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.

EPISODE 66: INFIGHTING

Show Notes

In this episode of the JudgeMental Podcast, we dive deep into one of the most troubling aspects of the family court system: the Friend of the Court (FOC) process. We examine a recent case from Jefferson County that highlights systemic problems with FOC reports, late filings, and the dangerous consequences of unqualified individuals making forensic determinations about children and families.

Key Topics Discussed:

The FOC System's Fundamental Flaws

Why attorneys without specialized training shouldn't be making forensic findings about child welfare

The lack of accountability for FOCs (no elections, no regulatory board, no oversight)

How FOCs operate with quasi-judicial immunity while making life-altering recommendations

The problem of FOCs acting as fact-finders who filter and spin information before judges hear actual evidence

A Troubling Case Study

Analysis of an FOC report filed late in Jefferson County (Division Four)

How the report brackets serious allegations between two extremes without proper investigation

The danger of putting unsubstantiated allegations of abuse into public record

Why making such serious allegations requires proper training and forensic evaluation

Procedural Problems

The statutory requirement for FOC reports to be filed 10 days before trial

What happens when judges don't enforce filing deadlines

The impossible choice: continue the case and delay justice, or proceed without proper preparation

How late filings violate due process rights

The Bigger Picture

Why FOC reports often just regurgitate information already in the file while billing thousands of dollars

How the system is designed to make judges' jobs easier, not to serve children's best interests

The comparison to criminal court: imagine if prosecutors could submit biased reports before trial

Why cases take years despite FOCs supposedly speeding up the process

Proposed Solutions

Eliminate the FOC system's delegation of judicial authority

Require judges to be the actual fact-finders, as intended

If FOCs continue to exist, establish clear oversight and accountability mechanisms

Enforce existing rules and deadlines without exception

The Human Cost

Parents waiting months or years for meaningful time with their children

Lives potentially ruined by careless allegations in public records

The weaponization of serious allegations once they're legitimized by FOC reports

How the system fails both parents and children

This episode contains discussion of serious allegations including child abuse. While we don't make determinations about any specific case, we examine how the system handles such sensitive matters and why proper training and procedures are essential.

Connect With Us:

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, 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 65: PETULANT CHILDREN

In this episode, Christine dives deep into the judicial landscape of Bullitt County, Kentucky, examining the stark differences between the county's two family court divisions and sharing firsthand experiences practicing in front of Judges Elise Spainhour and Monica Meredith.

KEY TOPICS DISCUSSED:

Bullitt County Family Court Structure

The evolution from a commissioner system to two family court divisions

How landing in different divisions dramatically affects case outcomes

The unique challenges of practicing in smaller counties versus Louisville

Judge Elise Spainhour

Consistent docket management and efficient case processing

Tough but predictable courtroom demeanor

The importance of judicial consistency for litigators

Her involvement in substance abuse pilot programs and appropriate recusal

Judge Monica Meredith

Controversial rulings that gained national media attention

The "move back in" order: A judge ordering divorcing spouses to live together

The "too amicable" case: Denying a divorce because parties got along too well

Concerns about judicial overreach and abuse of power

Comparisons to other problematic judges discussed on the podcast

Broader Issues:

Small-town politics and the "good old boy" system

The power dynamics between judges and local attorneys

Deference given to certain court-appointed professionals

Why judicial elections and challenges matter

The difference between judicial incompetence and intentional overreach

Notable Cases:

The maintenance case where a wife was ordered to move back in with her husband during divorce proceedings

The cooperative divorce case where the judge refused to grant a divorce because the parties were "too civil"

The self-defense case involving allegations of abuse despite prosecutors clearing the defendant

CONNECT WITH US:

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, 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.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 64: About Time

In this episode, Hugh and Christine dive deep into the latest developments in judicial accountability, focusing on the ongoing saga surrounding Judge Ogden. They discuss the challenges of recusal motions, the impact of judicial decisions on families, and the broader implications for the legal system. The conversation covers:

The rare granting of a recusal motion and what it means for litigants

The persistent issues with judicial discretion and lack of accountability

The role of the Friend of the Court and the ripple effects of their recommendations

The emotional and practical consequences for families caught in the system

Reflections on systemic problems versus individual cases

The “Ogden effect” and comparisons to broader political trends

Lessons for legal practitioners on filing motions and navigating appellate remedies

Whether you’re a legal professional, someone navigating the family court system, or just interested in how justice is served (or not), this episode offers candid insights and sharp critiques from two lawyers determined to save the system.

Links & Resources:

Learn more about the Judgy app: judge-y.com

Follow us on social: @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, 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

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 63: "Half & Half"

In this episode, Christine and Hugh dive deep into recent decisions from the Kentucky Supreme Court, focusing on judicial recusal, the appearance of bias, and the implications of judges attending partisan political events. The hosts discuss the controversy surrounding Judge Shelley Santry, the role and power of GALs (Guardians ad Litem), and the broader impact of judicial conduct on public trust in the legal system.

Key Topics:

The Kentucky Supreme Court’s handling of recusal motions and the standards for judicial impartiality.

The case involving Judge Shelley Santry, her attendance at a partisan fundraiser, and the resulting motion to recuse.

The distinction between GALs and FOCs (Friend of the Court), and how their roles affect family law cases.

The importance of the appearance of impartiality in the judiciary and the dangers of politicizing the bench.

Broader reflections on public faith in the judiciary, slippery slope arguments, and the personal experiences of the hosts with Kentucky’s family law system.

Links & Social:

Website: judge-y.com

Follow us on social: @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, 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.

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 62: Fresh Meat

In this episode, Christine and Hugh dive into a recent TikTok by Louisville attorney Allison Russell, who proposes adding another division to the Louisville Family Court as a solution to ongoing issues. The hosts discuss the merits and drawbacks of this idea, reflect on the realities of family court in Louisville, and share their perspectives on the challenges facing the legal system. They also address the importance of open dialogue, the complexities of judicial appointments, and the need for accountability and reform.

Key Topics:

Allison Russell’s proposed solution for Louisville Family Court

The realities of being a judge and the challenges of the current system

The importance of public dialogue and transparency in the legal community

The role of attorneys, judges, and the public in driving change

Personal anecdotes and reflections on the state of family law in Louisville

The impact of social media and public opinion on the legal process

Connect with us:

Website: judge-y.com

Follow us on social: @Judgingthejudges (Instagram) and @Judgingthejudges (Twitter/X)

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.