Never heard about it.
I tell you what though, the family court hates men... that can be the only conclusion to draw from my brothers fight with his, meth Fkded ex partner over custody of their daughter.
She is 47; has 3 (all different fathers) daughters; Cassie 21 - 2 kids 5 & 2, partner in gaol, never been off social security benefits, Maddy 18 - 2 kids 3 & 18 months, partner in gaol, never been off social security benfits. And my brothers daughter, 7, been living with him for the last 2 years.
This woman has 22 drug convictions, has failed every drug test the court have had her take and only wants her youngest daughter so she can continue her 30 year social security recipient career.
She has failed to even carry out a one day unsupervised visit with their daughter within the court ordered parameters.
My brother; has no convictions of any sort, has looked after the kid for 2 years, she's actually going to school every day now and her reports and performance have improved out of sight.
Yet!
The system, led by the female judge who hates men, believe me, you have to see this bitch, are letting this whole affair continue to hound my brother into the ground.
He's almost had enough, I can see him giving up soon and his daughter spiralling down the same path as her siblings.
It's a disgrace & it's real.
Antifa / SA counter protests = imbeciles or worse?
Moderator: bbmods
So, plainly, from your description, the case is still in the interlocutory stages and no final orders have been made. If the Judge jumped in and brought some kind of peremptory end to proceedings in your brother's favour, her decision would likely be overturned on appeal for apprehended bias.
Many people live complex, stuffed-up lives and court is, generally speaking, a very poor place to sort out their issues. I'm not sure, though, why you would expect a judge to be able to sort out peoples' lives (as distinct from their commercial disputes or their criminality) appropriately, when the people themselves obviously cannot. A judge is about as likely as anybody else to have personal experience of relationship breakdown but, at least in the ordinary course, much less likely to have experience of the other things you mention. This is a difficulty - because we probably might not like the outcomes of a system designed to vet judges to make sure that they do have relevant experience: generally, we might not be thrilled if decisions about family relationships were being made by a judge who, eg, was addicted to meth and had had multiple children from various failed relationships or, alternatively, was the third father in time of children to the same meth addict.
But, unhappily, such issues are resolved by courts. So, looking at this from the Court's perspective, there's a reasonable question to be asked about your brother, isn't there? You know him but the Court doesn't. From the judge's point of view, the woman concerned is just one more woman who has children from a series of hopelessly failed relationships and your brother's just one more bloke who has had a failed relationship with a woman who had already had several hopelessly failed relationships before the two of them got together. You accept his evidence because you already have a view that he is in the right. Why should the judge do so before the evidence has been tested and without hearing the contrary point of view (whatever that is)?
Many people live complex, stuffed-up lives and court is, generally speaking, a very poor place to sort out their issues. I'm not sure, though, why you would expect a judge to be able to sort out peoples' lives (as distinct from their commercial disputes or their criminality) appropriately, when the people themselves obviously cannot. A judge is about as likely as anybody else to have personal experience of relationship breakdown but, at least in the ordinary course, much less likely to have experience of the other things you mention. This is a difficulty - because we probably might not like the outcomes of a system designed to vet judges to make sure that they do have relevant experience: generally, we might not be thrilled if decisions about family relationships were being made by a judge who, eg, was addicted to meth and had had multiple children from various failed relationships or, alternatively, was the third father in time of children to the same meth addict.
But, unhappily, such issues are resolved by courts. So, looking at this from the Court's perspective, there's a reasonable question to be asked about your brother, isn't there? You know him but the Court doesn't. From the judge's point of view, the woman concerned is just one more woman who has children from a series of hopelessly failed relationships and your brother's just one more bloke who has had a failed relationship with a woman who had already had several hopelessly failed relationships before the two of them got together. You accept his evidence because you already have a view that he is in the right. Why should the judge do so before the evidence has been tested and without hearing the contrary point of view (whatever that is)?