contact_
int_slogan

Legal Blog



The Legality of Conduct and Child Custody

Print

In the midst of a divorce or child custody proceeding, a spouse often has no hesitation in revealing apparently negative behavior or conduct of the other spouse, an action which is the product of an often-exaggerated adversarial system that encourages ruthless mudslinging. However, that same spouse might experience great difficulty in recognizing his or her own shortcomings, particularly in properly caring for his or her own child. Such a spouse may simply assume that in the absence of any illegal conduct, he or she is perfectly qualified to exercise full parental rights, despite his or her seemingly non-relevant shortcomings. However, contrary to popular belief, the absence of illegal conduct is not an automatic win; while a pot plant in the shade of your basement might not entail a criminal charge, at least in some states, it might serve as evidence in a custody proceeding of your inability to provide for the bests interests of your child.

For instance, with the recent decisions by several states to legalize the possession, growth, and consumption of marijuana comes a wave of incidents involving the interplay between marijuana and child custody. Recently, a Colorado man lost custody of his children after receiving a medical marijuana card. The daughter of a Michigan couple that grew marijuana for medicinal purposes was taken away by child protective services after an exhusband claimed the marijuana endangered her. Police officers in New Jersey visited a home of a nine-year-old after he casually mentioned at school his mother’s hemp advocacy.

These are but a few of the incidents involving child custody and marijuana, all of which underscore a major legal issue: what bearing does legally-sanctioned conduct, such as use of marijuana, have upon child custody proceedings?

The legal standard for determining parental rights over a child has always been, and likely always will be, “the bests interests of the children” – not “the legality of conduct,” “the moral nature of actions,” or even “the fairness to a parent.” Undeniably, the fight for legalization of marijuana is growing strong, both with users and their legislative representatives. However, traditional, common-sense judges, despite the hype, remain steadfast in their beliefs and do not equate use of marijuana to something as simple as “a glass of wine with dinner.” Parents who underestimate the nature of their use of marijuana often fall apart when they hear a judge say that the very presence of marijuana presents a drastic, detrimental impact upon the well-being of a child and that actual use will cause short-term memory loss, slow down reflexes, reduce attentiveness, and in turn, diminish a parent’s ability to care for that child. It is also well-known that marijuana impairs judgment, making a parent less likely to provide a prompt and responsible care in the event a child is hurt or in danger; even second-hand smoke can cause a contact high or damage the child’s lungs in the same manner that cigarettes do. In light of these facts, judges may bombard the parent with questions the judge already has the answer to: what are the benefits, what are the problems, what are the parent’s priorities, and can this parent properly care for a child? In order to leap over this difficult set of facts, questions, and answers, and ultimately persuade a judge that marijuana use somehow contributes to the best interests of a child, one has to make an extremely compelling argument which does not simply rely on legality. Unfortunately, such an argument seems quite impossible in the face of common sense.

These incidents involving marijuana and child custody highlight a not-so-obvious truth: conduct does not have to be illegal in order for it to totally preclude parental rights over a child. Conduct possibly affecting the best interests of a child in a custody proceeding is not judged by whether a legislature deems it permissible; it is judged by the intuitive, common sense of judges. Thus, above all else, parents must look past the statutes and laws of their states, and instead examine their legally-permissible conduct - whether drinking, smoking, using marijuana, or something similar - and evaluate whether such conduct really does, in the eyes of the common person, promote the best interest of their child.

 

Closed Door Family Law Courtroom and the Harm That They Cause

Print

Integrity, like character, is often defined by doing what's right even when no one is looking. And, like the sunshine laws that allow the general public greater knowledge of our government's actions by limiting what government can do when no one is looking, the constitutional requirement that our courtrooms shall be open to the public seeks to promote the integrity of our judicial system by limiting what can go on behind closed doors in our courtrooms and thus shielded from public scrutiny.

At some point years ago in Montgomery County someone thought it was a good idea for divorce and family court hearings and trials to occur in closed courtrooms. Since then our family courtrooms have been, and continue to be, extremely small rooms in which no one is allowed other than court personnel, the litigants, one witness at a time, and the attorneys. And no one that I am aware of has bothered to challenge or even consider whether such closed door proceedings have harmed our families and diminished the integrity of our judicial system by allowing those who may lack personal integrity to ignore the rules of law and act however they chose to act, all within virtual secrecy.

The recent disclosure of alleged horrendous conduct by a local judge should cause us all to stop and consider whether such alleged abuses of the system and of our families could have occurred, or whether they would have been at least less likely to occur, if everyone in the courtroom, including the judge, knew that the general public would be or could be watching and listening to how the proceedings were conducted. It doesn't take a legal scholar or any specialized knowledge of the law to be qualified to determine if a judge's demeanor or the way a judge conducts a hearing is contrary to common decency and general fairness.

Our founding fathers determined that open courtrooms, except in very rare circumstances, are critical to our liberties and to the dispensing of justice. The United States Supreme Court has reminded us in many of its rulings since the birth of our nation that our distrust of secret trials is rightfully founded in our belief that closed trials, and the opportunity for abuse that such closed trials provide, are an obvious menace to basic liberty. There are numerous benefits that flow from the guarantee of open trials including the absolute fact that open trials provide a necessary safeguard against attempts to employ our courts as instruments of persecution through deliberate means or otherwise.

On constitutional grounds alone the practice of conducting family court proceedings behind closed doors should end. Our family court proceedings should be open to the public where advocates for the system and interested citizens can attend and observe the manner in which justice is dispensed and thus create an environment where any lack of integrity will be obvious and where the bright light of public scrutiny will highlight integrity and expose the lack of it and thus hopefully avoid the detriment that our families and the justice system recently suffered for so long behind those closed door courtrooms.

 


Legal Blog

The Legality of Conduct and Child Custod

In the midst of a divorce or child custody proceeding, a spouse often has no hesitation in revealing apparently negative behavior or conduct of the other spouse, an action which is the product of an often-exaggerated adversarial system that encourages ruthless mudslinging. However, that same spouse might experience great difficulty in recognizing his or her own shortcomings, particularly in properly caring for his or her own child. Such a spouse may simply assume that in the absence of any illegal ...

Read More

Closed Door Family Law Courtroom and the

Integrity, like character, is often defined by doing what's right even when no one is looking. And, like the sunshine laws that allow the general public greater knowledge of our government's actions by limiting what government can do when no one is looking, the constitutional requirement that our courtrooms shall be open to the public seeks to promote the integrity of our judicial system by limiting what can go on behind closed doors in our courtrooms and thus shielded from ...

Read More

Testimonials

"When I found myself in need of legal advice and representation regarding a divorce and child custody situation, I was referred to Judy Barganier as one of the top attorneys in this area of law. During the consultation meeting, I was impressed by her enthusiasm and passion about what she does. Immediately she put me at ease. Not only was she eager to learn about the details of my situation but also about my goals and needs. Ultimately, I chose ...

Contact Us

Law Offices of Judy H. Barganier, P.C.
8314 Crossland Loop
Montgomery, AL 36117-8482
Phone: 334-271-7110
Fax: 334-271-3110
Email: harrison@judybarganier.com
©2012 Law Offices of Judy H. Barganier, P.C.
Disclaimer
Lawyer Website Design by The Modern Firm