PARENT'S RIGHTS NOW!

In the article Group supports Segars-Andrews, The Post and Courier reports:

The South Carolina chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers issued a strongly-worded statement Saturday in support of Family Court Judge F.P. "Charlie" Segars-Andrews.

The judge, who lives in Mount Pleasant and has served on the bench more than 16 years, may be ineligible for reappointment next year because the state Judicial Merit Selection Commission has found her unqualified because of an ethics issue.

"This is a bizarre event in our history and sets an extremely bad precedent," the academy's statement reads. "There needs to be absolute transparency, not meetings behind closed doors on this critical issue," an apparent reference to the commission's decision Wednesday to adjourn to closed session four times.

While the commission's decision won't be final until it issues a written report, members have voted 7-3 to find Segars-Andrews unqualified because she ruled in a Clarendon County divorce case even though one attorney involved shared in a lucrative case with her husband's law firm, among other things.

The matrimonial lawyers group is asking the commission to delay any vote on her until one of its members, University of South Carolina professor emeritus John Freeman issues his report. Freeman is the sole commissioner to have found Segars-Andrews qualified all along.

"We believe the commission members and the public should be able to read Professor Freeman's unbiased, non-political, expert opinion before a vote is taken," the academy said.

It also noted that the S.C. Court of Appeals and the Judicial Conduct Commission found no wrongdoing in Segars-Andrews' handling of the divorce case, so the academy noted the commission, "for the first time in its history, is essentially impeaching a judge who has been found innocent of any wrongdoing by the existing legal system."

Commission chairman and Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell has said the commission's final report on the judge could be done by Christmas.

From our perspective, this whole process is "whacked." First, the Commission has too much power because it can effectively deprive the majority of Legislators from voting for the person they believe to be most qualified to sit on the Bench. Second, Commissioners can base their votes on "evidence" that may be neither reliable nor available to other Commissioners. Third, there does not appear to be any objective selection standard to which the Commissioners must adhere and Commissioners can change their minds willy-nilly without explanation and, apparently, without limitation. And last, supporters and detractors of candidates alike both know the identities of the Commissioners and can exert pressure on them.

In short, while Judge Segars-Andrews may or may not be qualified to serve on the Family Court Bench, this KANGAROO COURT STAR CHAMBER PROCESS devoid, as it is, of transparency, accountability, and due process, does not appear likely to result in a fair determination of the question at hand.