quote:Originally posted by Nurturing Father:quote:Originally posted by DixieChik:....the agenda in this is my issue...I'll say again, I wish this father all the best...
DC, the agenda is your issue?
This is about a court that did not honor established well known Alabama law.
The trial court was reversed by five(5) learned appeals court judges, to only be overruled by the Supreme Court of Alabama based solely on speculation and assumption.
Do you NOT see something wrong with that?
The agenda by the father - if any at all - is as any citizen would expect of the courts 1.) follow the law 2.) rule not on inference and speculation but on the overall facts.
All too often Alabama courts do not honor law but honor what they feel like at doing at a particular time. That is wrong. Finally, society - i.e. the general public - has no clue the courts are operating in such manner.
Was it you that said in another thread that making this information available to the public was good?
I thought "the father's issue" was being a parent to his child...if that is his issue -- he has routes of rectifying that situation now that he hs moved and complied with the court's requirements...but if "his" issue is as you state -- expecting the court to follow the rules then my statement stands -- the "agenda" is my issue...if he had no recourse, if he couldn't go back to the court to request a change -- then I could see a bigger issue, but he has recourse. I have 2 friends requesting changes in their arrangements as I type -- it costs just as much money to file a new change as it does to appeal it to the high court...
If the Supreme Court overturned an appeals court -- then you know, the original decision just might have been right -- it wasn't what you wanted but that doesn't make them wrong in their opinion.
The public is not ignorant -- just because you want them to be -- that is not the case...Most people never have to deal with family court and MOST don't have the negative issues that you have with them...this is not a case, in my opinion, that merits "public outcry" -- there are far worse things than getting 79 or so days with your kid as opposed to 150+ -- how you make that relationship worth while makes all the difference in the world...Had the court removed all visitation and said you can't see your child at all -- that is something I would see as a great injustice because just as was pointed out before and I won't rehash them again and continue to go in circles.
I wish you the best with this case. I think you have wasted precious time by not filing for a chnage in custody and going before a different judge (since yours was Suttle) and seeking a change...I think your agenda is to make a name in the "family courts" and to continue to criticize Suttle and other judges that make tough decisions every day of the week...while I don't always like the decisions--I have to trust that they are doing their jobs...I still see that while the decisions weren't what you liked the courts ruled as they saw fit -- which is what they are supposed to do based on law and the totality of the circumstances...please keep us updated but I'm not going to repeat myself...