Jump to content
Paulding.com

Child Abuse or Not? You be the Chief Judge


Recommended Posts

On multiple occasions "Parent A" files court documents in which it is alleged that the other "Parent B" often calls their bi-racial children "niqqer", "nigga" and "nigglet". Two adult children confirm the allegations. "Parent B" also addresses the other parent and others with racial epithets and uses words like "ghetto" in a derogatory manner.

 

"Parent A" requests the Chief Judge order a psychological evaluation but is denied twice. For bringing up these concerns and others, the concerned parent feels intimidated and threatened by the Court. The Court seemingly "cautions", "Parent A" about discussing anything that goes on in the court in the public domain.

 

Confused by the courts seemingly insensitive racial attitudes, "Parent A" asks for employee demographics of the Court.

 

Questions:

1) Is it child abuse to refer to your bi-racial children with racial epithets?

2) Is it verbal abuse to refer to your bi-racial children with racial epithets?

3) Should you receive a psychological evaluation if you have done this for decades?

4) Should the parent raising these concerns feel intimidated into silence by a court?

5) Is this indicative of other psychological issues? How will it affect the children?

6) How long should it take the court to provide employee demographics, if requested?

7) Should the Chief Judge order a psychological evaluation or is this just normal/acceptable behavior for a parent?

8.) Does attitude reflect leadership?

Edited by Domestic Violence by Proxy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

DVBP:

 

What kind of bothers me is the judge 'cautioning' the person about discussing things that go  on in court in the public domain.

 

This is perplexing in a wide variety of ways, not the least of which if the press got a hold of the story and exploited it for its salty display of racism and how the system works to perpetuate it.

 

If I were the judge and was confronted with this, I'm pretty sure I'd order counseling for the momma who is showing or at least channeling the hate she has for her former spouse on the children.

 

Given my background, I can also understand what the judge did.

 

First, I am assuming this is in the south and that the judge is a 50+ year old white guy who probably is not in any way an overt racist but comes from the culture that was so adroitly lampooned by this short clip from Blazing Saddles:

 

 

Yes, interracial marriage was a strong taboo and we all know that atrocities were usually the result because, well, we are all animals and a lot of animals (rutting deer) can kill others competing for the right to sire the next generation.

 

But we're talking about the transitional baby boom generation of the south. You can't deny their progress but perfection eludes us all. 

 

The conflict you present falls in the category of the 1970 by the policy of the Nixon Administration which was knee deep in executing "the southern strategy" - benign neglect.  In  other words, I think the judge is saying to himself, "What did you expect and what do you want me to do about it?"  The best he's been able to come up in regard to what he can do about it is 'nothing' ... which, by the way, is a substantial improvement over what his grandfather would have done.

 

pubby

 

PS: I really do think mom is the one who needs counseling.  I'm not as worried about the kids - being forced into evaluation is probably more traumatic for them.  I'm sure they're hurt by this but I'm guessing they're resilient and, given the general societal attitude OF THEIR PEERS which is where the real change has occured, they will do okay.  But mom has some anger issues that she needs to deal with because it is UNNATURAL and SICK for a parent to disrespect their children to that degree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually - I see this as a case of not allowing Parent A to trash Parent B in the public arena given the racial tension in some parts of the country. It's quite common and seemingly acceptable for those of the appropriate race to say those things to each other and to their children. And, if this is a decades long habit of parent B - Parent A has long known about this and obviously condoned this behavior until the legal actions started. Seems to me that this complaint might a bit late - if this is such a problem to parent A - perhaps parent A should have reconsidered the relationship prior to procreation.

 

We have this issue with a family friend's family. One member that has married into the family uses this language constantly and has forced the non-bi-racial step child out of the family and to the grandparents. It's sad. But, as I see often in that community - it's acceptable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually - I see this as a case of not allowing Parent A to trash Parent B in the public arena given the racial tension in some parts of the country. It's quite common and seemingly acceptable for those of the appropriate race to say those things to each other and to their children. And, if this is a decades long habit of parent B - Parent A has long known about this and obviously condoned this behavior until the legal actions started. Seems to me that this complaint might a bit late - if this is such a problem to parent A - perhaps parent A should have reconsidered the relationship prior to procreation.

 

We have this issue with a family friend's family. One member that has married into the family uses this language constantly and has forced the non-bi-racial step child out of the family and to the grandparents. It's sad. But, as I see often in that community - it's acceptable.

Just Thinkin' hard:

 

I get the complexity and all and recognize the truth you describe in that 'other' family situation.

 

The only thing I object to is that when the matter goes to court, while the judge may caution, the reality is that when it is spoken in open court, it is on the record.

 

I really haven't thought about this topic, it never having been a part of my existence, but I have to say that I'm fascinated by it.

 

I mean it goes to the center of our current politics even - Obama is half and half.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually - I see this as a case of not allowing Parent A to trash Parent B in the public arena given the racial tension in some parts of the country. It's quite common and seemingly acceptable for those of the appropriate race to say those things to each other and to their children. And, if this is a decades long habit of parent B - Parent A has long known about this and obviously condoned this behavior until the legal actions started. Seems to me that this complaint might a bit late - if this is such a problem to parent A - perhaps parent A should have reconsidered the relationship prior to procreation.

 

We have this issue with a family friend's family. One member that has married into the family uses this language constantly and has forced the non-bi-racial step child out of the family and to the grandparents. It's sad. But, as I see often in that community - it's acceptable.

 

You have an interesting take on the situation. The "abuser" is the victim and the "victim" is the abuser for speaking out about the truth? Parent A has long tried to reason with Parent B concerning this problem. Parent B chose to continue knowing in whose favor the deck was always stacked. Sometimes the equity you give is the equity you receive. Shouldn't Parent B treat others the way that individual wants to be treated? For anyone to condone the Court or anyone else's enabling of abuse of children is sad.

 

As far as procreation goes, if everyone thought through their actions in their youth, the planet's population would be about 5 billion less, :lol: .

Edited by Domestic Violence by Proxy
Link to post
Share on other sites

DVBP:

 

What kind of bothers me is the judge 'cautioning' the person about discussing things that go on in court in the public domain.

 

This is perplexing in a wide variety of ways, not the least of which if the press got a hold of the story and exploited it for its salty display of racism and how the system works to perpetuate it.

 

If I were the judge and was confronted with this, I'm pretty sure I'd order counseling for the momma who is showing or at least channeling the hate she has for her former spouse on the children.

 

Given my background, I can also understand what the judge did.

 

First, I am assuming this is in the south and that the judge is a 50+ year old white guy who probably is not in any way an overt racist but comes from the culture that was so adroitly lampooned by this short clip from Blazing Saddles:

 

 

Yes, interracial marriage was a strong taboo and we all know that atrocities were usually the result because, well, we are all animals and a lot of animals (rutting deer) can kill others competing for the right to sire the next generation.

 

But we're talking about the transitional baby boom generation of the south. You can't deny their progress but perfection eludes us all.

 

The conflict you present falls in the category of the 1970 by the policy of the Nixon Administration which was knee deep in executing "the southern strategy" - benign neglect. In other words, I think the judge is saying to himself, "What did you expect and what do you want me to do about it?" The best he's been able to come up in regard to what he can do about it is 'nothing' ... which, by the way, is a substantial improvement over what his grandfather would have done.

 

pubby

 

PS: I really do think mom is the one who needs counseling. I'm not as worried about the kids - being forced into evaluation is probably more traumatic for them. I'm sure they're hurt by this but I'm guessing they're resilient and, given the general societal attitude OF THEIR PEERS which is where the real change has occured, they will do okay. But mom has some anger issues that she needs to deal with because it is UNNATURAL and SICK for a parent to disrespect their children to that degree.

 

DVBP:

 

What kind of bothers me is the judge 'cautioning' the person about discussing things that go on in court in the public domain.

 

This is perplexing in a wide variety of ways, not the least of which if the press got a hold of the story and exploited it for its salty display of racism and how the system works to perpetuate it.

 

If I were the judge and was confronted with this, I'm pretty sure I'd order counseling for the momma who is showing or at least channeling the hate she has for her former spouse on the children.

 

Given my background, I can also understand what the judge did.

 

First, I am assuming this is in the south and that the judge is a 50+ year old white guy who probably is not in any way an overt racist but comes from the culture that was so adroitly lampooned by this short clip from Blazing Saddles:

 

 

Yes, interracial marriage was a strong taboo and we all know that atrocities were usually the result because, well, we are all animals and a lot of animals (rutting deer) can kill others competing for the right to sire the next generation.

 

But we're talking about the transitional baby boom generation of the south. You can't deny their progress but perfection eludes us all.

 

The conflict you present falls in the category of the 1970 by the policy of the Nixon Administration which was knee deep in executing "the southern strategy" - benign neglect. In other words, I think the judge is saying to himself, "What did you expect and what do you want me to do about it?" The best he's been able to come up in regard to what he can do about it is 'nothing' ... which, by the way, is a substantial improvement over what his grandfather would have done.

 

pubby

 

PS: I really do think mom is the one who needs counseling. I'm not as worried about the kids - being forced into evaluation is probably more traumatic for them. I'm sure they're hurt by this but I'm guessing they're resilient and, given the general societal attitude OF THEIR PEERS which is where the real change has occured, they will do okay. But mom has some anger issues that she needs to deal with because it is UNNATURAL and SICK for a parent to disrespect their children to that degree.

 

Your assessment is very accurate, including that the story has been watered down some. In Parent B's favor you'll be surprised to know.

 

In looking at this situation, IMHO, the Chief Judge's actions perpetuate racism. Especially the hidden racism that lurks in the shadows but its existence is denied. People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.

 

The Chief Judge himself has told these two parents that if they don't learn to co-parent the child is going to be returning before him in jail or drug addicted. The Chief Judge's actions still reflect a bias that has licensed Parent B to run rampant and ignore his order.

 

Personally, from what I've seen, I think the Chief Judge's time in office should sunset with the next election. He is almost sure to run unopposed, so stepping down may not interest him. If there is no viable opposition, the only alternative is to raise public awareness and let them decide whether or not they have the appetite to petition for a recall.

 

Sometimes looking in the Chief Judges eyes, you can almost see his grandfather whispering in his ear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You have an interesting take on the situation. The "abuser" is the victim and the "victim" is the abuser for speaking out about the truth? Parent A has long tried to reason with Parent B concerning this problem. Parent B chose to continue knowing in whose favor the deck was always stacked. Sometimes the equity you give is the equity you receive. Shouldn't Parent B treat others the way that individual wants to be treated? For anyone to condone the Court or anyone else's enabling of abuse of children is sad.

 

As far as procreation goes, if everyone thought through their actions in their youth, the planet's population would be about 5 billion less, :lol: .

 

 

 

I think you miss my point. Things are never clear cut in court. There are always nuances that must be weighed and balanced. If it were clear cut, it wouldn't be in court. My point here is not to flip the situation. But, to a neutral third party - one must considered ALL consequences and outcomes. And, one, in this current environment, is that parent A could destroy parent B in the court of public opinion. It does and has happen. I have a friend that gets no child support because my friend's ex has threatened my friend of a bias exposure of something that happened with a teenager that is now her adopted daughter. My friend could legitimately lose her job just based on the exposure of the information. By the time it's sorted out, the damage is done. She forgoes child support to keep this battle from coming out.

 

You have a very anti-court/anti-judge bias. You are very open about that. My point is only that there are many, many different ways to look at this. I would not just assume that the judge is condoning racism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is pretty easy. Apparently 'Parent A" is white and 'Parent B' is back. And that being the case, 'Parent B' is allowed to use those epithets since 'Parent B' is black. As everyone knows, blacks can use those 'N' words without it being racist, but don't say those words if you're white.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is pretty easy. Apparently 'Parent A" is white and 'Parent B' is back. And that being the case, 'Parent B' is allowed to use those epithets since 'Parent B' is black. As everyone knows, blacks can use those 'N' words without it being racist, but don't say those words if you're white.

I don't think those words should ever be used. They certainly shouldn't be used on children. Parent A is black and Parent B is white.

 

What do you think using those words would do to the self-esteem of a child? By doing so, you are teaching a children to hate part of themselves or one side of their family.

 

It would be no better if a Catholic and a Jew had children and the Catholic kept calling the children the K-Word or the H-word.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you miss my point. Things are never clear cut in court. There are always nuances that must be weighed and balanced. If it were clear cut, it wouldn't be in court. My point here is not to flip the situation. But, to a neutral third party - one must considered ALL consequences and outcomes. And, one, in this current environment, is that parent A could destroy parent B in the court of public opinion. It does and has happen. I have a friend that gets no child support because my friend's ex has threatened my friend of a bias exposure of something that happened with a teenager that is now her adopted daughter. My friend could legitimately lose her job just based on the exposure of the information. By the time it's sorted out, the damage is done. She forgoes child support to keep this battle from coming out.

 

You have a very anti-court/anti-judge bias. You are very open about that. My point is only that there are many, many different ways to look at this. I would not just assume that the judge is condoning racism.

 

Parent B absolutely gets child support but doesn't think Parent A should see the child and has obstructed visitation for years. In other words Parent B wants the money but doesn't want the child to see the Parent A and has prevented it for years with the aid of the Court. Parent B has conditional love and has cut off all of her own children that chose to live with Parent A. Parent B even obstructs her children that are siblings from seeing each other. Whether or not Parent B is severely disturbed mentally is for a professional to determine. The story has been watered down.

 

I don't have an anti-court/anti-judge bias. I have an anti-corruption, anti-collusion, anti-abuse of the process bias. In courts of equity, judges are given broad discretion through public trust of the judiciary. If you are a Chief Judge and you enable abuse by action or inaction I think it should be placed in the court of public opinion. You certainly shouldn't be supervising other judges or even on the bench.

 

My dislike of certain judges is not unfounded. I always present evidence. When you point your finger at a judge you had better be right or the consequences can be severe. Most are too afraid to expose injustice for fear of retaliation by the judge.

Edited by Domestic Violence by Proxy
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend that gets no child support because my friend's ex has threatened my friend of a bias exposure of something that happened with a teenager that is now her adopted daughter. My friend could legitimately lose her job just based on the exposure of the information. By the time it's sorted out, the damage is done. She forgoes child support to keep this battle from coming out.

Usually people with dark secrets are accompanied by pathological lying as is the case with Parent B. Your friend may have adopted the daughter to keep the situation close and to keep control of the girl and her dark secret. I would be concerned for the adopted girl's welfare.

 

Sociopaths are very charming on the surface. Jeffrey Dalmer didn't hit people over the head and drag them to his apartment kicking and screaming. His victims were charmed into a very grizzly game that they weren't even aware they were playing until they were his dinner. Most ASPDs aren't even serial killers. You never know what they really are until you stand in the way of their objectives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...