|
|
|
| |||||||
| ||||||||
| Home | Contents | MediaStream ↑News+Blog↑ |
Entities | Newsletters | Book | Philosophy | Photos | Glenn Campbell |
♥ (1/25/06)
Upon leaving the courthouse today at about 1:30, we
saw this man on the sidewalk, picketing alone with
a large sign: "JUDGE MARREN UNFAIR." (Here is the
other side of his
sign: "MOM, MARREN, MOLESTR = CUSTODY.")
We stopped to chat with him for about 15
minutes. This turned into an impromptu appeal of
the man's divorce case, with us being the
appeals judge.We did not feel hampered by having only a single witness available, as we could still separate the presumed facts of the case from the matters of contention. Here is the case as presented to us.....
The MAN told us his divorce had just been completed the day before (presumed fact). In a hearing before Judge Marren (a fill-in judge), primary custody of his two young BOYS (age 4 and 5) had been awarded to his EX-WIFE (fact).
According to the MAN, the judge failed to consider that the EX-WIFE had been living with a convicted CHILD MOLESTER, who the MAN said also molested his BOYS.
The MAN gave us copies of the arrest report and criminal complaint from a 1999 incident involving the MOLESTER. The victim in that case was a 2-year-old girl, not related to the MAN, who was referred to police by medical personnel for a fracture and multiple bruises, including vaginal bruises. The MOLESTER plead guilty in that case in some sort of plea deal and was give a 5-year suspended sentence. (Fact: At least at some point since she left the MAN, the EX became romantically involved with this person. Fact: The MAN conducted research on him which yielded the arrest report and complaint.)
The MAN said that during the divorce hearing Judge Marren refused to hear evidence about the alleged molestation of the BOYS and the EX's involvement with the MOLESTER, which the MAN contends makes the EX unsuitable for primary custody.
The MAN said that his EX declared in court that her relationship with the MOLESTER was over, but the MAN doesn't believe it. (Fact: the EX made this declaration in court.) The MAN said that CPS investigated the charges of molestation of the BOYS but found insufficient evidence to proceed (fact). The MAN still believes that the molestation of the BOYS took place, but that the BOYS were intimidated by the MOLESTER or the EX into changing their story.
The MAN said he was represented by a lawyer in the divorce hearing (fact), but he declined to give the lawyer's name. (He said the lawyer didn't know that he was picketing now.) The MAN seemed to have nothing critical to say about his lawyer, only Judge Marren. The MAN said he had been given liberal visitation rights with the BOYS (fact), "but that's not the issue."
The MAN was handing out an undated newspaper, the
U.S. Observer published in Oregon ("Demanding
Accountability"), with an
article about the
alleged MOLESTER on the front page. The article
appears to be based primarily on information provided to
the newspaper by the MAN, although it does quote
a Henderson police detective who says,
about the alleged molestation of the boys:
"The case has been fully investigated and at this
point the case has been closed.
I don't believe we will be going any farther at all."
The MAN believes that primary custody should have been awarded to him and that "Judge Marren [is] Unfair." He is appealing this decision by protesting on the sidewalk with a homemade sign. (I chose to hear his appeal.)
We asked the MAN what he did for a living, and he said he was an airline pilot but that he was currently on leave from his job. "That's a whole other story," he said.
The man said he was going to picket on the sidewalk for "as long as it takes" to get attention for his case. (We predict that this will be a very long time.)
It was bad that the EX was involved with a convicted CHILD MOLESTER, but that doesn't make the MAN the better parent. The fact that the MAN (who is educated enough to be an airline pilot) is out here protesting with a crude-looking sign suggests, well, a certain detachment from reality.
As in many cases, Judge Marren probably had two imperfect parents before him, and we can only assume that he made a choice that he felt was the lesser of two evils. Judicial discretion gives him wide leeway to decide these cases as he chooses. He may not have made the best decision, but he did make one, as he is required to do. (In the past, Marren has been accused of taking too long to make decisions.)
The fact that the EX made a declaration in court that her relationship with the MOLESTER was over suggested that the relationship was at least considered by the judge when making the decision. The fact that the MAN has been given liberal visitation rights gives him an opportunity to monitor the situation and report to police if he believes any molestation is taking place.
One party, the MAN, believes the decision is unfair, and we are sure that the other party believes it is fair—which is almost always the case when a contested matter is resolved in court. Fair or unfair is not of great concern to this Appeals Court (which operates according to its own rules, thank you).
This Appeals Court is only concerned with the welfare of the children in this matter. If it had the ability, this Court would take custody away from both of the parents. Unfortunately, we can only now rule on the matter before us, which is the risk that the BOYS will be molested if they remain with the EX.
While the risk certainly exists, this Court assumes that the MAN will remain hypervigilant and will raise bloody hell if the MOLESTER shows up again or the BOYS show any signs of abuse. The BOYS have many challenges ahead of them, mainly being raised by these dysfunctional parents, but this Court does not believe that molestation itself is a significant concern. The EX says she is done with the MOLESTER, and the police investigated the allegations about the BOYS and found nothing to pursue. What more can the divorce court rule on?
Accordingly, the appeal is DENIED.
|
©2005-07, Glenn Campbell, PO Box 30303, Las
Vegas, NV 89173.
This is an independent and unofficial website. All opinions expressed are those of the webmaster and not any other party. Information conveyed here is accurate to the best of our knowledge but is not guaranteed. You should seek your own independent verification of critical information. Total page hits at FamilyCourtChronicles.com: |
