Faux Process And Rubber-Stamped Orders

In 2020, I represented a mother in Muskogee County fighting for custody of her 5-year-old son. The mother had full custody at the time and an intermittent hearing was held to potentially appoint a Guardian Ad Litem to the case. The Muskogee County Superior Court did not change custody that day—and the judge asked the father’s attorney to draft an order appointing the Guardian Ad Litem to the case. 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. Though no hearing on custody took place, the judge signed the order without scrutiny and, without notice or a hearing in the matter, the mother lost full custody of her son.

So what happened here? How could a judge simply sign parental rights away at the drop of a hat, without a hearing or evidence on the matter? 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: (1) First, a judge holds a hearing. (2) At the hearing, the judge makes an oral ruling and tells the attorney for the "winning party" to draft a proposed order for the judge to sign. (3) The drafting attorney then inserts remedies and wording that was not part of the judge's ruling nor within the scope of the hearing. (4) Lastly, the judge signs the order awarding the drafting party everything they wrote into the proposed order regardless of whether it was within the scope of the judge's oral ruling at the hearing.

That was not the first time I had a client fall victim to a rubber-stamped order, nor was it the last. In fact, my first recollection of such injustice occurred at the hands of Judge Carl W. Bowers, and my most recent experience was at the hands of Judge G. Grant Brantley. While I sincerely want to believe that these were honest mistakes, rare flukes caused by an alignment of the planets, mere cursory research into the personal backgrounds and experience of these two judges shows otherwise.

Early in Judge Bowers' career, he served as Judge Brantley's staff attorney--a job likely handed to Bowers In 2022, Judge Carl Bowers publicly praised Brantley stating: "He's given me great advice many, many times over the years when I worked with him," and "I learned so much from him that I use today in the courtroom in state court."

Our broken judiciary is not the result of a bunch of evil judges sitting around a conference table plotting against the well-being of society and the Cobb County community. No, our maimed “justice” system is the result of flawed philosophies and the misalignment of incentives. In other words, our judicial officers have more to gain personally by not doing their job than by actually doing their job. And We The People suffer for it. So what are these personal incentives that detract judges from proper execution of their jobs? Simply put: Time and Money.

Imagine losing your house or, worse, your child simply because a judge was too lazy to read what he was signing. Judges are disregarding true due process, acting like cogs in a wheel, simple machines stamping their signature on a piece of paper without scrutinizing the contents. Apparently, they just don’t have time for that.

Matthew D. McMaster, Esq.

Candidate for Cobb County State Court Judge