Due Process is a Thing?

Why would I question whether or not due process, fairness protected by law, truly matters to our courts?

My question stems from a critical problem in domestic law, especially in child custody cases, because laws governing fairness and constitutional rights so often are not applied in family conflict. Parents are stunned, many to the point of feeling disabled and hopeless, and left wondering why reasonable notice and the ability to present evidence and defend themselves are rights that seem not to matter during what is called “civil” litigation.

When parents are deprived of basic rights in legal disputes, any sense of civility goes out the window. It is a horrific shock to a loving parent to find out too late that due process, the rights which can easily make or break a parent’s ability to be involved in their children’s lives, seems to not have a place in the trial courts where children are divided much like a 401k.

Fairness to a parent entering family court is like gloss over an attention-grabbing ad campaign to make it seem safe to enter a legal process as a parent. The gloss, however, fades after one makes it far enough in past the storefront for reality to set in. It is not just a disappointment when laws providing for a fair process are not applied, it is traumatic.

In watching the video of the oral argument shown below, you’ll see that the Georgia Court of Appeals panel is quite passionate about this subject.

What I’ve observed in person in many child custody cases makes no sense in light of that passion.

That due process is missing, even unknown to many parents and children, including teens who believed they had a right to choose their primary parent, is one of the reasons I believe in being able to film in courtrooms, which I do often by filing a request to record as permitted by USCR 22 (Rule 22). Even with the revised Rule 22 seeming to encourage more widespread use of recordings, when done properly, there is still much effort in some courts to provide cover for the kind of statements and attitudes revealed in this video of the argument in the Georgia Court of Appeals. In every situation where a lawyer has objected to my request to record, the proceeding yielded an opportunity for that lawyer’s client to benefit from a lack of transparency. In every proceeding where a request to record has been denied in accord with the objection, an injustice, a lack of fairness towards a safe, loving parent, hung in the air like a heavy, mold-laden curtain. This may sound overly dramatic or even unrealistic, but when you watch the Judges’ responses in this video, you’ll understand I’m right on point.

I’ve actually heard lawyers in domestic circles say that due process does not matter or does not exist in family law, even though there are rules and there is plenty of case law that talks about the ramifications if a party is deprived of due process, if a specific civil right is denied. How can lawyers have this attitude that conflicts so dramatically with the beliefs of appellate court judges? How can due process not be “thing” if Judge Dillard and other Judges in the Court of Appeals react as they do in oral argument below?

After years of seeing enormous, life-altering – and in a bad way for children and safe, loving parents – voids (a black hole likely to allow no safe return) when it comes to having opportunity to be heard and having rulings, let alone timely rulings, I was encouraged to see this issue argued so passionately in our Court of Appeals. I saw it because a news media team featured it on The Reveal, a unique show produced by Atlanta’s 11 Alive, and I hope it makes its way to the eyeballs, through the brains and into the hearts of our domestic lawyers and family court judges. Yes, I believe anything is possible.

Grab a seat and be ready to take notes. For sure send your comments through social media or contact me here.

Follow the Court of Appeals online and watch for cases that involve issues of due process, fairness and civil rights that yield family stability and protect mental health. How many more arguments of this kind would you like to see in our appellate courts where you can learn directly from our Judges this way?

I’m especially appreciative of the fact that our appellate courts in Georgia allow filming of oral argument, and I’d like to provide more coverage of such cases in the Court of Appeals to see reactions to similar due process issues.

As a lawyer or judge, ask the tough questions about the case before you; dare to spend extra time checking your work as it applies to due process. If you have a case you believe is heading towards oral argument which involves parental rights, I’d like to know.

What if more arguments like this resulted in relief that restores parent-child bonds and ensures due process in child custody and other domestic matters? Would that be a good thing for our society?

I think we can expect a great impact on our culture and in our communities by paying attention here, so please send me a note with a case number once docketed in the appellate court. If you know of a lawyer who has argued before the Court of Appeals to ensure due process is afforded to parents and children, please make an introduction or share the standout points made and how the Court reacted.

Relief. That is what due process would provide should it be restored to parents and children relying on our laws to protect their right to be together and to be safe from harm.

Thank you for taking time to read and to watch Georgia’s Court of Appeals make trend-changing statements in this case!

Deborah Beacham

Child Safety Must Come First by US Representatives

Great news for children and parents being denied protection from domestic abuse, who are often harmed during prolonged child custody litigation.

Please read, share and contact your state’s leaders to join in with their support of this House Resolution No. 72.

Georgia’s children and parents are especially vulnerable, as hundreds of cases across the state now prove. Television and print news media and several independent journalists have documented professional conduct in what is referred to as “sensitive” cases, including by filing Rule 22 Requests to Record judicial proceedings.

The big deal about the conduct being documented is this: the way many Georgia child custody cases are managed often puts children in harm’s way as they are given to the parent most likely to cause stress or injury.  It is hard to fathom if you can not see it firsthand, but sometimes court professionals, including child custody experts, go so far as to deny children and adult victims of domestic abuse protection and even necessary medical and psychological care.

If you live in Georgia, you can find your U.S. Representatives here. Please encourage your representatives to read and support this resolution. And, in Georgia, learn how you can encourage leadership to keep our courts and court records open and accessible.

As these cases are usually cloaked by a veil of secrecy, and speaking about what is happening to the family is frowned upon and outright discouraged, it is critical that journalists are not restricted in recording judicial proceedings or in obtaining case records.

Both of these issues, policy to improve child safety and rules governing the ability to record judicial proceedings, need your attention.

Thank you!

Child Safety and Child Custody in House Resolution 72 / Bipartisan Support by Deb Beacham on Scribd

Parents Rights in Georgia Law and Rule 22 Application

Rule 22 Governs Permission for Recording Court Proceedings

Parents in Georgia have rights that are often not applied in child custody cases, including when someone other than a natural parent is seeking custody of the children. But is anyone paying attention to this type of loss and trauma?

If you are paying attention or are interested in increasing this focus, contact me here.

Protecting the right to record and maintaining open access to courtrooms does improve protections for families and children.

The content to follow is a developing body of work revealing clear examples of the difference it makes to have cameras allowed in courtrooms and to avoid restricting our press.

While I have much more to do here I wanted you to have access now to documents and videos as I upload them and welcome your questions and feedback as this story unfolds. Your attention is needed to ensure we protect access to our judiciary and ensure our courtrooms remain open.

Two problems are ripe to be solved:

1. Missing clarification of Georgia’s laws on the rights of natural parents.

Georgia judges and domestic lawyers expressed interest in this case because it could help clarify what was previously an uncertain matter left to the court’s discretion. Let’s address this issue first.

In the case featured in this article, the lawyer for the maternal grandmother convinced the court that the children would be at risk if they were left in the care of their father. The father was able to receive help thanks to volunteer lawyers through the Atlanta Volunteer Lawyers Foundation and successfully appealed the trial court’s order giving custody to the grandmother.

With no evidence in support of the grandmother’s claims that the father was a violent man, the trial court gave custody for a second time to the grandmother. This time the Court of Appeals made sure the message was received, that the rights of natural parents should be taken seriously and that absent clear proof of ongoing or future danger to the children the natural parent’s rights are above those of a grandparent. Attached first is the June 24th ruling by the Georgia Court of Appeals, the final ruling driving home the instructions to adhere to the law and facts of the case. Additional filings and orders follow in reverse order.

Rights of Parents Georgia COA Jun 24 2016 by Deb Beacham on Scribd

2. A lack of transparency or ability to review proceedings in child custody matters

You might say this is the problem in all types of judicial proceedings, hence the attention given to the proposed amendments to Georgia’s Rule 22 governing decisions to allow filming or other types of recordings in courtrooms. Changes were proposed by Georgia’s judiciary and only a few organizations and individuals are focused on the flaws which could further restrict public access to court proceedings and discourage open records.

The focus here on child custody is due to the high volume of cases wherein children are used for leverage and/or to punish the other parent by moving to restrict rights, to cause pain and suffering or to avoid paying child support, for example. This is a widespread problem with almost nothing being done to curtail damaging tactics which exploit children and vulnerable parents.

Given the question of law governing the rights of natural parents and the opportunity to observe and film three pro bono lawyers fighting for a wrongfully accused father, I filed a Rule 22 Request to record this Hart County hearing. I learned about the case because the Court of Appeals had twice reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case.

When I began my investigation into the case history and factors that caused the reversal, I recognized the pattern of abusive litigation that is causing so many of Georgia’s children to lose access to loving, available parents. When you’ve seen this pattern of foul play unfold nearly one hundred times, it becomes obvious pretty quickly that intervention and transparency are needed.

There are several videos to this story:

Initially the hearing was set for late summer in 2016, and the grandmother’s attorney argued vehemently against having the proceeding filmed. This video portion will be added shortly.

After listening to her argument, the judge allowed the recording to go forward.  The lawyer was not about to give up on her strategy for denying the father custody, so another tactic was put into play that would either prejudice the court against the father or cause another delay, or both. This clip will be added.

Rather than allow the grandmother’s surprise expert to testify without fair notice and a deposition, the father’s counsel objected and moved to continue the hearing to allow for their deposition of this child custody psychologist Dr. Barbara Oxley.

The argument made by Athens attorney Ed Tolley is one often missed in similar proceedings. His argument and commentary from our interview will be added here.

The continued hearing was reset for December, 2016, and again the court ruled in favor of my Rule 22 Request, saying afterwards, “These days you’re afraid not to grant these things.” Interesting perspective and statement, but I’ll take it.

I’ll be back to complete this story and share the outcome, which will definitely surprise you!  In the meantime, please let me know if you’d like to contribute to additional use of Rule 22 Requests and other forms of increasing both public safety and especially better protections for parents and children.

The rest of the footage of the trial above will be shared in the coming days, and admittedly it will have much more meaning to children taken from safe parents, and for parents stripped of their right to nurture children without cause.

In the meantime, here’s another sampling of images and news reports that have meaning and which support protecting the intent and integrity of Rule 22.