PARENT'S RIGHTS NOW!

MORE LAWYER BASHING

Representative Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia, proposed eight amendments to a bill to increase the penalties for criminal domestic violence. Some of these proposed amendments reduce the fines and the mandatory jail time attached to convictions.

According to an article in the Post and Courier, the bill's supporters said the changes would defeat the purpose of the legislation. (The following quotes are from the Post and Courier.)

"This is an effort of people who don't support it to water it down and kill it," said Representative. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg.

Rutherford, who is Black and a former prosecutor, indicated that he had spoken with judges and prosecutors who said it would be difficult to prosecute cases under the bill's guidelines. He also explained the basis for his position to The State newspaper.

"I am not trying to water it down. I am not trying to obstruct the bill," he said. "I am trying to make it effective." But Laura Hudson, a victims' rights lobbyist, questioned Rutherford's motives, saying as a lawyer he is working for his own gain.

"Is this because he's thinking from his wallet or because he's thumbing his nose at the Republican leadership?" she said. "Obviously, it's an effort to delay the bill." Rutherford called her analysis "sick."

"When I disagree with other people, I don't question their motives," he said. "She doesn't understand the effects of this bill."

We still think that it would be wise for supporters of this bill to concentrate on the text of the bill as opposed to the motives of those who either support or oppose it. The whole issue of whether judges can be told to impose mandatory sentences is one that is under scrutiny throughout the country and which may be raised in the South Carolina Senate. Wouldn't it be better to work out the kinks now as opposed to later?

KIND OF WHAT WE HAD IN MIND: "EQUAL RIGHTS"

The mission statement of The American Coalition for Fathers and Children can be accessed here. This organization strives for "the creation of a family law system, legislative system, and public awareness which promotes equal rights for ALL parties affected by divorce, and the breakup of a family or the establishment of paternity."

This is kind of what we had in mind here in South Carolina. Except, we would also include mothers in the process. Additionally, while we also "believe equal, shared parenting time or joint custody is the optimal custody situation," we understand that such arrangements are not alwayss practical from either a financial or logistical standpoint. Still, striving for the ideal has merit.

As mentioned in our last post, a revised domestic violence bill is now on the fast track in the South Carolina House of Representatives. H. 3984 was introduced yesterday placed on the calendar for debate without first being sent to committee. John Graham Altman is in favor of this legislation, whereas Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter is not, though she spoke in support of the legislation in earlier news reports.

Our review of the revised legislation leads us to conclude that it is superior to the previously proposed bill. However, we predict that the Senate will discover some equal protection problems.

According to the STATE newspaper, “A criminal domestic violence bill that appeared dead early last week in the S.C. House will start today on an expected fast track to passage.”

And Representative John Graham Altman will be one of the revised bill’s co-sponsors.

The revised version of the bill provides stiffer penalties in some instances than the rejected version of the bill. And Altman’s support of the bill lead longtime victim’s advocate Laura Hudson, to state, “John Graham Altman is the best thing that has ever happened to us. I guess there are no permanent friends and no permanent enemies.”

Did Mr. Altman have a change of heart or was he telling the truth when he said he just wanted a better piece of legislation? Given his past history, we suspect that it is the latter rather than the former. Maybe someone owes him an apology.

One of the Defendants in the case referenced at http://www.nofreespeech.com/ is a woman named Karen Winner. We have not seen the pleadings, nor do we know the underlying facts of the case. However we do know that Ms. Winner was formerly a policy analyst in the New York City Consumer Affairs Office. She wrote a report detailing alleged improper billing practices by matrimonial lawyers including padding bills. Partially as a result of the investigation, public hearings were held and reforms were enacted. Among other things, New York lawyers are now required to provide clients with fee schedules and itemized bills. And they cannot foreclose on a client's home for unpaid fees.

We note that in South Carolina a litigant can be ordered to pay the attorney's fees of the opposing party, but that the litigant does not have the right to review the bill before trial. Additionally, many lawyers will not even cross-examine the other site's attorney or question why hourly rates of $250.00 and more are appropriate in a poor state with a relatively low cost of living. And the decision of whether a fee is fair is left to the sole discretion of a judge who may have any number of connections with the lawyer seeking the fee.

Certainly, it may be fair and reasonable for a Manhattan Lawyer to charge $300 per hour. But, if a guy is making $10.00 per hour and is ordered to pay $3,000 for a simple hearing, he probably will be unable to pay his child support.

Maybe we could stand a few more Karen Winners in South Carolina.

The Post and Courier reported today that the husband of Charleston County Schools Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson was released from jail Thursday after a judge dismissed the bench warrant against him. The paper also reported "Bruce Delaney Johnson, 40, of West Ashley didn't know a bench warrant had been issued for his arrest, his attorney said in court records. The judge further found that he was not in civil contempt."

So now that the Court has determined that Mr. Johnson was not in civil contempt, we wonder if he will be able to have his arrest record expunged. Probably not, but at least he did not have to go to the Supreme Court to have the error corrected.

CAVEMAN ALTMAN

South Carolina State Representative John Graham Altman has come under attack for comments he made to a television reporter regarding a domestic violence bill titled "Protect Our Women in Every Relationship. The text of Altman's comments and a video link are at the WIS website and an article on the controversy can be downloaded at this site.

Certainly, Altman is insensitive at best and in keeping with his traditional boorishness. However, the bill itself is poorly drafted and flawed in a number of respects. But, don't take our word for it, click here and read the proposed legislation for yourself. Then consider what could happen to you if you physically threaten one of your children with corporal punishment.

Our position is that bad legislation should not be enacted just because good people support it and Neanderthals oppose it. The law of unintended consequences should never be ignored.

An article in today's Post and Courier titled Husband of schools chief jailed informs us that, "the husband of Charleston County Schools Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson spent a night in a Berkeley County jail this week after being charged with failure to pay support associated with a previous marriage."

Come on,” we ask, "Is this really newsworthy?" Probably not. And while Mr. Johnson may or may not have a viable explanation for his predicament, two things are clear. First, his mention in the paper has nothing to do with his actions and has everything to do with his relationship with the School Superintendent. And, second, if the arrest was a mistake, there is no mechanism in place to either expunge his record or to clear his name.

Hopefully, in the event it is determined either that Mr. Johnson is not in contempt or that the arrest was a mistake, something will be done to correct some of the flaws in this system.

So we weren't dreaming after all--the State of South Carolina is using Court Costs and fines as a revenue generating mechanism. Chief Justice Jean Toal appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this week and opposed the enactment of two bills. As discussed in the Post and Courier, one bill would have allowed prosecutors to create diversion programs allowing first time offenders to get four-point driving offenses erased from their records in exchange for community service. "The diversion program is a good idea, Toal said, "although it could cost courts a chunk of the fine money that largely supports them."

We guess that there is little hope in enlisting Justice Toal's help in making suggested reforms in Family Court such as making the "fines" levied in contempt cases bear some logical relationship to the Court Costs--or better yet--asking the Legislature to provide the necessary operational funds.

HIDDEN TAXES IN SOUTH CAROLINA--STATE RELYING ON CRIME TO FUND GOVERNMENT

Appearing in today's edition of The State is an Op-ed piece titled State shouldn't rely on crime to fund government.

In general, the author of the piece argues that South Carolina should not create criminal penalties as a method of generating revenue. After all, "the purpose of criminal laws is not to generate money. The purpose of criminal laws is to deter crime and, when that doesn't work, to punish it appropriately."

We could not agree more.

Likewise, we think the purpose of civil contempt in Family Court is to enforce compliance with Court Orders not to raise revenue. In situations where the alleged contemnor is before the Court on a Bookkeeping Rule and the party to whom support is owed has incurred no expenses, the imposition of anything more than a minimal fine is, in our opinion, inappropriate.

And while we are on the subject of "inappropriate revenue generating mechanisms" we want to call attention to the 5% fee charged by the Family Court for processing and mailing alimony and child support checks. While a flat handling fee of something in the neighborhood or $25.00 may be appropriate, it makes no sense--either in logic or in fairness--to charge one person $100.00 to process a $2000 check once a month, while another person who pays $60 per week is only charged a total of $156 per year for processing 52 checks.

Or can it be said that one check costs 33 1/3 times as much to process as another check?

We have plenty of problems of our own, and much work to do. Additionally, we try not to second guess the results of individual cases in which all the information available to the Court is not available to us. But, we were recently driving down I-26 near Charleston, SC when a billboard caught our eye and we could not help commenting.

This billboard directed us to http://www.nofreespeech.com/. So we logged on to the site and read all the postings. While we cannot vouch for the veracity of either those who either created the Website or those who provided Affidavits in the underlying lawsuits, it is obvious that this litigation has been proceeding for an inordinate period of time--3 1/2 years and counting. Additionally, it made us wonder about what kind of public servant would sue a citizen involved in attempts to make needed Family Court Reforms. After all, aren't judges supposed to have thick skins? Surely these public servants must understand that people involved in Family Court litigation are often embroiled in issues that seem more important than life and death because those issues involve their children?

Maybe all those who aspire to act as Family Court Judges should have to undergo a screening process that includes a Psychological Evaluation. If nothing else, such procedures would insure that those who cannot stand the heat would not end up in the kitchen where--to mix metaphors--they could accidentally burn down the house.

We cannot say that we like his tone. Nor can we say that we completely agree with his assessment of the judiciary as a whole. Still, Michael Graham's recent article in Charleston City Paper raises some interesting points about the often unchecked power of judges.

Several people commented on the statement we made about local Sheriffs being disinclined to help contemnors obtain speedy release from jail. They did not agree that retaining more prisoners could be to the financial advantages of the County Sheriffs. However, from our perspective, there are at least three ways in which local Sheriffs can personally profit from "the prison industry."

First, they can obtain contracts to provide services--such as food--to jail inmates. Abuses occur because Sheriffs routinely arrest people over the weekend when no Magistrates are available; as a result many of those charged (many of whom are eventually acquitted) have to spend the weekend in jail and eat a few meals. This was a longtime practice in Dorchester County, South Carolina, but was recently ended. Now, Dorchester County sometimes charges the prisoner directly for the meals. A $1.50 pizza, an orange drink, a glass of milk, and a bowl of cereal can cost $15.00 for those unlucky enough to get arrested in Dorchester County. And they have to pay before they can leave. The Sheriff calls this fee a "processing fee."

Second, Sheriffs can snag a percentage of the telephone toll charges for prisoners. In Dorchester County, Sheriff Nash now uses these funds to pay the salaries of a man who was one of his former campaign managers and the campaign manager of two candidates he enlisted to run for County Council. He calls the funds "prisoner recreation funds" and makes no bones about the fact that they are discretionary funds to do with as he chooses; even though some members of Dorchester County had once indicated that an audit of these accounts was in order, the practice has been continued unabated for several years without any public scrutiny.

And third, they can provide "voluntary" prison labor to their friends. In Nash's case, he provided transportation, guards, and prisoners to work on James Academy of Excellence, the now defunct Dorchester County Charter School. The children of many of Nash's friends and political supporters attended the school for the short period it was in existence and Dorchester School District Two is seeking reimbursement for alleged overpayment made to the school.

We do not want to suggest that every person jailed for contempt is a victim of the system. However, there are plenty of reasons why Sheriffs have no real incentive to speed up the process of getting prisoners released. Additionally, some people end up in jail only because of some serious systemic problems with the Family Court. Others remain in jail because they do not have the money to hire attorneys to overturn judicial errors. Therefore, efforts should be made to insure that only those who are truly in Contempt of Court are incarcerated and that they be given a meaningful opportunity for release so that there efforts can benefit their children rather than the children of those with political connections to the local Sheriff.