This is the 13th in a series of Divorce Corp polls. Please vote only once. We will post the results once we have received a statistically significant number of votes.
[polldaddy poll=7834172]
And here are the results with +/-1.5% accuracy:
Our followers have resoundingly voted in favor of judicial term limits. This is not an easy question, because there is some benefit to having experienced judges. Nevertheless, the downside to allowing judges to remain in positions of power for too long is that they develop relationships with the people who regularly appear in their courtroom, and these relationships can bias their judgement and decisions. Overall, it seems that the general public believes that judges should be trained BEFORE they sit on the bench, not learn on the job, and that any sitting judge should already have sufficient experience to perform the job well. Therefore the idea that judges need many years of on-the-job training before they become good judges speaks volumes about the deficiencies in our system.
Judges should serve for one, six-year term and then be put on paid leave for 2 more years before they can practice law, publicly or privately, or appear in a courtroom. If they receive a public pension they should not be allowed to practice law or serve as a judge privately or publicly. No more double-dipping.
Get email notifications of
new blog posts and updates:
Having limited terms means their injustice can eventually come to an end.
Hello everyone,
All judges should be in term limit. Term should not be more than 2 terms. Each term should be 4 years.
There are some idiot judges. There should be citizens’ committee in each county to monitor all the judges. If there are number of complaints against a judge, the complaints should be investigated by the citizens’ committee. If the complaint is true and the judge has severe and number of discrepancies, then the committee must ask the judge to resign. If the judge does not resign, committee can vote and simple majority vote can terminate the judge.
Yes…term limits…they become tyrants as power brokers among their state bar association friends….lawless court room.
I think that they should supervised by a panel of community people, not citezens of the corporation.
Supervised by someone not in the legal field; maybe by clergy. The corruption in the “Family Court” and “Criminal” is beyond what most of the public knows; and has a very, very. corrosive
impact on families. “The one consistent, constant, and maintained factor of the legal system, throughout all its twisted turnings, is to make business for itself”. Charles Dickens 1852
Thank you all for spreading the word.
They get to comfortable in these positions and play more to the money than to the people they are supposed to serve
Contact me if you are interested in learning the outcome of contempt charges I have filed against Dad for once again not following the court order.
MsRosie…
I am all ears and eyes to read of your experiences surrounding the Court Order which “Dad” has willfully violated. My mater is similar…thanx to the process of bifurcation, my ex has been stalling on the economic issues since 2010! Not one dime of S/S…the amount of which, by the way, was based on my ex’s claim that he only maked $3K/month. Pls be so kind as to
give me the lowdown on how your matter was handled or mishandled (as the case may be).
MzBoE
Absolutely, positively, without a shadow of a doubt – YES. Should be 2 terms only. More than that and they gain too much power; take on a Godly image (think they are God); too many affiliations and too many favors owed to supporters and attorneys. Scratch my back now, and I’ll scratch yours later!!
Totally agree. I’m good with 1 term. No lifetime pension.
Absolutely, its common sense and should be done with every government and political office. That’s the easiest way to prevent dictatorships, controlling administrations, minimize corruption and ensure a “fresh” mind for the future of America, because there would never be “eternal” policies lasting or spanning generations.
This is a simple solution and I don’t think it should be 2 terms either….one 4 year term is more than enough for someone to serve as a judge. 8 years is too close to a decade for someone to serve….that’s almost 10yrs of someone ruling over potentially thousands of lives multiplied by each year they serve compounded by the lives they interfere with and the people who have to live with the decisions of these people. No one should be subjected to that….regardless of the judge. Naturally it would take more than just limiting terms to eradicate corruption in this system because they would simply find ways around that…but its a damn good start to stripping these judges of their tyrannical authority.
Family court judges should have been married and had children. They should be in touch with what’s REALLY going on in the world. Perhaps maybe ongoing training. And if we’re to continue with no-fault marriage and presumed concern for the welfare of the children (what a joke). Then custody evaluations should be done as clinical mental health evaluations encompassing strict adherence to multiple, required objective tests. Custody evaluators should have also been in the business for several years, have been married and had children. A person that has not been married, had kids or perhaps even had more than one job or paid a mortgage or two means they know nothing of the plight of parents and couples splitting up when owning a home. The court should consider how long they’ve been married, the number of marriages they’ve had and how long they’ve had careers. If both are middle aged, in their second or third marriage and have 401ks and investments, they should go in their separate ways and be barred from unfairly steeling their partners lifelong savings! If one has been irresponsible during 20 years of a career and has not saved, it’s not fair to the other spouse to raid their savings.
Contempt 4 the “System”
Why don’t we also throw into the mix that these self proclaimed judicial experts meet the bottom line qualification of having been dragged through the manipulative process of dissolution, been exploited by their legal counsel, lost their parental rights, real property, businesses, etc.
Let them have lived the life before they deem themselves eligible to pass judgement and
make orders that further erode what remains of others’ lives.
Your reliance on experience is WAY OFF. Just cuz an evaluator has experience and was married doesn’t bring any guarantees.
All you have to do is Google “Stuart Greenberg Seattle Times” and you will see a forensic psychologist and parenting evaluator with national recognition who was married (actually to a judge) and he was secretly videotaping women and children in his office bathroom then pleasing himself to the videos. After his arrest, and getting out on bail, he killed himself.
That was the #1 evaluator in the greater Seattle area. So you are wrong about what you think would be safeguards. If this was THE MOST experienced and educated evaluator, what does that say about the rest?
Judge terms should be up for review based upon performance. And they should be rated by the people they serve, not other judges. The rating system should be automated in a meaningful way that is objective and comprehensive. We would not want to vote out a good judge just because his or her term has ended. If they are willing to continue serving the people, they should stay.
That can NEVER HAPPEN. They would never let litigants rate them. Many rating systems for judges are done by the lawyer since they are the “honest” ones and they are professionals.
They will just assume a disgruntled litigant will always give a judge a bad rating.
And judges should be ELECTED, not appointed. They should never be “Tenured.” Terms should be limited.
Term limitations is a step in the right direction, but there should be more controls to make the judges accountable for how they function. I also think that two terms is a bit long.
At this point the judges are evaluated by their fellow lawyers. Often they form unhealthy, counter productive relationships and opinions which follow the money. Video cameras and accessibility to the public will solve many issues. Term limits will also stop some of the incompetence and corruption. The system is broken. Let’s fix it.
In Shasta County California, an old ambulance chaser was appointed to a judgeship by a drinking buddy named Edmond Brown. Jack Halpin served for two years then “retired” getting a six-figure full judges golden parachute. THEN, he was appointed as an “Assigned Judge” in a program that rationalizes that if a county has a troubling case overlaid that “assigned judge” could be appointed to serve for 30 to 60 days to help ease tax-payer burden. Before Jack Halpin was disrobed in disgrace, he had served for over 19 YEARS getting a double-dipping salary… AND…. as an assigned judge, there are no accountability/oversight constraints for malpractice… Teflon times! That “judge” illegally abducted my daughter over three years ago with no contact allowed. Glad I had a big hand in getting rid of that menace!
Some get old and wise. Most just get old. Some get old and foolish. All have too much power. Many have too little common sense. However, if they are no good, find a way to get rid of them sooner.
Society is rapidly changing but the unconstitutionally overbreadth of family court/statutes allow judges with dark-ages thinking to impose their outdated inappropriate personal doctrine. Term limits helps stem the perpetuation on such absurd practices. Term limits also enable ‘fresh blood’, reduces likelihood of ‘buddy system’ and reduces stasis. Of course, every once in a while there is the exceptionally good person and so may be useful to allow return to bench after a break.
We need immediate reform. There needs to be some form of oversight for judges in the Family courts!
Get rid of family courts altogether. We cannot let the state interfere any futher with the most precious, delicate, precious and enduring of relationships which is the relationship between parent and child. By creating a systemwhose primary purpose is the monetization of the parent-child relationship for the benefit of the players in the divorce system (judges, lawyers, family court bureaucrats, divorce professionals and the entire plethora of hyenas of family court) the immorality of the state has surpassed “the great harlot who sits on many waters” described in the Book of Revelations 17:1.
I think that Judges should be transferred around in the state that they serve in every 3 years to a different county, just like Military people. That way they would not have time to get “chummy” with the detestable attorneys that suck up to them and wine and dine them to get them to rule in their favor. And they know that they are going to only be there for a 3 year tour so they dont seek out any long term relationships with crooked attorneys. It would solve so many problems that are due to bias.
Victor Harrison…
Now that’s an excellent concept.
? is, how may it be implemented?
MzBoE
Name me another “political” position with more power AND less accountability…yeah, that’s what I thought. And, thus, we are in this mess that we need to get out of. Future generations are counting on us to act on their behalf. Join in. Don’t just be a voice. Be a presence.
It’s a “No Brainer”….Without term limits they become too comfortable and eventually leave their motivation at home…At lot of them are not up on the current laws and there is no consequence for lack of caring.or knowledge…
No one should hold an office with a term limit..No one !
Decaying morals seems to be the name of the game in the political arena, so why not in the area of judge ship? .
Having inexperienced judges will not necessarily make the system better, but judges need to be accountable for their actions like anyone else. How that should be handled is debatable but needed
Good observation. Here is one way to get a judge off the bench. http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/0304140301ad.pdf
Yes for term limits. More importantly, there should be extensive discussion of EACH family law case a judge sits on with summaries posted to Angie’s List or other social media sites. After a judge is assigned to a case each party to the family law case should have two weeks within which to throw the judge off the case for any reason or no reason at all. This will keep them straight until term limits or other remedies to the widespread corruption of the judicial system can be eliminated.
It is equally important to showcase how each attorney handles a case – even the tiniest of moves, billing and the type of matters he/she cares about should be discussed in a public forum without blowing the attorney-client privelege. The judges, attorneys, the custody evaluators, the psych evaluators, the mediators ahd their colleagues who are the divorce eco-system are all in it together to serve the “Best Interests of their Own” The general populace must be educated to the operation of the divorce system, the plight of the parents and the silent suffering of the kids who these so called divorce professionals exploit to earn a living. Unless the general populace can particiapte although they never have and hopefully never will engage the divorce system, the politicians and other corrupt officials will continue to appoint judges and legislators will continue to spike the legal system to extract their pound of illicit gains on the backs of innocent kids in the guise of “best interests of the child” or some similar state concoted nonsense.
Judges are very unlike politicians in what they do, in a way such that term limits don’t make good sense. The complexity of interpreting law requires years of experience. What IS needed are better oversight mechanisms to punish or remove errant judges.
I disagree that there is “complexity” involved in interpreting the law which elevates a judge to special status. This is the type of argument advanced by the priestly class in ancient societies to obtain and maintain exalted positions close to the “throne” or the “seat of power”.
Laws are made by politicians and their “interpretation” should not require any more or less skill/intelligence than can be attributed to a reasonable politician (very little or none). So called “law” has from the earliest has been no more than a “horse trade” designed to maintain the “advantages/loot” that the law maker wants to (or was ordered to make happen) flow to the law maker’s patrons (corporations, special interest groups, moneyed interests etc which in the family law context means the entire divorce eco-system referenced in Jennifer’s post). Marshall in McCulough v Maryland (was it?) elevated “horse trade” to “interpretation” and the ordinary folk have slumbered through the ages letting the sleight-of-hand encroach upon and forcibly harness even the most precious of our human bonds, our bond with our children, to extract rents for the special interest class and destroy forever the innocence of childhood. The entire notion of “Best Interests of the Child” that the various components of the divorce eco-system concoct and throw at you is disingenious where the society is arranged on the principle of the primacy of commercial dealings and the virtues of naked self-interest. And yet, the crassness of such an arrangement does not appear to disturb or surprise anyone. In fact, there are some divorce mediators who insist on keeping a picture of your kids in front of them during the court mandated mediation process to “remind them who they are really serving”!
What are the “better oversight mechanisms” that one can envision? Who is going to do the oversight? Family law practitioners? Other judges? Do they have to be skilled at the so called “interpretation” to be able to exercise oversight? The oversight mechanism will be birthed from the same pot of corruption and malfeasance that is the current divorce eco-system.
What is more is that the oversight mechanism already exists It is in the form of the silent cry of desolation of the kid that has lost one or more of its parents to the wolves of the family law courts and the divorce eco-system. It is the outrage of the parents and those that know the parents and what goes down everyday in the name of justice at these cesspools called the family courts and in the offices of the wheeling and dealing lawyers who oil the wheels of these courts and in the veiled acts of the other divorce leeches as Jennifer K has so eloquently pointed out above.
THIS HAS GOT TO STOP NOW even if one has to divert the sewer system through the divorce courts to flush out the bad actors before one more child falls victim to the horse trade.
Why is it so difficult to legislate a presumption of equal physical and legal custody and have a high barrier to overcome to have it any other way? While we wait for the laws that spell out the ovesight mechanisms and punishment for errant judges? The divorce professionals and special interests claim it is to “shield children from abuse and the abuser”. Yeah right! Subject the vast majority of children to the greed and despicable practices of the divorce system, destroy and decimate families at the hands of the family law professionals till the stench of their dealings reaches into every nook and cranny and refuse to believe that this is “abuse” in its most percinious, distilled and evil form.
ABOLISH FAMILY LAW COURTS of CORRUPTION and RACKETEERING!!
Thank You,
Ted
Yes….yes…yes… Less time for favors owed to be repaid….no matter about the lives ruined…….ONLY ONE TERM!!!!
In NYS, elected judges have term limits of what I believe is 12 years. While I agree with term limits in practice, I ended up with a judge presiding over my case who was moving from one part of the court to another and who forced my hand through coersion to accept a very unfair settlement so that he could clear his docket before transitioning into his new role within the court system.
Lets all not forget that Judges are Lawyers! I have found that a lot of Family Court Judges were not even family/divorce lawyers. These Judges cannot know about family matters if they never even had a case in the matter. Lets also not forget that Judges are VOTED into office by us the Citizens of their Counties/States, we really have the last say in who gets in. I agree that there should be terms, maybe six years is long enough, but don’t forget the pension they get each one every time there is a new judge. I would also like to suggest that each State and County have a Commission/Panel to review complaints. This panel should NOT have any LAWYERS on it. No more the fox over seeing the chicken house like we have now. When I have complained to the Bar Association about lawyers misconduct it has only been reviewed by another lawyer and do you think they are going to do anything to each other, NO WAY!
Let’s get more people involved in VOTING in the right judges and get more people involved in what is going on in our judicial systems. The movement of Divorce Corp. is a great start, let move forward!
Pingback: Best of the Rest | Researching Reform
I adamantly oppose statutory term limits for all elected offices. I already spend a considerable amount of time meeting with legislators and judicial officers. Term limits would only lead to having to spend more time meeting with, educating, and discerning who the responsible ones are so I can help get them into leadership positions. Term limits are nothing more than a roll of the dice. Actively participating in crafting policy and educating the judiciary or legislature is a much more viable approach to ensuring child centered policies and practices.
Judges should be allowed to sit on the bench for no longer than one year. This gives others the opportunity to sit on a bench as a judge. Limiting these corrupt judges to a year term will also limit the corruption within the judicial system and it would give fresh new perspectives to issues a biased judge continues to rule with a heavy hand and can evil eye.
Where I live, judges earn between $130,000 to $150,000 and after 15 years are eligible to retire at up to 75% of their salary, with health insurance. You can become a judge at age 40, retire at 55 and collect until you are 85, which is the life expectancy of someone who reaches age 55. If you are an ordinary $150,000 earning worker, the most you can put away for retirement is $29,500 between 401K and IRA. After 15 years, you will have enough to pay yourself about $15,000 a year for 30 years – or in other words – your pension will be about 10% of your salary. The judge does not have to save any part of his/her salary and gets $100,000 or so for 30 years. For every working judge, there would be 2 collecting on their retirement. To pay out this kind of money to all these judges, the family court judges really need to be busy awarding as much alimony as they can, as high a child support order as they can conceive of, and keep legal fees as high as possible. Otherwise, those 66 cents on the dollar in matching funds from the Federal Government won’t be there to pay those pensions.
Time to eliminate those Part IV-D funds, make judges work a normal career like the rest of us – whether as a judge or as a lawyer, and get rid of those pension plans. With a pension plan like that, a $130,000 salaried judge is really earning $400,000 a year ($130,000 this years salary and $260,000 put away for retirement). How deceitful.
A Judge was able to see that the wife who once send the husband to the hospital with a crack in the head, a couple of years later, abducted the children from another country, is incompetent to care for those children, gave custody to the father, then turned around and gave the wife an unreasonable amount of alimony knowing that she is much younger than the husband, lives with a married/divorcing lover and keeps appealing with outrageous accusations.
The children and their father do not have a good financial life anymore and an 8 year old marriage is destroying more than two families.
Now everybody knows the alimony is completely wrong; why nobody is able to change this?.
How about a Common Sense Committee will seat with the Judge and make him see this?.
Just what exactly does a judge do? For those who have been in court too many times … the judge has a rubber stamp to put on your motion and circles “allowed” or “denied”. No further explanation from the judge is necessary. You may have just spent your last dollar trying to be treated fairly and equally with your ex and the judge says “no”, for no reason obvious to you. For example, I was ordered to make monthly payments from an insolvent business after the judge refused to accept or look at my financials – vouched for and with an affadavit from my accountant. Why would the judge make me pay without even looking at my financials? No one checks on the judge. There is no oversight that the judge actually read the motions and may well have circle “denied” on the motion before you even open your mouth. Of course, no one looks at the judge’s lifestyle, phone records, or schedule to rule out bribery or undue influence.
Awarding as much alimony, child support and legal fees as possible to pay for all those current and retired judges seems to best explain the behavior of judges. No other explanation seems to be provided by the judge to all of the bloggers here about their adverse rulings. A judge has four years of high school, college and 3 years of law school. The judge should be able to write an expository sentence or paragraph to explain their thought process and if the judge has misunderstood something or demonstrated obvious bias, there should be recourse other than sycophantish appeals courts that don’t want to be bothered disturbing a ruling.