Consider a hearing in a divorce case where evidence is being introduced. The judge refuses to allow entry of affidavits from the father provided by his daughter and 14 year old neighbor supporting him as a dedicated and capable father. The judge agreed with the mothers attorney that he needed three work days to review the documents and did not allow their entry into evidence.
On the other hand the judge had no problems allowing the mothers attorney to introduce envelopes he claimed were returned by the post office not collected by the father. Of note the father works daily 6 to 5, one hour from home and has had his postal box replace to protect its content from his opponent involved with this case.
Regardless, this judge not only allowed the introduction of the documents but allowed the Attorney to provide unsworn testimony regarding the documents clearly without verification, origination nor their authenticity. No foundation was laid. The documents were the only evidence provide by the attorney to oppose a set aside ruling. That ruling would have returned the father and his children in their home. The attorney represented to the court that the father was duly served although the letters for service were in his possession.
Why would a judge allow an attorney to ambush another with evidence that clearly should not have been introduced in a hearing or at least share with opposing attorney, then rule in the opposing attorneys favor. The ruling that has separated the family for more than a month.
If the argument that there is one requirement for minority males and one for all others in family courts cannot be made in general. It certainly can in this case.
No comments:
Post a Comment