This is the problem with every MRA talking point about fathers’ rights I’ve seen. The courts don’t give two shits about the rights of either parent. As a parent in family court you have responsibilities, not rights, and I think that’s a fine way for the system to be set up. If you don’t like that system, talk to your co-parents and work something out without getting to court.
As crazy as my ex can be at times, at least support and visitation hasn’t been an issue. knock on wood
But I do know men who are completely screwed out of their rights to see their kids. One guy had to fight tooth and nail for custody despite their mother being in repeated trouble with the law and severe alcohol and drug abuse. Fortunately eventually it all caught up and the courts gave him custody.
That’s exactly the opposite of what a court should be. Impartiality is supreme.
This isn’t a men’s rights issue. He’s not in the position because of institutional bias against men. He’s in this position because he tried to get away with not hiring a lawyer and it bit him in the ass.
Why? Do female dogs extract support from their puppies’ sires and then prevent them from seeing the puppies?
Is that wise, though?
Damn bureaucrats: concerned with procedural correctness at the expense of people’s needs.
He’s a judge in country with a democratic political system, his duty is to the welfare of the citizens of that country, period. If the evidence was valid, or verifiable, and relevant to the matter at hand, he ought to have been ‘required’ to accept it.
Those are the facts. But then it’s also true that people employed in the US judicial system have a tendency to behave as though they have some religious obligation to what they perceive as The Law, rather than a duty to use the law (written by man) to service the needs of man (man, as in human, not has a dick)
The facts should be what matters most - this is, after all, one of the reasons a bunch of Limeys set out for The Colonies once upon a time…
If you’re representing yourself, particularly in family court, it’s incumbent on the Judge to accommodate your lack of procedural knowledge - in the search for the truth.
This reeks of fiefdom mentality & is one of the inherent failings of US jurisprudence…
When Atkins came back later with an attorney, his appeal was denied because the judge said he had already been given his opportunity to submit the DNA results.
There’s impartiality and there’s being a dick. The judge had the discretion to allow another attempt at submission and the evidence he seeks to provide doesn’t expire or become moot at any point in the proceeding until the kid is an adult. To support the procedural grounds for denial is to support injustice.
We don’t know the situation here and while a freewheeling courtroom full of people waving whatever they want to call evidence about might be fun I doubt it would get much done.
My guess is that dude came in to a support hearing with some document that allegedly showed paternity. Yet there’s already a paternity order or presumption of paternity in place, and the hearing is not on paternity. The judge likely said something like ‘you’ll need to file a separate action on that, because it’s not what we’re here to determine today - go hire an attorney or talk to the self-help clinic downstairs, but until you do that you need to pay support’. Showing up with evidence of an issue not currently before the court at what is fundamentally a non-evidentary hearing won’t and shouldn’t get you to far.
It is incumbent on the judge (and all participants in the proceedings) to follow the law. An individual’s personal standing does not change which rules they have to follow. It’s kind of the entire point of the justice system.
I can attest. I’m on my third stepmom now.
Stepmom number one raised me from a baby when my mom died. I think she might have just been a placebo for him while he mourned, and by the time he woke up to it he was already distanced from the family (days-long commutes to earn his PhD, and then working a therapy business).
By the time they got divorced, I felt much closer to her and chose to stay at her home rather than move out to his place. I still call her much more often than I do him.
At the root of this is an outdated legal system that cannot address the complex parentage of children in today’s society. Please join adoptee activists in our attempts to have vital records that reflect this complex parentage and can record more than just biological parentage.
Yea, which is kinda it’s core failing - more interested in pomp and circumstance than the truth.
It’s also why juries aren’t told they have the right, under law, to nullification- with that information being intentionally withheld.
Which is why we hate the legal system. Couldn’t the judge have taken 5 minutes to show him how to submit the evidence?
I advise against it. Not because this woman deserves your respect, but because gendered slurs demean ALL women.
Similarly, I have no respect for rapists but I’m not gonna call Bill Cosby the “N” word.
Feeling genuine sympathy/empathy for a man who can’t see his daughter because he can neither afford a lawyer nor a law degree is not necessarily “rage”.
You’re coming across as being really smug that you don’t have any sympathy/empathy for this guy, not on the grounds that he did anything morally wrong, but because he did something procedurally wrong. Sorry if this sounds like a weird question, but are you even a human being?
The comment you replied to wasn’t saying the court should be partial. In fact, they said the court should be “fair” which is a synonym for “impartial”.
Ooooh, you’re a lawyer.
For the record, this is why people hate lawyers.
Not really. Nullification is more of an unintended consequence of the idea that a jury can’t be punished for or required to justify their decision. It’s not a right that’s actually enumerated anywhere. And deliberately spoiling the legal process such as by asking the jury to nullify outside of closed deliberation could still get you found to be in contempt.
IANAL, so someone who is feel free to chime in and correct me.
But I gather part of the tendency to heartlessly adhere to the law is due to not wanting to set precedents that are later abused.
That said, yes, there certainly should have been some avenue for the judge to point him in the right direction.