I’m on a theme here. As I’ve written elsewhere, members of my profession, and I think the public in general, are used to thinking about attorneys who practice criminal defense protecting their clients from the judges. That is a part of the criminal defense attorney’s job. The story goes that the judge wants to hang ’em so the attorney has to protect ’em.
In our culture, we don’t think about that same issue in family law, but sometimes we definitely should. Look briefly on the internet and you can find the most horrific stories of judges run amok. And that’s just the stuff that is known and obvious. What happens when a raw deal occurs and you never know why. You are left with, “that judgment makes no sense; what was the judge thinking.
Thanks to his daughter, Judge William Adams provides keen insight to just how much judges can be people, sometimes very wicked people. Google him for the story to see what I mean.
Please understand that I am not saying that all, most or even a significant minority of judges are wicked. In fact, I have the highest respect for most judges and some are even paragons of virtue. But some are less than stellar and, yes, some are wicked, just like in the general population. But when you find wicked in the hands of a judge, the ruling is a very, very scary thing.
Judge William Adams was a family court judge. (I’m hoping the past tense holds) He ruled on many many cases involving children. Don’t you just know that his view of the world was very messed up indeed? Don’t you just know that many children suffered because of his incredibly flawed approach to the world and his brutal exercise of his power?
So, sometimes the family law attorney has to wear a protector hat and protect the client, and indeed the family, from the wicked, or even just “off” judge. Again, far and away you don’t need protection from most judges, but that is not true of all judges.
Michael Manely