EPISODE 69: Burn it Down?

In this episode, Christine and Hugh dive deep into groundbreaking legislation in New Hampshire—House Bill 652—which proposes to completely abolish the state's family court system. The hosts explore the implications, controversies, and potential consequences of this radical approach to family law reform.

KEY TOPICS DISCUSSED:

New Hampshire House Bill 652

The bill would eliminate family court as a specialty court division

Jurisdiction would transfer to courts of general jurisdiction

No additional judges would be added, raising concerns about caseload

Includes a voluntary mediation system as an alternative dispute resolution option

The Three Strikes Provision

Bill criminalizes parenting time violations with escalating penalties

First violations treated as misdemeanors, third strike becomes a felony

Hugh and Christine express serious concerns about applying criminal penalties to inherently nuanced family disputes

Discussion of how this could endanger children when parents fear criminal prosecution for making safety-based decisions

Due Process in Family Court

The fundamental lack of due process protections in current family court systems

How specialty courts have evolved to violate basic constitutional rights

The absence of jury trials in family court versus other court systems

Comparisons to current events and broader due process issues in America

Abolishing vs. Reforming Family Court

Christine's position as a proponent of abolishing family court

Concerns about whether simply moving cases to general jurisdiction solves the core problems

The role of Guardian ad Litems (GALs) and the "family court machine"

How the system has become self-perpetuating and benefits only select professionals

Regional Politics & Culture

Fascinating tangent about New Hampshire's "Live Free or Die" culture

Comparisons between Northeast and Southern political discourse

Hugh's experiences living in Vermont and Maine

New Hampshire's outsized influence in presidential primaries

Practical Problems in Family Court

Contempt motions filed for minor infractions (15-minute late exchanges)

The criminalization of complex, nuanced custody disputes

How government entrenchment affects co-parenting decisions

Real examples of judges holding parents in contempt for car breakdowns

Judicial Accountability

The lack of consequences for judges who ignore the law

Judges who refuse to read appellate decisions or follow precedent

The need for judicial qualifications and experience requirements

Why successful private practice attorneys often don't pursue family court judgeships

Call to Action

Christine and Hugh emphasize the importance of constituent engagement:

Contact your state legislators about family court issues

Share your experiences and specific problems

Testimony, emails, and calls DO make a difference

Similar discussions are happening in multiple states

MENTIONED CASES & REFERENCES:

Christine Ward case (contempt penalty discussion)

Kentucky's 50/50 custody law (enacted 2018)

Vermont civil unions debate and "Take Back Vermont" movement

Ohio family court legislation controversy

CONNECT WITH THE PODCAST:

Website: judge-y.com

Social Media: @Judgingthejudges

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

The content of this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice. Engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the hosts, guests, or their firms. The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any law firm,...

EPISODE 68: Politics as Usual?

Episode Summary:

In this episode, Christine and Hugh discuss a significant development in their ongoing coverage of judicial ethics in Kentucky. After the Kentucky Supreme Court Chief Justice ruled that a Jefferson County Family Court judge could attend partisan political fundraisers, the hosts discovered that Chief Justice Deborah Lambert herself has been attending and being photographed at Republican political fundraisers—all documented on public social media.

Key Topics Discussed:

Chief Justice Lambert's Social Media Activity

Chief Justice following the JudgeMental Podcast's social media

Discovery of photos from political fundraisers posted publicly on Instagram

November 11th post showing Chief Justice at a Republican fundraiser with candidates

Judicial Ethics & Canon 4.1

Kentucky's Canon 4.1 prohibits judges from attending or purchasing tickets for events sponsored by political organizations

Discussion of the Shelly Sentry case and the Chief Justice's ruling refusing recusal

The appearance of endorsement when judges pose for photos at partisan events

Why judges attending fundraisers matters, regardless of political affiliation

Implications for Kentucky's Judiciary

How this sets a precedent for other Kentucky judges

The danger of identity politics infiltrating the judiciary

Potential impact on cases with political dimensions (abortion laws, constitutional challenges)

The erosion of judicial impartiality and public trust

Broader Context

Comparison to U.S. Supreme Court justices who maintain political views but are expected to remain impartial

Discussion of how political affiliation increasingly defines identity in America

The importance of calling out judicial misconduct regardless of political party

Why local judicial issues matter as much as national political controversies

Other Judicial News:

Orange County, California Judge Israel Stro pleading guilty to mail fraud after running on transparency platform

Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission's mental health summit for judges

Listener feedback on previous episodes

The Hosts' Position:

Christine and Hugh make clear their stance: judges should not attend partisan political fundraisers, period. This isn't about personal political beliefs—it's about maintaining the appearance of impartiality required by judicial ethics rules.

Important Links:

Website: judge-y.com

Social Media: @Judgingthejudges

Listener Engagement:

The hosts welcome constructive feedback and discussion, even from those who disagree. They emphasize the importance of fostering dialogue about judicial accountability while avoiding personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

The content of this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice. Engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the hosts, guests, or their firms. The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any law firm, company, or organization. We make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or applicability of the information presented. Any reliance on the information in this podcast is at your own risk. Laws are constantly changing, and every situation is unique. You should always seek the advice of a qualified attorney for your specific legal concerns.

EPISODE 67: INTO THE VOID

Welcome to The JudgeMental Podcast with Hugh and Christine, the minds behind Judgy - the revolutionary app empowering you to judge the judges. It's past time for judicial accountability and transparency within the courts.

IN THIS EPISODE:

Hugh and Christine tackle a critical issue in family court: the lack of transparency and accountability in FOC (Friend of the Court) and GAL (Guardian ad Litem) billing practices. Instead of just "yelling into the void," they propose concrete solutions to systemic problems.

KEY TOPICS DISCUSSED:

• Billing Transparency Crisis: Why FOCs and GALs should be required to file itemized bills with the court as a matter of public record

• The Money Problem: How immunity and acting "under color of law" creates incentives for abuse when combined with opaque billing practices

• Missing Bills: The bizarre pattern of FOCs and GALs not providing bills - sometimes for over a year - despite active involvement in cases

• The No Surprises Act: Drawing parallels to medical billing reform and why family court needs similar protections

• Good Faith Estimates: Why litigants deserve to know what court-appointed professionals will cost before being hit with surprise bills

• Cross-Examination Challenges: How lack of billing records makes it impossible to properly examine FOCs and GALs about the work they claim to have done

• The Cost of Uncertainty: How surprise bills (sometimes $7,000-$12,000) arrive months after cases resolve, devastating families already struggling financially

SOLUTIONS PROPOSED:

Require FOCs and GALs to file itemized bills with the court

Mandate good faith estimates before appointments

Implement regular billing (weekly or monthly) for transparency

Create specific, limited appointments rather than open-ended general appointments

LISTENER CHALLENGE:

an you find a picture of Hugh's childhood cat? Send it to the show!

CONTACT & FOLLOW:

• Website: judge-y.com

• Social Media: @Judgingthejudges

• Email: MillerTimeLouisville@gmail.com

Have an itemized bill from Pashens Fitzpatrick or other FOC/GAL billing records to share? Send them to the email above.

COMING SOON:

Christine's theory on why the family court system is "the next Purdue Pharma" - the next opiate epidemic-level crisis.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

The content of this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice. Engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the hosts, guests, or their firms. The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any law firm, company, or organization. We make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or applicability of the information presented. Any reliance on the information in this podcast is at your own risk. Laws are constantly changing, and every situation is unique. You should always seek the advice of a qualified attorney for your specific legal concerns.