I've been thinking a lot about the CPS / Adoption Agency aspect and it is really bugging me. There needs to be a major investigation by real people, not a bunch of compromised cops / CPS workers in a self serving "give us more funding" manner. When I recently attended sexual abuse prevention training it struck me that the presenter actually used the term "Little Friend" in reference to a girl, without thinking about it. It stuck with me and made me wonder if that was a slip up.
I did a paper on removals / termination of parental rights in law school and the professor was a federal judge. He didn't like my paper very much at all actually, but my premise was that the civil termination process gives parents less rights than someone who gets accused of smoking a joint. It shouldn't be that way. Family law is a total joke actually. It makes me sick.
One thing most people don't think about is a little-known concept in both UK law, and US law (which is derived from UK law) called
Courts of Equity
The concept goes back centuries in England. Courts of equity are allowed to decide matters on the basis of "equity" or what's right, not necessarily what's constitutional, or in accord with common law.
Of course what is "equitable" depends on the opinion of the judge hearing the case. And since judges are so often SJWs you get some horrible decisions.
Anyways: in a court of equity, rights such as being able to question your accuser, public trial, trial by a jury of your peers, even Habeas Corpus, are disregarded. This is why, for example, a guy whose wife got him jailed on a bogus accusation can go to family court with her lawyer and get custody and restraining orders without the guy even being present to defend himself.
This is also why judges can order all kinds of things without the person being able to defend themselves if the judge claims that a decision "is in the best interests of the child" which is a principal of equity that's even been made statutory in many states, and overrides the constitution.
Also, in England, judges have gotten away with orders to both parents and the media that they can't even talk to anyone else about whether a child seizure has happened or whether they appeared before the court, let alone what happened in the court.
Yeah I've studied it a little, it's something I am no expert in as I am not a licensed attorney. I've actually been studying this recently but now I'm not even sure I want to be involved with the legal field any more. So I may never go beyond just a house wife again. The Best Interest of the Child standard in family court is pretty ridiculous - from what I hear, there's no basis for appeal and no way to sue a family attorney for malpractice.
view the rest of the comments →
EffYouJohnPodesta ago
I've been thinking a lot about the CPS / Adoption Agency aspect and it is really bugging me. There needs to be a major investigation by real people, not a bunch of compromised cops / CPS workers in a self serving "give us more funding" manner. When I recently attended sexual abuse prevention training it struck me that the presenter actually used the term "Little Friend" in reference to a girl, without thinking about it. It stuck with me and made me wonder if that was a slip up.
I did a paper on removals / termination of parental rights in law school and the professor was a federal judge. He didn't like my paper very much at all actually, but my premise was that the civil termination process gives parents less rights than someone who gets accused of smoking a joint. It shouldn't be that way. Family law is a total joke actually. It makes me sick.
ReddittRefugee ago
I see you have legal training.
One thing most people don't think about is a little-known concept in both UK law, and US law (which is derived from UK law) called
Courts of Equity
The concept goes back centuries in England. Courts of equity are allowed to decide matters on the basis of "equity" or what's right, not necessarily what's constitutional, or in accord with common law.
Of course what is "equitable" depends on the opinion of the judge hearing the case. And since judges are so often SJWs you get some horrible decisions.
Anyways: in a court of equity, rights such as being able to question your accuser, public trial, trial by a jury of your peers, even Habeas Corpus, are disregarded. This is why, for example, a guy whose wife got him jailed on a bogus accusation can go to family court with her lawyer and get custody and restraining orders without the guy even being present to defend himself.
This is also why judges can order all kinds of things without the person being able to defend themselves if the judge claims that a decision "is in the best interests of the child" which is a principal of equity that's even been made statutory in many states, and overrides the constitution.
Also, in England, judges have gotten away with orders to both parents and the media that they can't even talk to anyone else about whether a child seizure has happened or whether they appeared before the court, let alone what happened in the court.
EffYouJohnPodesta ago
Yeah I've studied it a little, it's something I am no expert in as I am not a licensed attorney. I've actually been studying this recently but now I'm not even sure I want to be involved with the legal field any more. So I may never go beyond just a house wife again. The Best Interest of the Child standard in family court is pretty ridiculous - from what I hear, there's no basis for appeal and no way to sue a family attorney for malpractice.