Difference between revisions of "Faux Process And Rubber-Stamped Orders"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
(username removed) |
(username removed) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In 2019, I represented a mother in | In 2019, I represented a mother in Muscogee County fighting for custody of her 5-year-old son. The mother had primary custody at the time and an intermittent hearing was held to potentially appoint a Guardian Ad Litem to the case. That hearing was not regarding the change of custody and the Muscogee County Superior Court did not change custody that day. The judge asked the father’s attorney to draft an order appointing the Guardian Ad Litem. The opposing counsel drafted the “proposed” order for the judge to review. In the proposed order, however, the opposing attorney inserted a clause that changed full custody from the mother to the father. The judge signed the order without scrutiny and, without notice or a hearing on the matter, the mother lost primary custody of her son. It took over a year for the mother to get primary custody of her son back. | ||
So what happened here? How could a judge simply sign parental rights away at the drop of a hat, without notice or a hearing? This is what I call “faux process” (contra to “due process”) and what many attorneys refer to as a “rubber-stamped” order. The formula for this injustice is as follows:<br> | So what happened here? How could a judge simply sign parental rights away at the drop of a hat, without notice or a hearing? This is what I call “faux process” (contra to “due process”) and what many attorneys refer to as a “rubber-stamped” order. The formula for this injustice is as follows:<br> | ||
(username removed)