Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Coming Soon - Family Law and the Constitution
Many times, although not intentionally, the United States Constitution - and your rights - are ignored in family courts across the country. In an effort to reach a reasonable and sometimes even amicable resolution, lawyers and judges can be mired by the myriad of acrimonious issues and forget even the most basic legal principles set forth by our founding fathers. I have completed an article on this topic and will submit it to the Oklahoma Bar Journal for publication consideration next month. If selected, it will not likely be published until January 2008. In the meantime, if you have thoughts, questions or comments, please share them with me at www.profesc-research.blogspot.com in the comments section on the post similar to this one. Thank You!
Monday, September 10, 2007
Domestic Violence - New Page
I am starting a new page, www.profesc-research.blogspot.com, but will keep this one going for some time (at least until the survey expires). Additionally, I am starting a new survey on the new page - with some question refinements due to lessons learned here. I hope that you will continue to visit both sites and, please, leave your comments. Your comments are very important to me; they help me direct the site. THANK YOU!
Friday, September 07, 2007
Comments from Oklahoma Womens Network
I don't know who wrote the following comment, but I found it on the Oklahoma Women's Network. To whoever you are, thank you for recognizing my committment to assist victims!
Anonymous said...
Judge Chionopoulos helped me. He is a CREDIT TO ALL VICTIMS and it is a shame that the political systemn screwed him from continuing to help us. That is the way it always goes. If some one cares, then those with power SCREW him or her to keep those of us who need help down!
10:55 PM
Anonymous said...
Judge Chionopoulos helped me. He is a CREDIT TO ALL VICTIMS and it is a shame that the political systemn screwed him from continuing to help us. That is the way it always goes. If some one cares, then those with power SCREW him or her to keep those of us who need help down!
10:55 PM
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Domestic Violence Survey
Please take a moment to fill out the survey to your left. Obviously, there is no identifying information with respect to the predator or victim. The information gathered, in addition to any comments that you would like to send to the address listed below, dvpresearch@yahoo.com, will assist me in defining the scope of the problem. Again, thank you for helping others and helping me help others.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Domestic Violence Data
Well, the sunny life in Florida is agreeable - absent any potential for hurricanes, of course. I have been blessed with many opportunities here, including the ability to write for a well known publisher. I have undertaken two significant projects. Although, I could use public help with one of them. It has long been my belief that many citizens believe Domestic Violence (DV) strikes only the lower socio-economic portion of our society; and, that such a belief is inaccurate. Rather, it is more probable that a decrease in reporting is proportionate to an increase in social status.
If you have been, or know anyone who has been, a victim of Domestic Violence please take a few short moments to complete the survey on the left side of this blog. As you can see, the survey does not call for any identifying information with respect to either the predator or the victim; and yet provides data essential to assessing the scope and breath of the problem. You may also send additional information to dvpresearch@yahoo.com or you may comment on this post.
I am especially interested in cataloging the information where the DV incident was: 1) Reported, but unaddressed because the predator was a person of influence such that authorities disregarded or minimized the incident; 2) Unreported because the DV victim was embarrassed; or 3) Unreported due to victim's fear of reprisal from either the predator or the authorities. Please also feel free to share with me any additional catagories you believe would help educate people on this socially serious issue.
So, if you have been or if you know anyone that has been the victim of DV, please share with me privately through this blog page. The name or other identifying information of the victim or the predator need not be disclosed to me, although the year in which the incident occurred would be helpful. Please help me continue to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. THANK YOU!
If you have been, or know anyone who has been, a victim of Domestic Violence please take a few short moments to complete the survey on the left side of this blog. As you can see, the survey does not call for any identifying information with respect to either the predator or the victim; and yet provides data essential to assessing the scope and breath of the problem. You may also send additional information to dvpresearch@yahoo.com or you may comment on this post.
I am especially interested in cataloging the information where the DV incident was: 1) Reported, but unaddressed because the predator was a person of influence such that authorities disregarded or minimized the incident; 2) Unreported because the DV victim was embarrassed; or 3) Unreported due to victim's fear of reprisal from either the predator or the authorities. Please also feel free to share with me any additional catagories you believe would help educate people on this socially serious issue.
So, if you have been or if you know anyone that has been the victim of DV, please share with me privately through this blog page. The name or other identifying information of the victim or the predator need not be disclosed to me, although the year in which the incident occurred would be helpful. Please help me continue to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. THANK YOU!
Thursday, August 16, 2007
America Thanks You for Your Service. Welcome Home - YOU'RE FIRED!
Life as we know it has forever changed in the wake of September 11, 2001. However, life for those serving in the United States Armed Forces Reserves, that phrase has a very different meaning. Many national guardsmen, reserve soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines dropped their proverbial plow, donned their desert camouflage uniforms and grabbed their weapon of choice before leaving their families, friends and jobs to go and fight in the Middle East. Life as what is often referred to as a ‘citizen-soldier’ can be very challenging. Not only does the reserve service member need to make a living for his/her family, as we all do, but simultaneously that individual is required to maintain a specified level of physical fitness and military skill for which there is often no civilian counter-part. Doctors, lawyers and the like have it a little easier in that their professional skill sets are the same, or at least sufficiently similar, both in the military and civilian worlds. Those, however, who do the ‘real’ military work such as Army and Marine infantrymen, Naval gunners and Air Force navigators are truly talented men and women who live a dual professional life. Ordinarily, they are the individuals who have the drive, intelligence and force of personality that make them most attractive to civilian employers. Once, however, they are required to actually leave their civilian jobs for more than the traditional two week annual training period the employer, who had once heralded them in Stentorian tone for their patriotic service, often does not want to deal with the hassle or inconvenience of re-employing them upon return from military service.
The First Gulf War caught much of the world unaware. The United States had recently down-sized the active military forces and for the first time since WWII had to command a significant number of National Guard and Reserve units onto active duty in order to meet the ‘threat.’ After having put the menacing threat to rest in Promethean style, many of America’s heroes returned home only to find that they had been replaced in the civilian work force. Not only could GI Joe and GI Jane not get their old jobs back, but many discovered that as long as the threat of continued hostility loomed on the political horizon, prospective employers showed a dulled enthusiasm for offering them even the most paltry professional opportunities.
Employers, looking at ‘the bottom line’, wanted a stable work force. While GI Joe and GI Jane reigned in George H.W. Bush’s nemesis, Sadaam, life in the United States went on much unaffected and that meant the employer still had a business to run and customer’s to service. Take for instance a ‘mom-and-pop’ type auto repair shop. The geopolitical ramifications of Sadaam’s evil simply did not impact their daily business and while GI Joe and GI Jane were combating the ‘elite Republican Iraqi Guard’ they still had to repair automobiles for their customers in home-town America, who were also largely unaffected by the war and wanted their cars fixed. So the auto-barn in middle-America hired a new mechanic and when GI Joe or GI Jane returned, ‘mom and pop’ were reticent to fire the ‘new guy’ and let Joe or Jane have their job back, for two reasons: 1) the new guy was doing a good job and, after all, he had a family to support as well; and 2) GI Joe or GI Jane will run off again at the first sign of trouble some place else in the world that simply does not amount to a rodent’s posterior here in middle-America and then the new guy will be working some place else and we will have to start all over again training yet another ‘new guy.’
Well, that hardly seems fair! In summary, GI Joe or GI Jane leave their family and go into harm’s way in order to protect interests that our elected leaders tell us are paramount to our continued prosperity; often times the reserve military member takes a cut in pay for the privilege of putting his/her life in danger; and the thanks received for his/her patriotic service is relegation into a pool of unemployable, or at least under-employable, individuals that may or may not be re-called to military service in the future! In the meantime, GI Joe and GI Jane still have a family to support. Without pay from the Armed Forces, because they have been dismissed from military service with a heartfelt “thank you” from the Commander-in-Chief, the service member then realizes that getting out of the military is the only way to truly provide for his/her family. In short, our self-focus and avaricious lust caused a brain-drain from the military following the First Gulf War.
In order to combat the loss of sorely needed experience throughout the Armed Forces, Congress passed the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Essentially, USERRA created legally enforceable employment and re-employment rights for military members. USERRA specifically requires an employer to ‘hold’ a military member’s job for a certain period of time during a call to active duty. If the employer fails to re-employ the military member upon his/her return, and subject to certain notification requirements by the military member, then a ‘private cause of action’ is created. In other words, the military member can sue the employer. However, many employers are now heard to complain that the USERRA requirements are ‘unfair’ and ‘regressive’ because larger employers can bare the weight of holding a job more readily then small business. Some argue that, like the Family Medical Leave Act, an employer should first be required to have a specific number of employees before the law applies.
As we welcome home many heroes from places like Afghanastan, Iraq and Qatar it is imperative that we deal with the issue, which is as old as war itself, of re-integrating service men and women into the civilian work force. Today, however, unlike the late 1940s following WWII, re-integration is more challenging because the “War on Terrorism” has had little impact on mainstream America. Notwithstanding the longer airport security lines, there are few daily reminders that America’s sons and daughters are fighting and dying as we go about our rapacious routine. So is the answer to grant service members the right to ‘sue?’ Will introducing more lawsuits into our already litigious society right the wrong? Who pays the lawyers? How does GI Joe or GI Jane support his/her family during the pending court action? Does USERRA rightfully protect the interests of America’s heroes as a reward for having secured our collective liberty; or does USERRA amount to what Frederic Bastiat warned as an entitlement society? These questions and more will be addressed in a more substantial work on the subject of USERRA – “America Thanks You for Your Service. Welcome Home – You’re Fired!”
The First Gulf War caught much of the world unaware. The United States had recently down-sized the active military forces and for the first time since WWII had to command a significant number of National Guard and Reserve units onto active duty in order to meet the ‘threat.’ After having put the menacing threat to rest in Promethean style, many of America’s heroes returned home only to find that they had been replaced in the civilian work force. Not only could GI Joe and GI Jane not get their old jobs back, but many discovered that as long as the threat of continued hostility loomed on the political horizon, prospective employers showed a dulled enthusiasm for offering them even the most paltry professional opportunities.
Employers, looking at ‘the bottom line’, wanted a stable work force. While GI Joe and GI Jane reigned in George H.W. Bush’s nemesis, Sadaam, life in the United States went on much unaffected and that meant the employer still had a business to run and customer’s to service. Take for instance a ‘mom-and-pop’ type auto repair shop. The geopolitical ramifications of Sadaam’s evil simply did not impact their daily business and while GI Joe and GI Jane were combating the ‘elite Republican Iraqi Guard’ they still had to repair automobiles for their customers in home-town America, who were also largely unaffected by the war and wanted their cars fixed. So the auto-barn in middle-America hired a new mechanic and when GI Joe or GI Jane returned, ‘mom and pop’ were reticent to fire the ‘new guy’ and let Joe or Jane have their job back, for two reasons: 1) the new guy was doing a good job and, after all, he had a family to support as well; and 2) GI Joe or GI Jane will run off again at the first sign of trouble some place else in the world that simply does not amount to a rodent’s posterior here in middle-America and then the new guy will be working some place else and we will have to start all over again training yet another ‘new guy.’
Well, that hardly seems fair! In summary, GI Joe or GI Jane leave their family and go into harm’s way in order to protect interests that our elected leaders tell us are paramount to our continued prosperity; often times the reserve military member takes a cut in pay for the privilege of putting his/her life in danger; and the thanks received for his/her patriotic service is relegation into a pool of unemployable, or at least under-employable, individuals that may or may not be re-called to military service in the future! In the meantime, GI Joe and GI Jane still have a family to support. Without pay from the Armed Forces, because they have been dismissed from military service with a heartfelt “thank you” from the Commander-in-Chief, the service member then realizes that getting out of the military is the only way to truly provide for his/her family. In short, our self-focus and avaricious lust caused a brain-drain from the military following the First Gulf War.
In order to combat the loss of sorely needed experience throughout the Armed Forces, Congress passed the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Essentially, USERRA created legally enforceable employment and re-employment rights for military members. USERRA specifically requires an employer to ‘hold’ a military member’s job for a certain period of time during a call to active duty. If the employer fails to re-employ the military member upon his/her return, and subject to certain notification requirements by the military member, then a ‘private cause of action’ is created. In other words, the military member can sue the employer. However, many employers are now heard to complain that the USERRA requirements are ‘unfair’ and ‘regressive’ because larger employers can bare the weight of holding a job more readily then small business. Some argue that, like the Family Medical Leave Act, an employer should first be required to have a specific number of employees before the law applies.
As we welcome home many heroes from places like Afghanastan, Iraq and Qatar it is imperative that we deal with the issue, which is as old as war itself, of re-integrating service men and women into the civilian work force. Today, however, unlike the late 1940s following WWII, re-integration is more challenging because the “War on Terrorism” has had little impact on mainstream America. Notwithstanding the longer airport security lines, there are few daily reminders that America’s sons and daughters are fighting and dying as we go about our rapacious routine. So is the answer to grant service members the right to ‘sue?’ Will introducing more lawsuits into our already litigious society right the wrong? Who pays the lawyers? How does GI Joe or GI Jane support his/her family during the pending court action? Does USERRA rightfully protect the interests of America’s heroes as a reward for having secured our collective liberty; or does USERRA amount to what Frederic Bastiat warned as an entitlement society? These questions and more will be addressed in a more substantial work on the subject of USERRA – “America Thanks You for Your Service. Welcome Home – You’re Fired!”
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Care for a swim?
Greetings from the warm and often dangerous waters of Southern Florida!
I had to do it - I had to take a swim that was about 1.5 miles, from the shore to a quiet, secluded little island off the coast of Florida and it was absolutely remarkable. During the swim, I saw dolphins and even a few bull sharks. My military training (as well as my physical training) became useful because let's face it; sharks are eating machines and my hope was that they had already had lunch.
I had to do it - I had to take a swim that was about 1.5 miles, from the shore to a quiet, secluded little island off the coast of Florida and it was absolutely remarkable. During the swim, I saw dolphins and even a few bull sharks. My military training (as well as my physical training) became useful because let's face it; sharks are eating machines and my hope was that they had already had lunch.
See the island way off in the distance? That was my finish line and I am proud to say that I made it.
I'll write more about this when I come back stateside.
I'll write more about this when I come back stateside.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Changes, more pics to come!
As you can see, this blogger site is under construction and new development. Soon, the changes will be complete!
Enjoy!
Mike
Enjoy!
Mike
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Edmond Sun Editorial: Military’s health-care plan leaves much to be desired
From my column in the Edmond Sun:
Mike Chionopoulos, Post Bench Briefs
Whether we believe or not that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction; or whether we support or oppose President Bush’s foreign policies, the one thing on which we all should agree is that those who go and do our bidding should be provided quality medical care for any injuries received in the performance of their duties — combat-related or not. The first thing the public needs to understand is, at one time, the military provided its own medical care. There were military hospitals, doctors, nurses and all things necessary to see that our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines were well cared for in the performance of their duties. That is no longer true today.
A trip to Tinker Air Force Base, which boasts of being one of the largest community employers, is host to the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center — one of only two nationwide facilities capable of performing unique aviation repair tasks — will reveal that active duty service members do not even have access to an emergency room. Rather, they are directed to use their Tri-Care medical insurance at the Midwest City Emergency Room. According to one military official, they are required to pay a portion of that bill.
Read the rest of the story here.
Mike Chionopoulos, Post Bench Briefs
Whether we believe or not that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction; or whether we support or oppose President Bush’s foreign policies, the one thing on which we all should agree is that those who go and do our bidding should be provided quality medical care for any injuries received in the performance of their duties — combat-related or not. The first thing the public needs to understand is, at one time, the military provided its own medical care. There were military hospitals, doctors, nurses and all things necessary to see that our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines were well cared for in the performance of their duties. That is no longer true today.
A trip to Tinker Air Force Base, which boasts of being one of the largest community employers, is host to the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center — one of only two nationwide facilities capable of performing unique aviation repair tasks — will reveal that active duty service members do not even have access to an emergency room. Rather, they are directed to use their Tri-Care medical insurance at the Midwest City Emergency Room. According to one military official, they are required to pay a portion of that bill.
Read the rest of the story here.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Coming Soon: American fighting men and women paying for their own health insurance?
It is true, and clearly one of the greatest abonimations in the history of our country. The fact that men and women in uniform, fighting for our freedom, are forced to pay for their own health insurance and you can be sure that their's aren't exactly the least expensive insurance rates in town either.
Soon, you'll find my comments and a few suggestions as to how we fix this problem.
Read the story in Friday's Edmond Sun!
Mike
Soon, you'll find my comments and a few suggestions as to how we fix this problem.
Read the story in Friday's Edmond Sun!
Mike
Monday, December 04, 2006
It's a marathon, not a sprint...literally!
One of the reasons I enjoy running marathons is that it so very much resembles life itself. Our desires, our wants, our needs are all usually what we earn and reaching those benchmarks in life takes time.
Running marathons remind me of how important each and every moment of each and every day truly is in the grand scheme of things. I don't want to appear arrogant, but I live an incredibly blessed life and having the health and drive to run marathons is one of God's gifts that I hold very dear and certainly do not take for granted.
As I write this, I am currently in the Grand Cayman's having run the beautiful island. As you can see from the picture, you can see in my eyes the realization of just how blessed I truly am.
Merry Christmas, and check back often for more pictures!
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Look for my Domestic Violence Column in the 12/1 Edmond Sun.
One of the most deplorable aspects of our culture is that of the increasing number of domestic violence cases we hear, see, and read about. As a former judge, I cannot express to you how horrific some of the cases are and the domestic violence predators impact so much more than just the individuals at the wrong end of their hands. Children, our most precious asset in our society, are being impacted and it is up to us to stop the cycle of domestic violence.
Next Friday, I encourage you to pick up a copy of the Edmond Sun and read my column and learn about some of the signs, the resources, and solutions to this disgusting plague on our culture.
Mike
Monday, November 20, 2006
Edmond Sun: Winds of change blow through Oklahoma County judicial system
Here is my column in the Edmond Sun:
Winds of change blow through Oklahoma County judicial systemMike ChionopoulosThe Edmond Sun
EDMOND — Oklahoma County voters mandated significant changes in the judicial system on Nov. 7. The office of Oklahoma County district attorney and the offices of four district judges and the associate district judge were all contested. Typically, incumbent office holders have an advantage, which is usually even more true in the races that are not “top-shelf” such as judicial races.
You, the voting public, removed the incumbent District Attorney Wes Lane, and three of the five incumbent judges. In other words, a majority of the voting public disagreed with the manner or fashion in which two-thirds of the challenged officials were performing their duties.
Additionally, decade-plus incumbent Judge Vickie Robertson of Edmond, narrowly fended off a challenging attorney with no judicial experience, Pat Crawley. But that win was by a much narrower margin than anticipated — a little more than 3,000 votes, or barely more than 51 percent of the ballots cast in that race, which is now subject to a recount challenge by Crawley.
The cacophony of change heard now, however, actually will not be felt until January. The New Year will bring with it a metamorphic — almost revolutionary — transfer of power in the Oklahoma County Courthouse.
Read the rest of my column HERE.
Winds of change blow through Oklahoma County judicial systemMike ChionopoulosThe Edmond Sun
EDMOND — Oklahoma County voters mandated significant changes in the judicial system on Nov. 7. The office of Oklahoma County district attorney and the offices of four district judges and the associate district judge were all contested. Typically, incumbent office holders have an advantage, which is usually even more true in the races that are not “top-shelf” such as judicial races.
You, the voting public, removed the incumbent District Attorney Wes Lane, and three of the five incumbent judges. In other words, a majority of the voting public disagreed with the manner or fashion in which two-thirds of the challenged officials were performing their duties.
Additionally, decade-plus incumbent Judge Vickie Robertson of Edmond, narrowly fended off a challenging attorney with no judicial experience, Pat Crawley. But that win was by a much narrower margin than anticipated — a little more than 3,000 votes, or barely more than 51 percent of the ballots cast in that race, which is now subject to a recount challenge by Crawley.
The cacophony of change heard now, however, actually will not be felt until January. The New Year will bring with it a metamorphic — almost revolutionary — transfer of power in the Oklahoma County Courthouse.
Read the rest of my column HERE.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
"Post Bench" in the Edmond Sun
A new day dawning for all of us! Beginning this Friday, November 17th, look for my new column entitled "Post Bench" in the Edmond Sun. The column will be a bi-weekly column, and this week, I will be taking a look at the judicial elections and just what it means to the citizens of Oklahoma!
Mike
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
'Tis the season...the election season!
Ahhh ... 'tis the season. The season to malign, besmirch, state half-truths and generally prevaricate - all for the purpose of gaining the "public trust" so that one may hold "public office." It is "election season" and many state and county positions are contested - as I am sure each of you have seen on television and heard on radio.Many, as I once did, believe that the judiciary is above the "political fray."
Indeed, when I became a lawyer that was truly the case. In the late 1990s, however, that all began to change. We have seen disgruntled litigants (one person who did not get his/her desired out come in a case) spend personal resources to impact a judicial race. Who was right and who was wrong? I mean, after all, perhaps the judge's ruling in that case was correct under the law and perhaps not - I do not know, nor do I care - the point is that more citizens, for whatever reason, are exercising their constitutional right to become actively involved in selecting the judiciary.
More public interest or scrutiny of any government function is, at least in my opinion, a good thing. Like every other profession in the world, there are good lawyers and bad lawyers, thus there are also good judges and bad judges.Most citizens have little, if any, contact with the judicial system. In fact, when I have asked average citizens what they think about the judicial system each of them, without fail, talked exclusively about criminal or domestic cases - as if there were nothing else to the system. I believe, at least in part, that the exponentially increasing divorce and domestic violence rate in Oklahoma is causing more citizens to come into direct contact with the judicial system and is, thereby, increasing their interest when it comes time to decide what candidates should fill the positions.
The first thing that everyone should know is that, in Oklahoma, the trial court judges, called District Judges, are elected once every four years (some states have trial court judges that are appointed for life - as does the Federal system). Each of our 77 counties has an assigned District Judge(s) - the number of which is wholly dependent on the population of that county; and every county has one Associate District Judge, who is also elected every four years.
Counties also have Special Judges, again the number of which is determined essentially based upon the population. Special Judges are appointed by the District Judges and serve for an unlimited term at the pleasure of the District Judges.
Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties, being the most populated counties, have the most District Judges. Some more rural counties may have one District Judge assigned to cover several counties. In Oklahoma County there are 15 District Judges and, like all other counties, one Associate District Judge. Now, some of the 15 District Judges have geographically defined districts within the county; while others are "at-large", which means they run county wide. Therefore, some of the contested races may not be on your particular ballot during a given election. This year, however, all three contested judicial races are within specific geographical districts and two of the three include parts of Edmond.
The first thing that happens in the process is that candidates, even incumbent judges, file for office. If an incumbent judge is the only one who files for that particular office, then he/she wins by acclimation. There are certain time limits by which this must be done and certain limits on when, how and by whom monies can be raised to support each campaign. Additionally, there are campaign reporting requirements that make public certain records showing donations made to each candidate.
Judicial races are "non-partisan" - not affiliated with a specific party - at least officially. If there are more than two candidates there is a primary. If one candidate obtains more than 50% of the vote, he/she wins that office out-right and the election is over. That very thing happened during this election cycle with Judge Twyla Mason-Gray, who is in a district that includes part of Edmond. She was challenged by Steven Box and Julie Rivers, but Judge Gray obtained more than 50% of the vote during the primary and, thus, won the election and will not be in the general election coming up. If no one candidate obtains more than 50% of the vote then the top two contenders go to the general election in November.
In Oklahoma County there are currently five contested races - four of them include at least parts of Edmond; one on the north east side of Oklahoma City and will not be on the ballot in Edmond. Once elected, a judge is assigned a docket, i.e. criminal cases, civil cases, domestic cases etc., by the Presiding Judge. Essentially, it is based upon seniority. Currently, Judge Donald L. Deason is the District Judge in the Domestic Division and he has four Special Judges who work for him. If there is a new Judge Elected and if Judge Deason wants to, or he could be directed to, go to different docket then the newest judge would be assigned the docket that, essentially, no one else wanted.
Typically, but not always, the docket that no one wants is the Domestic docket - until Judge Deason, who had the chance to assume the dearly departed Judge Bragg's criminal docket but decided to stay in Domestic law. Now, why the Domestic docket is looked at, at least by some, as the least desirable is, in my opinion, because emotions run very high in “family court.” When one starts talking about taking away and/or limited your right to see your own child it gets personal in a hurry.
Good people often act badly in that situation - accusing one another of sexual molestation or assault/battery to gain a tactical advantage etc. It is also not a healthy place, politically, for a judge to stay because it is inevitable that he/she will anger someone and, at least eventually, be targeted for personal or professional attacks, be threatened or even have their family members targeted or threatened.The contested races, including some limited comments and polling, were published in the Daily Oklahoma on Monday, October 30, 2006.
The contested races are as follows - the first three will be voted on by Edmondites:
1. Susan Caswell - incumbent District Judge. Judge Caswell has been a lawyer for almost 27 years. Before becoming a District Judge, she served as an Assistant District Attorney in Oklahoma County for more about 14 years. In 1998 she challenged, and beat, incumbent Bill Burkett who had been appointed by the then governor to fill the remainder of a vacant term shortly before the election. Mr. Burkett had also previously served as the United States Attorney, appointed by the President of the United States, for the Federal Western District of Oklahoma. Judge Caswell is being challenged by Bill Graves, who has been a lawyer for approximately 38 years. He served 24 years in the Oklahoma House of Representatives from 1978 to 1986 and 1988 to 2004.
There are plenty of records available, both at the Courthouse regarding Judge Caswell and at the Capitol regarding Mr. Graves, which will tell you the positions of each. If you are to vote in this particular election, since it is within a certain geographical district in Oklahoma County - part of which is in Edmond, I highly recommend that you discover and review some documents regarding each candidate before you make up your mind. Of course, calling the campaign headquarters for each candidate would provide you some information - just remember, each candidate puts him/herself in the most favorable light possible and some candidates even attempt to put their opponent in the most unfavorable light possible.
2. Carolyn Ricks - incumbent District Judge. Judge Ricks has been a lawyer for approximately 24 years. Judge Ricks was admitted to the bar in 1982 and was appointed as a Special District Judge in 1986. In 1989 she was appointed by then Governor as a District Judge in 1989. Judge Ricks. Until now, Judge Ricks has never faced an opponent, she was re-elected, unopposed, in 1990, 1994, 1998, and 2002. Judge Ricks is being challenged by Kenneth Linn, a lawyer. Mr. Linn graduated from Oklahoma City Law School in 1991 and was admitted to the bar that same year. Mr. Linn served approximately 9 years as an Assistant District Attorney in Oklahoma County. He also served more than 5 years as Assistant General Counsel and Administrative Law Judge at the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety.
3. Vicki Robertson - incumbent District Judge. This is also an Edmond race. Judge Robertson has been a lawyer approximately 27 years. She was appointed as a special judge in 1996 and as a District Judge in 1999. Judge Robertson is being challenged by Pat Crawley, attorney. Mr. Crawley has been a lawyer approximately 15 years. He served as an Oklahoma Assistant Attorney General for approximately 11 years and has been an Oklahoma County Assistant District Attorney for approximately 3 years.
4. Nan Patton - incumbent Associate District Judge for Oklahoma County who has been serving as the head of the Juvenile Division, with great success, for a significant period of time. She, unfortunately, has had some health problems (cancer - that she has beat). She is being challenged by Richard Kirby, an attorney.
5. Malcolm Savage - Judge Savage was appointed by the Governor in the summer of 2005 to fill the remainder of Judge Susan Bragg's term when she untimely departed, rest her wonderful soul, from cancer. Judge Savage had been practicing mostly criminal defense law and had been a lawyer just shy of seven (7) years when he was appointed - it takes five years to qualify. Judge Savage is being challenged by Kenneth Watson, attorney. Mr. Watson has been a lawyer approximately 30 years. He was admitted to practice law in Ohio in 1976 and was admitted to practice law in Oklahoma in 1981. This race is also within a certain geographical district within Oklahoma County, but does not include any part of Edmond.
In making your choices at the polls, it is imperative to understand the vast, and often unchecked, power that these men and women wield over your lives. It is not just about sending "criminals to jail" - we all want that; we all want to be kept safe and have our children kept safe. It is about much, much more than that. For instance, in Domestic Court a Special Judge (appointed by the District Judges you will elect) has virtually unchecked, legal authority to remove your children from you if he/she believes there is an emergency as defined by Oklahoma law.Whether we like it or recognize it, both divorce and domestic violence have grown to pandemic proportions in our community.
Thus, the Domestic division of the Oklahoma County judicial system one of the most, if not the most important divisions. Yes, of course, the criminal division is important to our safety but it seems that in recent years the Domestic Division is touching a greater number of average citizens’ lives then the Criminal Division. While it is true that each of us have a Constitutional right to raise our children, and a judge should not replace his/her moral judgment for that of a parent, there is exceptionally wide latitude under "best interest of the child" standard given to the courts by Oklahoma law.
It is imperative, both individually and as a community, that we select the right people as Judges and that we sift through any maligning or disparaging comments/advertisements for truth and trustworthiness before we make this very important choice. Remember, candidates will only continue the "negative" campaigning if we "let" them by making it effective!!
Mike
Indeed, when I became a lawyer that was truly the case. In the late 1990s, however, that all began to change. We have seen disgruntled litigants (one person who did not get his/her desired out come in a case) spend personal resources to impact a judicial race. Who was right and who was wrong? I mean, after all, perhaps the judge's ruling in that case was correct under the law and perhaps not - I do not know, nor do I care - the point is that more citizens, for whatever reason, are exercising their constitutional right to become actively involved in selecting the judiciary.
More public interest or scrutiny of any government function is, at least in my opinion, a good thing. Like every other profession in the world, there are good lawyers and bad lawyers, thus there are also good judges and bad judges.Most citizens have little, if any, contact with the judicial system. In fact, when I have asked average citizens what they think about the judicial system each of them, without fail, talked exclusively about criminal or domestic cases - as if there were nothing else to the system. I believe, at least in part, that the exponentially increasing divorce and domestic violence rate in Oklahoma is causing more citizens to come into direct contact with the judicial system and is, thereby, increasing their interest when it comes time to decide what candidates should fill the positions.
The first thing that everyone should know is that, in Oklahoma, the trial court judges, called District Judges, are elected once every four years (some states have trial court judges that are appointed for life - as does the Federal system). Each of our 77 counties has an assigned District Judge(s) - the number of which is wholly dependent on the population of that county; and every county has one Associate District Judge, who is also elected every four years.
Counties also have Special Judges, again the number of which is determined essentially based upon the population. Special Judges are appointed by the District Judges and serve for an unlimited term at the pleasure of the District Judges.
Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties, being the most populated counties, have the most District Judges. Some more rural counties may have one District Judge assigned to cover several counties. In Oklahoma County there are 15 District Judges and, like all other counties, one Associate District Judge. Now, some of the 15 District Judges have geographically defined districts within the county; while others are "at-large", which means they run county wide. Therefore, some of the contested races may not be on your particular ballot during a given election. This year, however, all three contested judicial races are within specific geographical districts and two of the three include parts of Edmond.
The first thing that happens in the process is that candidates, even incumbent judges, file for office. If an incumbent judge is the only one who files for that particular office, then he/she wins by acclimation. There are certain time limits by which this must be done and certain limits on when, how and by whom monies can be raised to support each campaign. Additionally, there are campaign reporting requirements that make public certain records showing donations made to each candidate.
Judicial races are "non-partisan" - not affiliated with a specific party - at least officially. If there are more than two candidates there is a primary. If one candidate obtains more than 50% of the vote, he/she wins that office out-right and the election is over. That very thing happened during this election cycle with Judge Twyla Mason-Gray, who is in a district that includes part of Edmond. She was challenged by Steven Box and Julie Rivers, but Judge Gray obtained more than 50% of the vote during the primary and, thus, won the election and will not be in the general election coming up. If no one candidate obtains more than 50% of the vote then the top two contenders go to the general election in November.
In Oklahoma County there are currently five contested races - four of them include at least parts of Edmond; one on the north east side of Oklahoma City and will not be on the ballot in Edmond. Once elected, a judge is assigned a docket, i.e. criminal cases, civil cases, domestic cases etc., by the Presiding Judge. Essentially, it is based upon seniority. Currently, Judge Donald L. Deason is the District Judge in the Domestic Division and he has four Special Judges who work for him. If there is a new Judge Elected and if Judge Deason wants to, or he could be directed to, go to different docket then the newest judge would be assigned the docket that, essentially, no one else wanted.
Typically, but not always, the docket that no one wants is the Domestic docket - until Judge Deason, who had the chance to assume the dearly departed Judge Bragg's criminal docket but decided to stay in Domestic law. Now, why the Domestic docket is looked at, at least by some, as the least desirable is, in my opinion, because emotions run very high in “family court.” When one starts talking about taking away and/or limited your right to see your own child it gets personal in a hurry.
Good people often act badly in that situation - accusing one another of sexual molestation or assault/battery to gain a tactical advantage etc. It is also not a healthy place, politically, for a judge to stay because it is inevitable that he/she will anger someone and, at least eventually, be targeted for personal or professional attacks, be threatened or even have their family members targeted or threatened.The contested races, including some limited comments and polling, were published in the Daily Oklahoma on Monday, October 30, 2006.
The contested races are as follows - the first three will be voted on by Edmondites:
1. Susan Caswell - incumbent District Judge. Judge Caswell has been a lawyer for almost 27 years. Before becoming a District Judge, she served as an Assistant District Attorney in Oklahoma County for more about 14 years. In 1998 she challenged, and beat, incumbent Bill Burkett who had been appointed by the then governor to fill the remainder of a vacant term shortly before the election. Mr. Burkett had also previously served as the United States Attorney, appointed by the President of the United States, for the Federal Western District of Oklahoma. Judge Caswell is being challenged by Bill Graves, who has been a lawyer for approximately 38 years. He served 24 years in the Oklahoma House of Representatives from 1978 to 1986 and 1988 to 2004.
There are plenty of records available, both at the Courthouse regarding Judge Caswell and at the Capitol regarding Mr. Graves, which will tell you the positions of each. If you are to vote in this particular election, since it is within a certain geographical district in Oklahoma County - part of which is in Edmond, I highly recommend that you discover and review some documents regarding each candidate before you make up your mind. Of course, calling the campaign headquarters for each candidate would provide you some information - just remember, each candidate puts him/herself in the most favorable light possible and some candidates even attempt to put their opponent in the most unfavorable light possible.
2. Carolyn Ricks - incumbent District Judge. Judge Ricks has been a lawyer for approximately 24 years. Judge Ricks was admitted to the bar in 1982 and was appointed as a Special District Judge in 1986. In 1989 she was appointed by then Governor as a District Judge in 1989. Judge Ricks. Until now, Judge Ricks has never faced an opponent, she was re-elected, unopposed, in 1990, 1994, 1998, and 2002. Judge Ricks is being challenged by Kenneth Linn, a lawyer. Mr. Linn graduated from Oklahoma City Law School in 1991 and was admitted to the bar that same year. Mr. Linn served approximately 9 years as an Assistant District Attorney in Oklahoma County. He also served more than 5 years as Assistant General Counsel and Administrative Law Judge at the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety.
3. Vicki Robertson - incumbent District Judge. This is also an Edmond race. Judge Robertson has been a lawyer approximately 27 years. She was appointed as a special judge in 1996 and as a District Judge in 1999. Judge Robertson is being challenged by Pat Crawley, attorney. Mr. Crawley has been a lawyer approximately 15 years. He served as an Oklahoma Assistant Attorney General for approximately 11 years and has been an Oklahoma County Assistant District Attorney for approximately 3 years.
4. Nan Patton - incumbent Associate District Judge for Oklahoma County who has been serving as the head of the Juvenile Division, with great success, for a significant period of time. She, unfortunately, has had some health problems (cancer - that she has beat). She is being challenged by Richard Kirby, an attorney.
5. Malcolm Savage - Judge Savage was appointed by the Governor in the summer of 2005 to fill the remainder of Judge Susan Bragg's term when she untimely departed, rest her wonderful soul, from cancer. Judge Savage had been practicing mostly criminal defense law and had been a lawyer just shy of seven (7) years when he was appointed - it takes five years to qualify. Judge Savage is being challenged by Kenneth Watson, attorney. Mr. Watson has been a lawyer approximately 30 years. He was admitted to practice law in Ohio in 1976 and was admitted to practice law in Oklahoma in 1981. This race is also within a certain geographical district within Oklahoma County, but does not include any part of Edmond.
In making your choices at the polls, it is imperative to understand the vast, and often unchecked, power that these men and women wield over your lives. It is not just about sending "criminals to jail" - we all want that; we all want to be kept safe and have our children kept safe. It is about much, much more than that. For instance, in Domestic Court a Special Judge (appointed by the District Judges you will elect) has virtually unchecked, legal authority to remove your children from you if he/she believes there is an emergency as defined by Oklahoma law.Whether we like it or recognize it, both divorce and domestic violence have grown to pandemic proportions in our community.
Thus, the Domestic division of the Oklahoma County judicial system one of the most, if not the most important divisions. Yes, of course, the criminal division is important to our safety but it seems that in recent years the Domestic Division is touching a greater number of average citizens’ lives then the Criminal Division. While it is true that each of us have a Constitutional right to raise our children, and a judge should not replace his/her moral judgment for that of a parent, there is exceptionally wide latitude under "best interest of the child" standard given to the courts by Oklahoma law.
It is imperative, both individually and as a community, that we select the right people as Judges and that we sift through any maligning or disparaging comments/advertisements for truth and trustworthiness before we make this very important choice. Remember, candidates will only continue the "negative" campaigning if we "let" them by making it effective!!
Mike
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Domestic Law Standards
First, one must understand that marriage (from a purely legal standpoint) is a "contract." Therefore, divorce is nothing more than dissolving a contract (though I personally believe marriage to be a deeply religious covenant between two people). The interesting thing is that most civil contracts, i.e. business contracts, contemplate an end right from the start, whereas the contract of marriage does not - as well it shouldn't. Therefore, there are many more nuances in dissolving a marital contract - particularly when the psychological and emotional well-being of children are involved.
Within the last few decades, our culture has re-defined "normal" in terms of American family life. Some statistics, show - at least in certain parts of the country - that there are more children in school who live in a non-traditional (i.e. father and mother) home than do a traditional, nuclear, intact family. So, by definition, the paradigm has shifted to "normal" being a single parent home or a blended family. The law, moving at the speed of government, has not kept up with the rapidity by which the needs of those it serves have changed. Again, the Oklahoma Legislature has done a laudable job in the last five years in drafting and implementing legislation that will address the new and changing needs of our culture. But there are still a few are was where our Legislature lags behind.
One area of great consternation is not legislative but judicial, and driven in large part by the core of practicing family law attorneys. Many simply do not know the law ... not just the recent changes, but even the legal staples of procedure that have been in place for decades upon decades to ensure "fairness" and "equity." For instance, the Oklahoma Evidence Code has but one central purpose - to ensure evidence being introduced has a basis and is trustworthy as information. Many times, however, those rules are "relaxed" in domestic cases. I don't know why ... there is no legal authority anywhere that states the rules of evidence are "relaxed" in domestic cases (perhaps in juvenile court), but not domestic cases. Nonetheless, lawyers attempt to take evidentiary shortcuts all the time by introducing evidence that does not meet even the most basic standards of the Oklahoma Evidence Code. More surprising is that when called on the issue, very few members of the bench and bar actually know the correct answer .... actually know the applicable law as to what is admissible and why.
Hearsay seems to be the biggest problem. Hearsay is defined as: 1) An out of court statement (which just means it was not made under oath); that is being offered to prove the truth of the matter therein (i.e. offering a speeding ticket to show someone was speeding as opposed to showing that person was in Texas when he/she received the speeding ticket and, therefore, could not have been in Oklahoma visiting with the child or threatening the other spouse). Surprisingly, many family law practitioners and some judges do not even understand the most basic definition of hearsay. As a result, evidence is entered (and considered by the domestic judge as the sole trier of fact - without 11 other jurors to help him/her) that has no legal basis.
Astonishingly, the result is that when dealing with the most basic right humanity, access to one's child, the evidence ruled upon is often not even caused to be put through the most rudimentary test for reliability - which is the whole purpose of the Evidence Code. Yes, it is trie, that there are many emotions in a domestic case. Yet only by actually following the rules - rules established by the legislature to ensure a "fair" trial and that evidence which is either not relevant, not reliable or more prejudicial then probabative (and enflaming the passions of one jurist as opposed to 12 jurrors makes it even more critical in domestic case) is not considered.
Then, and only then, can we hope to get rulings consistenly in the best interest of the children/families involved in the disputes. Sure, it is presumed by the appellate courts that a judge setting as the sole trier of fact (one without a jury) can dichotomize in his/her head the difference between admissible and inadmissible evidence, but if the law requires its exclusion, why let it in and increase a chance of error that can never really be corrected because often times the standard of review on appeal is "abuse of discretion." In other words, did the trial court "abuse its discretion" in making the finding ... because most domestic cases are fact specific rather than legally based. In short, there is no authority - ANYWHERE - that "relaxes" the evidence code in domestic cases. If the evidence code is not followed - as intended by the legislature - then the domestic judge has an exponentially increased his/her opportunity for error because the genisis on which the decision is being made has not been tested for reliability. All of this will have to do with what I will write more on later -- DOMESTIC LAW REFORM
Within the last few decades, our culture has re-defined "normal" in terms of American family life. Some statistics, show - at least in certain parts of the country - that there are more children in school who live in a non-traditional (i.e. father and mother) home than do a traditional, nuclear, intact family. So, by definition, the paradigm has shifted to "normal" being a single parent home or a blended family. The law, moving at the speed of government, has not kept up with the rapidity by which the needs of those it serves have changed. Again, the Oklahoma Legislature has done a laudable job in the last five years in drafting and implementing legislation that will address the new and changing needs of our culture. But there are still a few are was where our Legislature lags behind.
One area of great consternation is not legislative but judicial, and driven in large part by the core of practicing family law attorneys. Many simply do not know the law ... not just the recent changes, but even the legal staples of procedure that have been in place for decades upon decades to ensure "fairness" and "equity." For instance, the Oklahoma Evidence Code has but one central purpose - to ensure evidence being introduced has a basis and is trustworthy as information. Many times, however, those rules are "relaxed" in domestic cases. I don't know why ... there is no legal authority anywhere that states the rules of evidence are "relaxed" in domestic cases (perhaps in juvenile court), but not domestic cases. Nonetheless, lawyers attempt to take evidentiary shortcuts all the time by introducing evidence that does not meet even the most basic standards of the Oklahoma Evidence Code. More surprising is that when called on the issue, very few members of the bench and bar actually know the correct answer .... actually know the applicable law as to what is admissible and why.
Hearsay seems to be the biggest problem. Hearsay is defined as: 1) An out of court statement (which just means it was not made under oath); that is being offered to prove the truth of the matter therein (i.e. offering a speeding ticket to show someone was speeding as opposed to showing that person was in Texas when he/she received the speeding ticket and, therefore, could not have been in Oklahoma visiting with the child or threatening the other spouse). Surprisingly, many family law practitioners and some judges do not even understand the most basic definition of hearsay. As a result, evidence is entered (and considered by the domestic judge as the sole trier of fact - without 11 other jurors to help him/her) that has no legal basis.
Astonishingly, the result is that when dealing with the most basic right humanity, access to one's child, the evidence ruled upon is often not even caused to be put through the most rudimentary test for reliability - which is the whole purpose of the Evidence Code. Yes, it is trie, that there are many emotions in a domestic case. Yet only by actually following the rules - rules established by the legislature to ensure a "fair" trial and that evidence which is either not relevant, not reliable or more prejudicial then probabative (and enflaming the passions of one jurist as opposed to 12 jurrors makes it even more critical in domestic case) is not considered.
Then, and only then, can we hope to get rulings consistenly in the best interest of the children/families involved in the disputes. Sure, it is presumed by the appellate courts that a judge setting as the sole trier of fact (one without a jury) can dichotomize in his/her head the difference between admissible and inadmissible evidence, but if the law requires its exclusion, why let it in and increase a chance of error that can never really be corrected because often times the standard of review on appeal is "abuse of discretion." In other words, did the trial court "abuse its discretion" in making the finding ... because most domestic cases are fact specific rather than legally based. In short, there is no authority - ANYWHERE - that "relaxes" the evidence code in domestic cases. If the evidence code is not followed - as intended by the legislature - then the domestic judge has an exponentially increased his/her opportunity for error because the genisis on which the decision is being made has not been tested for reliability. All of this will have to do with what I will write more on later -- DOMESTIC LAW REFORM
Sunday, October 22, 2006
DVA, VPO...What does it all mean?
Domestic violence has literally become a pandemic in our community, if not our society as a whole. The Victim Protection Order "VPO" process is one tool by which victims may seek relief. However, the victim must always remember: it is only a piece of paper. Unfortunately, it cannot stop bullets, knives or fists. In the past, one could bring a VPO against almost anyone - even a neighbor for a petty dispute that unnecessarily usurped judicial resources desperately needed to deal with serious cases of domestic violence. More recent changes in Oklahoma law require a specific relationship, i.e. married, formerly married, biological parents of the same child, dating, formerly dating, living together, formerly living together, biologically related etc.) before a VPO can be sought. There are a couple of exceptions - one of which is stalking, but it requires more than a single incident and requires a police report.
While the legislative changes are laudable, there are still individuals who seek to use the VPO process to gain tactical advantage in divorce and/or custody proceedings. Domestic judges are left in the precarious position of determining, during a very short hearing and with little concrete evidence, whether the alleged victim is in danger or is a charlatan. When there is actual evidence of domestic abuse, specifically physical violence, judges will grant a VPO - an order requiring the alleged predator to stay away from the victim and not to harass or otherwise interfere with him/her in any way (often times the order will include children - which is why there are some who seek to abuse this legal tool as a means of eliminating an opposing parent's visitation). However, the law allows - indeed specifically provides - a judge the opportunity to require an alleged predator to submit to a Domestic Violence Assessment (DVA) and/or Drug and Alcohol Assessment and report back within a specific time. Regrettably, this option is not used frequently enough - it often seen as more work and clogging the docket. If one is ordered to reappear on a date certain with a DVA, but fails to do so then he/she can be held in "indirect contempt of court" for failure to obey the court's order and thereafter the judge can issue a bench warrant. Once picked up, the insolent individual would then have to post a bond, previously set by the judge when he/she issued the bench warrant, or purge by getting a DVA.
In cases where there is no underlying action, i.e. no pending divorce or paternity proceeding - because in those cases a VPO can be granted and the assigned judge can thereafter manage the action, and in which there is actual evidence of domestic violence, judges should require a DVA and hold those who arrogantly fail to comply in contempt. To do anything less is to turn a predator back out into the community. Even if the predator obeys the VPO - which we all know is not exactly normative in 100% of the cases - unless the predatory behavior is addressed at it's genesis, i.e. getting a DVA and being forced under threat of jail to attend DV training/education, there is an almost complete certainty that the predator will simply turn someone else's daughter or sister into a victim.
The real focus of domestic violence reform needs to be on children - children who are victims have a much higher rate of being adult predators and victims. It is often too late to change in a permanent and meaningful way, the adult predator's conduct. Pains and dysfunctions suffered by that person from childhood through the present are usually the multiple and complex root of their unacceptable conduct. While we should not stop protecting victims or attempting to re-train and educate predators, we must focus significant resources and attention on depriving both victims (who teach, by example, others to be victims) and predators from creating the next generation. Now *THAT* would be a meaningful effort at addressing the domestic violence pandemic insidiously invading our community.
While the legislative changes are laudable, there are still individuals who seek to use the VPO process to gain tactical advantage in divorce and/or custody proceedings. Domestic judges are left in the precarious position of determining, during a very short hearing and with little concrete evidence, whether the alleged victim is in danger or is a charlatan. When there is actual evidence of domestic abuse, specifically physical violence, judges will grant a VPO - an order requiring the alleged predator to stay away from the victim and not to harass or otherwise interfere with him/her in any way (often times the order will include children - which is why there are some who seek to abuse this legal tool as a means of eliminating an opposing parent's visitation). However, the law allows - indeed specifically provides - a judge the opportunity to require an alleged predator to submit to a Domestic Violence Assessment (DVA) and/or Drug and Alcohol Assessment and report back within a specific time. Regrettably, this option is not used frequently enough - it often seen as more work and clogging the docket. If one is ordered to reappear on a date certain with a DVA, but fails to do so then he/she can be held in "indirect contempt of court" for failure to obey the court's order and thereafter the judge can issue a bench warrant. Once picked up, the insolent individual would then have to post a bond, previously set by the judge when he/she issued the bench warrant, or purge by getting a DVA.
In cases where there is no underlying action, i.e. no pending divorce or paternity proceeding - because in those cases a VPO can be granted and the assigned judge can thereafter manage the action, and in which there is actual evidence of domestic violence, judges should require a DVA and hold those who arrogantly fail to comply in contempt. To do anything less is to turn a predator back out into the community. Even if the predator obeys the VPO - which we all know is not exactly normative in 100% of the cases - unless the predatory behavior is addressed at it's genesis, i.e. getting a DVA and being forced under threat of jail to attend DV training/education, there is an almost complete certainty that the predator will simply turn someone else's daughter or sister into a victim.
The real focus of domestic violence reform needs to be on children - children who are victims have a much higher rate of being adult predators and victims. It is often too late to change in a permanent and meaningful way, the adult predator's conduct. Pains and dysfunctions suffered by that person from childhood through the present are usually the multiple and complex root of their unacceptable conduct. While we should not stop protecting victims or attempting to re-train and educate predators, we must focus significant resources and attention on depriving both victims (who teach, by example, others to be victims) and predators from creating the next generation. Now *THAT* would be a meaningful effort at addressing the domestic violence pandemic insidiously invading our community.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Proper Conduct Orders
Make no mistake, divorce and separations can be horrific events and can create havoc in the minds of our children. As an attorney, I feel it incumbent upon me to do everything within my power to create an environment that is as least painful (though divorce and custody is always painful) as possible. As a judge, I took it even more seriously. Right here in the great state of Oklahoma we seem to accept "proper conduct orders" as standard policy. What that means is a parent cannot have an individual with whom he/she is romantically involved around when the children are visiting during their court-appointed visitations.
I granted those orders when requested during a pending divorce - after all, the parties were still married. But I believed, and stated on the record, that to do so in a paternity matter or post-divorce order was inconsistent with the individual’s First Amendment right of freedom of association. Absent, of course, some showing that the 3rd party was harmful or posed an imminent threat of danger to the children involved. And that did not mean "setting a bad moral example” because in the courtroom, objectivity must reign supreme and the safety of the children paramount. Even if I personally, morally, disagree with a lifestyle choice and would not myself participate in said behavior, it is not the place of the state of Oklahoma, or any other governmental agency/body, to mandate, through judicial fiat, how an individual raises their children. Absent irreparable harm to the child, every parent is permitted to make his/her own mistakes and I challenge you to name just one parent who has not made a mistake – other than the Creator Himself.
As attorneys, as well as jurists on the bench, we must always remember that the law is the law and it was designed to serve the people, not to rule over them with an iron fist, creating fear and loathing. Divorce and custody cases are particularly difficult and are sadly becoming more prevalent and we must remember that the circumstances leading up to our client’s appearing before the court was more than likely very traumatic. It is not our job to make it worse.
Mike
I granted those orders when requested during a pending divorce - after all, the parties were still married. But I believed, and stated on the record, that to do so in a paternity matter or post-divorce order was inconsistent with the individual’s First Amendment right of freedom of association. Absent, of course, some showing that the 3rd party was harmful or posed an imminent threat of danger to the children involved. And that did not mean "setting a bad moral example” because in the courtroom, objectivity must reign supreme and the safety of the children paramount. Even if I personally, morally, disagree with a lifestyle choice and would not myself participate in said behavior, it is not the place of the state of Oklahoma, or any other governmental agency/body, to mandate, through judicial fiat, how an individual raises their children. Absent irreparable harm to the child, every parent is permitted to make his/her own mistakes and I challenge you to name just one parent who has not made a mistake – other than the Creator Himself.As attorneys, as well as jurists on the bench, we must always remember that the law is the law and it was designed to serve the people, not to rule over them with an iron fist, creating fear and loathing. Divorce and custody cases are particularly difficult and are sadly becoming more prevalent and we must remember that the circumstances leading up to our client’s appearing before the court was more than likely very traumatic. It is not our job to make it worse.
Mike
Sunday, October 15, 2006
And this is just the beginning
A former judge, a lawyer, a veteran who served in the Middle East in 2003, a devoted husband to my incredible wife, Debra...that's who I am, my friends. Here, you will see some of my commentary on current events as well as legal opinions. You will soon be surprised at just how much needs to be known, but is hidden from the mainstream of Oklahoma.
This will be an exciting ride, so strap in and be prepared.
Life, liberty, the pursuit of justice is what the legal profession is intended to be and that is the model under which I prefer to live out my life.
I look forward to sharing with you many unique insights into the legal profession in Oklahoma, and revealing a few secrets that will either make your skin crawl, or make you jump for joy.
Just to get a taste of a few of my previously published articles, take a look at these:
Sexual Harassment in the New Millennium: Is the Court's Test Effective?
Covenants Not to Compete Could Create Competition in the Courtroom
Will You Marry Me? The Question That Could Make You a Felon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
