nope, no need to mention you’re behaving insufferably on the internet. No need at all.
To quote a wise man: “An individual’s personal standing does not change which rules they have to follow.” Enjoy the one month ban you lawyered your way into.
2 Likes
In my experience US family court judges do often give a great deal of leniency to self represented litigants, perhaps even too much at times, delaying cases and allowing self-represented folks to get away with all sorts of things that would get a represented party sanctioned, excusing violation of procedural rules or explaining law - like everything else it depends on the judge. Many jurisdictions also have self-help clinics and volunteer attorneys that act as settlement officers. Judges do tend to stop helping pro se litigants when they a) act like jerks b) helping them would commit appealable error.
To me this indicates that here in CO not-dad’s case we either have a real stickler of a judge or something more then the local FOX affiliate and the angry not-dad are telling us. Personally I bet there was an issue of what was before the court and what type of hearing was involved, but I don’t know. There’s also the 8 years of existing paternity orders with related statutory limitations (which can be pretty impossible to get around - laches and all that) and the apparent goal of not-dad to increase custodial time or enforce existing orders rather then refuse all parental rights/duties based on paternity.
Point again is - this stuff is complex, individualized and is unlikely to fit into some kind of anti-court/state narrative or MRA screed when one looks into it with any attention to detail.
2 Likes
I’m not calling names; I’m calling it like I see it.
Considering that you’ve earned yourself a nice little ‘time out’ in ‘the corner’, I’d say you chose poorly.
3 Likes
To be clear, I am not an MRA. Nor am I anti-court. I hope you are not implying that you read what I write as indicative of such.
1 Like
As a survivor of domestic violence, I get this.
1 Like
I was thinking about this sort of thing over the weekend & decided that (tho not strictly applicable in this specific situation) anywhere that has a DA should also have a DD office (District Defender) and both the DA & DD should try cases against each other with the DD having the same budget as the DA. This BS of a DA with extensive state resources going up against a Public Defender with scant resources does NOT a fair trial make.
8 Likes
Thanks for the in-depth explanation! I take it you are an attorney?
If so, you do your profession a great deal more credit than @Random_Tangent…
2 Likes
No, but feel free to call her a “asshole”.
4 Likes
Since modern courts aren’t trying to send the message that they have no compunctions about bringing the country to civil war if they don’t get their own way, no.
2 Likes
“Fair”, and “impartial” are in no way synonymous. Courts aren’t interested in fairness, not should they be.
1 Like
See the very first definition.
If that’s not what courts are supposed to be, then I’d love to hear why.
“Fair” as most persons use the term (and how it is used in this thread) involves subjectivity towards how they themselves are treated.
That doesn’t even make sense (what does “involves subjectivity” even mean in context? maybe provide an example), and it’s not clear to me why you’re so sure that you know how the word is being used by other parties in the conversation.
Also, “most persons use the term” in the way that dictionaries list as the primary definitions. That’s how dictionaries are compiled.
When someone wants “fairness”, they are usually determining what is fair to themselves and the persons they care for versus full impartiality.
Different people have different ideas of what constitutes “fairness” in different situations. That much is obvious.
But that has no bearing on the general meaning of the word “fair”, just on its interpretation in specific contexts.
In a particular scenario, we can say a solution X is proposed which Alice believes is “fair” but which Bob does not believe is “fair”. Given your proposed meaning for the word “fair”, X must be fair because Alice believes it to be fair. But by the same token, X must be unfair because Bob believes it to be unfair and there’s no obvious a priori reason to prefer Alice’s subjective sense of fairness to Bob’s.
Thus, your definition of “fair” entails a logical contradiction in many possible scenarios, implying that it is insufficient to capture the actual meaning of the word “fair”. The problem seems to be when you say: “they are usually determining what is fair to themselves and the persons they care for”. Fairness precludes individuals determining what is “fair” – the meaning of “fair” must be determined either by an external set of rules or criteria for fairness or some other disinterested arbiter or mediator.
So I respectfully disagree with your definition of the word “fair” and maintain that the definition given by googling the word is better, and will continue to use it in that way until such a time as someone provides a better one.
The context persons want to see here is very plainly not objective considering that they’re taking one side without concern or desire for further explanation.
I don’t think you have enough information to make that determination, and I do think that to jump to this conclusion instead of, say, asking for clarification constitutes bad faith argumentation.
Maybe you should ask yourself something like the following: “Am I trying to understand what the other person is saying? Or am I trying to score points or shut their perspective out of the discussion?”
Also, you haven’t given your own definition of “fair” or made it clear what you would require for someone else’s usage to pass muster under your obviously stringent requirements.
I don’t think this discussion is going anywhere fruitful, though. It doesn’t seem like you have any intention of considering anyone else’s perspective on the subject. Have a good day.
Anyone claiming the decision was “unfair” based entirely on a local news article quoting one party is defining the word subjectively and is not interested in disabusing themselves of this assumption. I’m sorry this possibility irritates you, but there’s not a lot of fact hunting to be had here when people make their own conclusions that they know what is “fair” and how the court may not have met that definition.
“Maude Lebowski: Lord. You can imagine where it goes from here.
The Dude: He fixes the cable?
Maude Lebowski: Don’t be fatuous, Jeffrey”
As the persons are not omniscient, have zero direct knowledge of the case and parties involved, their opinions on fairness are subjective in this particular case, I don’t understand why this causes such distress to yourself.
