. To join your state chapter of OMB, go to www.ombchapters.com and once approved, you are invited to join OMB Court Watch.
