|
|
||
Date published: 4/10/2009
Kangaroos preside in divorce-custody cases
It was with some amusement that I read Thomas Savage's feeble attempt to rebut Stephen Baskerville's fine op-ed ["An unmarried husband: Unwelcome reality," Viewpoints, March 29]. Then I realized that some people actually believe lawyers. Mr. Savage's main point is that people receive trials in divorce-custody court. The truth is, they are not trials, they are kangaroo courts. In Virginia, they will not grant a jury trial in divorce-custody cases. Also, the proceedings cannot be recorded or videotaped. Why? Most of what the lawyer said is not true. I do agree with Mr. Savage that everyone should spend time observing what goes on in divorce-custody court to see the complete disregard of the Constitution, the law, common sense, and fairness. I sat through three years of divorce-custody proceedings, and throughout I kept saying to myself, "They can't do that," but they did, and they still do. Don Delaney St. Petersburg, Fla.
The lawyers are the ones removed from the emotion and try to get the case concluded in a manner that is fair to everybody. There are compromises made that would otherwise not be made wtihout counsel. Please don't judge the lawyers harshly. They are advocating for those not as versed in the court system.
when they get a divorce. If they're vindicative, or if one party has utterly unrealistic expectations, or out of touch (she wants to divorce me?) they're in a for rough time. If they can work out their differences in mediation, they' (and the children) are a lot better off in the long run.
|
|
|||||||||||||
