Episode 22

full
Published on:

23rd Sep 2025

EP 22 Back in the Saddle

EP 22: Back in the Saddle | The JudgMental Podcast

Show Notes

Christine is back! In this episode, Christine and Hugh reunite to discuss the latest in family law, courtroom culture, and the ongoing fight for due process. Broadcasting remotely, Christine shares her experiences from Florida and California, drawing comparisons to Kentucky’s legal landscape.

Key Topics Covered:

Christine’s return and remote podcasting update

Florida’s strict bar rules and the impact on attorney speech

Kentucky vs. Florida: Free speech, legal culture, and the First Amendment

Recap of the Louisville CLE (Continuing Legal Education) for family law

Adair v Emberton: What it means for FOC (Friend of the Court) testimony

Can attorneys waive client rights without consent? Panel debates and analogies to Miranda rights

The chaos of motion hour and the importance of due process

The role of FOCs and GALs (Guardians ad Litem) in family court

Published vs. unpublished opinions: Why it matters and what’s changing

White v Cole: The “invoking the rule” basics and courtroom fundamentals

Concerns about transparency, open courts, and the future of Louisville’s family court system

Christine’s reflections on California’s court system and the dangers of gaslighting parents

Notable Quotes:

“If you think you’re going to tell me what to say, how to say it, when to say it, or to whom to speak, you have the wrong girl.”

“It’s a court of law. I just don’t understand the amount of time wasted by them on this when they don’t even read motions.”

“The system, in my opinion, is in real trouble.”

Resources & Links:

Website: judge-y.com

Christine on TikTok/Instagram: @KentuckyChristine

YouTube & Instagram: @judge-y

Connect with Us:

We want to hear your stories! Share your experiences, questions, or feedback in the comments or reach out on social media.

Thank you for listening to The Judgmental Podcast. Don’t forget to subscribe, leave a review, and join us next time for more candid legal talk!

Transcript
Speaker:

You are listening to The Judgemental Podcast.

2

:

Speaker 2: We're Hugh and Christine, the

Minds Behind Judgy, the revolutionary app

3

:

that empowers you to judge the judges.

4

:

Speaker: It's pastime for

judicial accountability and

5

:

transparency within the courts.

6

:

Speaker 2: Prepare for sharp

insights, candid critiques, and

7

:

unshakable honesty from two lawyers

determined to save the system.

8

:

Speaker 3: We need some justice.

9

:

Justice, my fine justice.

10

:

And I wanna ring, be in public.

11

:

I wanna ring, be in public crowd.

12

:

Yeah.

13

:

Christine: All right.

14

:

Welcome to the Judgmental podcast.

15

:

I am back excited to be here.

16

:

Let's get right into it.

17

:

Hugh: Welcome back, except for your.

18

:

, You're back and you're not back.

19

:

Christine: Well, yeah, I'm remote living

the dream right now and I'll be remote

20

:

for a week or two, but not on set.

21

:

Although I on set LOL but I did think

I might as well just go to their family

22

:

court down here and do a roll call.

23

:

Don't you think?

24

:

Oh, that would be very

25

:

Hugh: cool.

26

:

Christine: Yeah.

27

:

What,

28

:

Hugh: what county?

29

:

So I

30

:

Christine: think I'm gonna

try to do that on Wednesday.

31

:

Hugh: Okay.

32

:

What county are you in?

33

:

Christine: Pinellas.

34

:

Hugh: Okay.

35

:

In case anyone's listening down there.

36

:

Christine: Yeah, there's a lot of

reviews online that do not appear

37

:

that things in Florida are going well.

38

:

And actually before we get into

the Louisville CLE the family Court

39

:

had, and we'll talk about everything

that we got from sources from that.

40

:

Did you know I got a buddy in

Florida that says that attorneys,

41

:

if they disparage judges, they

can get in trouble with a bar.

42

:

Have you ever heard that?

43

:

Hugh: No, I've been concerned that

there will be such interpretations.

44

:

, I would imagine I can see the bar

in various places being weaponized.

45

:

What jurisdiction specifically

were you hearing about

46

:

Christine: Florida?

47

:

Hugh: Oh yeah.

48

:

So Florida, my understanding

49

:

is that their rules

50

:

are incredibly draconian.

51

:

The attorneys that I worked with that

52

:

were Florida

53

:

attorneys felt like they were

54

:

looking

55

:

over their shoulder all

the time, no matter what.

56

:

What they were doing and anything we

proposed, anything regarding the website,

57

:

anything marketing related, anything

that we said, what our URL was like.

58

:

I mean, the, the lens that everything was

interpreted through, it just seemed to

59

:

be extremely

60

:

strict to the point where we

ended up hiring someone and

61

:

paying them to consult with us.

62

:

Someone that was actually

63

:

maybe.

64

:

Maybe had been the head of the bar in

Florida, but someone that had worked on

65

:

the bar and was an ethics attorney, just

so we could consult with over anything

66

:

that we did once we had a Florida office.

67

:

Yeah, it was, it was tough.

68

:

I mean, they, , they've got

a lot of different rules,

69

:

so I wouldn't be surprised.

70

:

It was something when we began doing

this that I was definitely conscious of.

71

:

Christine: Yeah, I mean, I think it's,

you know, my understanding from my buddy

72

:

is that it's like written in their rules,

which certainly we don't have in Kentucky.

73

:

And I mean, come hell or high water, we're

gonna have, I mean for me personally,

74

:

before you start infringing on my first

amendment right, I'm not gonna go down

75

:

without a fight, you know what I mean?

76

:

Obviously not a physical

fight, but a litigation fight.

77

:

You

78

:

know, we gotta be clear because we've

got some listeners on here that are just

79

:

like screenshotting and freaking out.

80

:

But it is clear they are

watching our podcast.

81

:

So let's jump right into this

CLE that the family law bar

82

:

had in Louisville, Kentucky.

83

:

Hugh: Sure, yeah.

84

:

The

85

:

LBA

86

:

hosted a family law CLE,

and they do this each year.

87

:

Sometimes they do multiple

ones and it includes attorney

88

:

presentations and a judicial panel.

89

:

There are also

90

:

judges

91

:

that attend and you know, ask questions

or weigh in, even though if they're

92

:

not participating in the panel.

93

:

So it started off this year with

discussion of Adair v Emberton and

94

:

specifically how FOCs work within the

95

:

court and

96

:

whether they can testify

or speak at motion hour and

97

:

whether parties can actually waive

98

:

The rules under Emberton.

99

:

And I will say I was happy to hear

some attorneys, vocalized that

100

:

they don't

101

:

believe that it can be waived.

102

:

And people talked about how this is

something that really can't happen.

103

:

And they also highlighted a lot

of the differences between the

104

:

way Jefferson County Motion Hour

works versus other counties.

105

:

Christine: Yep, yep, yep.

106

:

And I mean, it's one of those things

though, where it's frustrating to me that

107

:

they are continually having conversations.

108

:

It can't be waived because it

can't be waived because the

109

:

statute says it can't be waived.

110

:

And because the case law says it

can't be waived and you have people

111

:

that are still trying to waive it,

and that's what's so frustrating to

112

:

me.

113

:

I wish the attorneys would spend

more time advocating for, you know,

114

:

their clients due process rights as

opposed to trying to figure out ways

115

:

to make the judges and FOCs life.

116

:

Easier, you know, or to score

points with the judges and FOCs.

117

:

Hugh: Yeah, I mean, I think there's

two camps of attorneys there.

118

:

There are clearly people

119

:

that believe

120

:

that you can't properly have

children's best interests represented

121

:

in court without GALs and FOCs.

122

:

And I think a lot of people think, or

some people think that you gotta have

123

:

both if there's enough money involved

in order to properly represent a

124

:

child's

125

:

best interest.

126

:

Certainly you and I are

127

:

not in that

128

:

camp.

129

:

And then there are

130

:

others who

131

:

were extremely frustrated with the

FOCs, with the custodial evaluators,

132

:

with that process and how it goes.

133

:

And I think from my understanding,

both were sort of represented in the,

134

:

in the questions and the discussion

when they were discussing this issue.

135

:

Christine: Yeah, I think they were both

considered in the discussion, but I

136

:

do think it's

137

:

interesting to note that the discussion

that was different from those on the

138

:

panel as opposed to those in the audience.

139

:

Yes.

140

:

So it seemed like those on the panel

were very, very much just like, I mean

141

:

at one point it's my understanding that

one of them said anything can be waived.

142

:

And it's like, can it,

can anything be waived?

143

:

Hugh: Yeah.

144

:

I, you

145

:

know, that's

146

:

right.

147

:

And it sort of started

discussion over whether.

148

:

Okay.

149

:

What if it's waived?

150

:

How can attorneys waive it when their

clients aren't there at motion hour?

151

:

Right.

152

:

And I think it was part of , a

discussion about whether or not

153

:

motion hour is a hearing because as

we've talked about in the past Adair

154

:

pointed out, you know, the rule

155

:

that

156

:

FOCs before they can testify

157

:

have

158

:

to issue a report at least 10 days before.

159

:

And it has to be, you know, everyone

has to be provided with a copy of it.

160

:

So.

161

:

In, in this discussion last week, you

had some judges chime in that, you

162

:

know, their prerogative was often trying

to get through motion hour and get

163

:

everything processed within an hour.

164

:

And that, the FOC helped in that regard.

165

:

And then, you know, different

people discussed whether or not

166

:

motion hour is a hearing and,

167

:

and, and

168

:

that whether a report is

required, , for a motion hour.

169

:

But then an attorney, I

170

:

believe pointed

171

:

out that if the clients aren't there, how

are you going to allow testimony anyway?

172

:

How are you, you know, if, if

you don't have witnesses, how

173

:

can motion hour be a hearing?

174

:

And so how are you gonna let

how are you gonna let a FOC.

175

:

You know, quote unquote testify if

you're not actually having a hearing.

176

:

Christine: Well, yeah, and to back up,

like obviously I know Adair is your case

177

:

and you taught everyone, you made this

case law, but like according to Adair

178

:

versus Emberton and the statute, the

friend of the court, which is someone

179

:

that's appointed to represent the kid,

180

:

has

181

:

to file a report 10 days before

the hearing is a fact Witness.

182

:

And so the frustrating part for me

was they're trying to say, because the

183

:

court even said, this is a due process,

but you cannot waive your right to

184

:

cross examine the friend of the court.

185

:

But the judges in the

FOCs want to still be able

186

:

to talk

187

:

at court, which clearly, in

my opinion, the statute and

188

:

the case law prohibit period.

189

:

Hard stop, right?

190

:

Hugh: Yeah, I agree.

191

:

I agree.

192

:

This

193

:

is,

194

:

this is a witness.

195

:

I mean, what other witness can come to

motion hour and speak, not sworn in?

196

:

Unsworn.

197

:

Yeah, unsworn and, and then

even, you know, playing devil's

198

:

advocate,

199

:

if someone says, okay, we'll S

swear 'em in and let 'em speak.

200

:

Well then who

201

:

else is getting

202

:

sworn in?

203

:

How are you gonna have one,

one witness testify and not let

204

:

others testify at motion hour?

205

:

I mean, it's just, , you're going to

go down this slippery slope until you,

206

:

you may as well have a full hearing

and there are motion hours in Kentucky

207

:

where that

208

:

happens, so that there are a

209

:

lot

210

:

of counties you go to and you, you

bring a motion and if it's gonna

211

:

take longer than you know, so long

to argue than you have hearing.

212

:

And the witnesses are sworn in, and it

might be a short hearing, but you have the

213

:

witnesses, you have two attorneys usually

standing up at podiums, and then anyone

214

:

else, you know that needs to testify.

215

:

And they will do it at motion hour

and, but that's not the way that

216

:

it happens at Jefferson County.

217

:

So Jefferson County sort of represents

a, it's just a different case.

218

:

It's just a different circumstance

where this issue really comes up now.

219

:

I think if you were in a different county,

you would still have the 10 day rule.

220

:

So even if everyone is sworn in,

you're still dealing with, okay,

221

:

someone brought this motion.

222

:

Usually a motion isn't brought

more than 10 days out, so Right.

223

:

It would be very rare, unless

there was an intervening holiday or

224

:

something that an FOC would have a

chance to file a report within 10

225

:

days and still appear at motion hour

226

:

to testify.

227

:

Christine: It's almost just like a

silly conversation that they're having.

228

:

Like, I did something and y'all

know I've got a criminal background.

229

:

But it was, it's almost as though

after Miranda, you have a bunch of

230

:

prosecutors and Miranda is the case.

231

:

Ernesto Miranda gave us the

that you have to have a written

232

:

waiver for your Miranda rights.

233

:

That's your right to not incriminate

yourself, and a waiver has to be knowing

234

:

voluntary and intelligent, right.

235

:

So after that Supreme Court case

came down, imagine a CLE when you

236

:

got prosecutors, public defenders

and judges being like, Hey,

237

:

Miranda's really inconvenient for us.

238

:

Can we just all get together and waive it?

239

:

And you can wave anything, right?

240

:

And judge,

241

:

you know,

242

:

people saying the attorney can just

waive it without talking to their client.

243

:

And then on top of that, to go to

this whole motion hour argument,

244

:

which I thought was just like.

245

:

Embarrassing, for lack of a better

term, but I mean, arraignments

246

:

aren't, no one's sworn an arraignment.

247

:

So can a public defender just

waive a client's Miranda rights

248

:

without talking to the client?

249

:

I mean, the whole conversation is

stupid, is what I'm trying to say.

250

:

Hugh: Well, I mean, it, it, it's a

great analogy because if the whole idea

251

:

that an attorney could just

252

:

go in and waive Miranda or any of those

253

:

rights without speaking with their client.

254

:

I mean, it, it just, it's obvious that

you can't, and you wouldn't do that.

255

:

And I don't see why it's

not obvious here as well.

256

:

I mean, we've talked about

it in previous podcasts.

257

:

I don't wanna belabor it, but I don't

believe that attorneys, without speaking

258

:

to their clients, even if this were a

259

:

right, that's

260

:

waivable, we're talking

about part of due process.

261

:

If you're just standing up

there and you just flippantly

262

:

say,

263

:

yeah, that's fine, I'll waive

264

:

it

265

:

on behalf of my client.

266

:

Haven't talked

267

:

to 'em about it, they don't under,

probably don't understand what that means,

268

:

but I'm going

269

:

to waive that.

270

:

Let's just see what happens.

271

:

I think there's some liability.

272

:

There's some real problems

for the attorneys.

273

:

Christine: Absolutely.

274

:

And then the former judge, now

mediator, that kind of commentated

275

:

like, well, you know, it was just

motion hours were just chaotic.

276

:

And it's like, okay, the fact that

your courtroom is chaotic doesn't

277

:

mean you can just violate due

278

:

process.

279

:

Like, in fact, it's the exact opposite.

280

:

It's silly.

281

:

Hugh: so I am not surprised that being

able to have an FOC give an update of

282

:

what's going on at motion hour is helpful

to a judge when ruling on a motion, right?

283

:

If someone files a motion, this

person is, is still talking.

284

:

You know, they're not supposed

to talk about the case with

285

:

the kids, which we see.

286

:

We used to see coming up in

family court cases all the time.

287

:

And the FOC had talked to the kids

just to find out what was going on,

288

:

and then comes in, says, yeah, judge.

289

:

It is my understanding this

stuff is still going on.

290

:

If the judge has to make a call

on that motion, whether this

291

:

needs a hearing or not I can

292

:

understand

293

:

the inclination of judges

to, to want to hear

294

:

from them,

295

:

get that factual

296

:

basis

297

:

so they can in issue an order and stop

the problem before it's getting worse.

298

:

The problem is.

299

:

You can't make the factual findings based

on someone who's not sworn who, who is in

300

:

there,

301

:

that's just sort of talking unsworn

and you don't have any other testimony.

302

:

That's, that's

303

:

just

304

:

very problematic.

305

:

And what other sphere in court

can you, you bring a motion, you

306

:

bring one witness and they testify.

307

:

And then a finding is going to be

308

:

made and,

309

:

and orders are gonna be entered.

310

:

That's just, , it's not proper,

even if it is expedient.

311

:

Christine: Yeah, and I mean, I understand

the inclination that judges would wanna

312

:

go to school and talk to the kids about

313

:

what's

314

:

happening.

315

:

I understand the inclination of wanting

to take ex parte information Sure.

316

:

In order to

317

:

protect

318

:

a child.

319

:

That being said, it's.

320

:

The Los Estados Unidos and we,

you know, have a constitution.

321

:

Like this is not rocket science.

322

:

This is what's so frustrating.

323

:

Like, yeah, I wanna beat

my head against a wall.

324

:

When I hear a bunch of family law

attorneys sometimes talk about stuff,

325

:

like, imagine if like, personal injury

attorneys were talking about this, or

326

:

if public defenders or criminal defense

attorneys were like, well, I wanna

327

:

protect society

328

:

from someone that commits crimes.

329

:

I mean, it's a court of law.

330

:

, I just, I don't understand,

I don't understand.

331

:

The amount of time wasted by them on

this when they don't even read motions.

332

:

Allegedly, a lot of the times allegedly.

333

:

Hugh: Well, listen, I'm happy

that they're talking about it

334

:

and I'm happy that it wasn't just

335

:

in

336

:

my understanding, it wasn't just a

room full of people that we're in

337

:

support of waving it and here's what

we're going to do so that we don't get

338

:

appealed on it again, but that we don't

have to really follow these rules.

339

:

I mean, there was, there was pushback.

340

:

, I understood every time something was

341

:

suggested, maybe

342

:

we can do, do it this way, someone

else would raise an issue with that.

343

:

And I, , I'm happy that discussion

is taking place because I don't

344

:

think there were many people that

even questioned it for the bulk

345

:

of the 20 years that I practiced.

346

:

Yeah.

347

:

So , I think that's progress.

348

:

I think

349

:

it's

350

:

a very healthy discussion.

351

:

, I think when you have presentations

made by people who are actively.

352

:

At

353

:

least

354

:

one of which is actively

acting as FOCs in cases.

355

:

You've got somebody that is used

to doing it one way and sees

356

:

practical limitations , if you

can't come in and educate the judge.

357

:

So I mean, I Yeah, I can see that.

358

:

But it doesn't change anything.

359

:

You're, you're

360

:

absolutely right.

361

:

What if this was another

sphere of law, any other

362

:

sphere

363

:

of law, and there isn't a difference.

364

:

This is still, the law

due process is the same.

365

:

The standards for, you know, that,

that you have to make factual findings.

366

:

With proper evidence and

367

:

witnesses

368

:

that are under oath at a hearing

before you can issue orders.

369

:

That all applies, and there are ways

you can issue restraining orders or

370

:

injunctions while a case is pending.

371

:

And the rules are very strict and

they are very specific and they are

372

:

followed in other areas of the law

and they're not accepted it , with

373

:

very limited statutory issues like.

374

:

You know, some temporary orders, excuse

me, are specifically described in our

375

:

statute and in our statutes and, you know,

376

:

provisions

377

:

for temporary maintenance, for

temporary parenting schedules

378

:

for temporary child support.

379

:

And there, there are specific processes

for that, but all of these other things

380

:

fall outside of those exceptions.

381

:

So you have to go through

the normal legal process.

382

:

You have to exactly have hearings, you

have to have witnesses be properly sworn.

383

:

Christine: And the legislature

spoke and the judiciary spoke.

384

:

I mean, and I really think to pivot a

little bit, like the court of appeals

385

:

is just clearly sick and tired and

put on notice that Jefferson Family

386

:

Court, our Louisville family Court is

not doing what it needs to be doing.

387

:

Do you know what I mean?

388

:

Like clearly, I mean, it would,

389

:

Hugh: In 20 years of my practice, it was,

we just sort of, my old firm joked that.

390

:

The appellate law and family

law moved at a glacial pace.

391

:

The mm-hmm.

392

:

The legislators actually changed

393

:

statute

394

:

faster than you had, you

know, case law made for a long

395

:

time, and now it really seems

396

:

there's

397

:

a lot of case law being made and

it's being made largely from cases

398

:

appealed from Jefferson County.

399

:

Mm-hmm.

400

:

And that even in unpublished cases, they

are pointing out these same problems.

401

:

And, and I think a lot of

times they're not published.

402

:

Well, actually I'm

403

:

surprised the

404

:

ones that are published because

405

:

these

406

:

are things that are not novel, but I

think they're trying to make a point.

407

:

In some of these unpublished

408

:

ones, I think they're not published

because, you know, it's the same

409

:

point that's been made many times and

410

:

is clear

411

:

under the law, and they, they feel like,

great, we're having to make this again.

412

:

Christine: Yeah, and I think that, so for

published and unpublished opinions, the

413

:

Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court

both have the ability to decide whether

414

:

or not to publish or unpublish an opinion.

415

:

Now, Hugh is much more of a scholar in

all regards, probably than I am, unless

416

:

it comes to Real Housewives or Bravo.

417

:

But he puts a lot of weight on

published versus unpublished, which

418

:

it does matter from a legal standard.

419

:

Okay, sure.

420

:

But I don't necessarily.

421

:

Think for me it matters as much.

422

:

And I kind of think the reason that well

hear me out on this, I think the reason

423

:

they're leaving these cases with blatant

due process violations and I'm not

424

:

saying this, they're saying this, okay.

425

:

But I think they're leaving those

unpublished because they think

426

:

it's so rudimentary because most

of them didn't practice family law.

427

:

So they're like, at first when

it happened, it was out of like,

428

:

I believe Judge Ogden's court.

429

:

They're like, okay, this is a one.

430

:

Judge type situation, and then they've got

stuff coming out of like Gatewood court

431

:

and they're like, okay, wait a second.

432

:

Maybe this is a two outta 10 situation.

433

:

And then you've got stuff

coming out of another one.

434

:

I think that they're, they were having

'em unpublished because to your point, the

435

:

novel idea of due process is not novel.

436

:

You know what I mean?

437

:

I

438

:

Hugh: yeah.

439

:

I mean.

440

:

Generally cases

441

:

are not

442

:

published unless it is something

that hasn't been dealt with before.

443

:

It's novel, it's new, and statutes

don't address it directly, or

444

:

there is some confusion in the

way that a statute is being deter

445

:

interpreted.

446

:

In the courts and the appellate courts,

either the court of Appeals or Supreme

447

:

Court, at least in Kentucky, they're

called different things in different

448

:

states will look and say, okay, we

want to, we wanna settle this matter.

449

:

We

450

:

wanna say

451

:

how this law should be applied

and what people need to do

452

:

under X, Y, and Z circumstances.

453

:

So a lot of these cases that are

coming down, it's just the same

454

:

stuff, like the law is clear on it.

455

:

Generally you don't see published

opinions where they're just having

456

:

to point out obvious things.

457

:

Mm-hmm.

458

:

One that I wish had been published

one that came out this year, another

459

:

case that came out of Ogden's

Court I believe White v Cole.

460

:

And this out and, and it defined,

or, I mean it's been defined, but

461

:

it reiterated that friend of court

is a witness and they are subject

462

:

to the same rules as witnesses.

463

:

They have to be sworn in.

464

:

They

465

:

also have to be separated from other

witnesses when you have a hearing, and

466

:

that means there, there are rules on the

segregation and separation of witnesses.

467

:

When

468

:

someone is going to testify at some point

in a hearing, they don't get to just

469

:

sit in the courtroom and listen to all

other witnesses unless they're a party.

470

:

If there're

471

:

a party to the case, you

get to sit there and listen

472

:

Christine: and to back up.

473

:

Kentucky lawyers will call this rule.

474

:

Literally the rule, okay?

475

:

Mm-hmm.

476

:

It's called

477

:

invoking the rule, and it means witnesses

that are gonna testify can't be in in the

478

:

courtroom while testimony's happening.

479

:

Yeah.

480

:

So you walk into any trial,

I'm talking a criminal trial,

481

:

a civil

482

:

trial.

483

:

The first thing that's gonna

484

:

happen

485

:

is they're going to quote,

486

:

invoke

487

:

the rule.

488

:

It's

489

:

so basic, so rudimentary, so low

level that I can't even articulate.

490

:

How basic it is.

491

:

Hugh: Sure.

492

:

Christine: Right.

493

:

Hugh: And in and in

494

:

white v Cole,

495

:

they addressed a situation that we

saw all the time in family court.

496

:

You had, I never

497

:

Christine: saw it.

498

:

Hugh: You never saw a friend of court

499

:

being

500

:

left in the courtroom.

501

:

Christine: I would have

had an actual Oh, yeah.

502

:

In real time stroke.

503

:

Hugh: Oh, I've, I, I fought hard.

504

:

I got into heated.

505

:

I mean, when I say

506

:

heated,

507

:

like professional, but where

you repeat yourself and you keep

508

:

making

509

:

the objection, not just, you

make the objection and you.

510

:

Are overruled, which you usually,

the, you're supposed to shut up,

511

:

but that it's so fundamental and so

harmful to your client's case and

512

:

muddies the record so badly that it's

basically , a, an automatic appeal.

513

:

So

514

:

anything that

515

:

happens, win, lose, or draw.

516

:

Like if you're an attorney sitting

there and a judge is making this

517

:

kind of an error, even if it

518

:

might favor

519

:

your client, it's probably

something to talk to your client

520

:

about objecting anyway, because

it's going to give the other side.

521

:

The ability to appeal and hold up

a ruling for a year and a half.

522

:

You know, while it goes

through the appeals process.

523

:

It's just very fundamental.

524

:

But I would see so

525

:

Christine: many things in that.

526

:

Yeah.

527

:

Hugh: Yeah.

528

:

And I,

529

:

and I would argue, and I would say,

okay, the FOC needs to be excluded.

530

:

Oh, no, no, no.

531

:

I think, I think he can stay or she can

532

:

stay.

533

:

Well, that's not what the rule

534

:

says,

535

:

and I would get overruled.

536

:

Every

537

:

single time, I just would never,

they would never get excluded.

538

:

And I think it was back in the day where

539

:

FOCs

540

:

and GALs were pretty much interchangeable.

541

:

Gals get

542

:

to stay in the room.

543

:

They are attorneys appointing kids

and attorneys get to stay in, they

544

:

get to hear the witnesses, they

get to cross examinee witnesses.

545

:

And I think that even

546

:

though

547

:

our courts,

548

:

hell, pretty long

549

:

ago now have separated the two

rules out, there's still this.

550

:

You know, people that have been

in the practice long enough

551

:

and some judges still for some

552

:

reason

553

:

think they have a right to be in the

courtroom and they have to be separated.

554

:

If someone asks.

555

:

Christine: It's beyond insane.

556

:

And I do think that White vs.

557

:

Cole was downplayed at this CLE and I do

think that we should save that a little

558

:

bit for next time as far as invoking the

role, because I feel like we get it right,

559

:

like a little high level, like you just

said, 17 genius legal points and actually

560

:

trial

561

:

prep points for what you should

do to preserve the record.

562

:

But there was so much per usual,

you said 39 legal things in a

563

:

five

564

:

word sentence.

565

:

Which is brilliant.

566

:

I'm not trying to say that, but it is

such a big deal and it was shocking to me

567

:

to see how they downplayed White v Cole,

but then yet are still arguing Adair.

568

:

You know what I mean?

569

:

Hugh: Well, I, I agree.

570

:

I think, at least from my understanding

at this CLE, they mentioned White

571

:

v Cole, which I was happy about,

but they were talking more about.

572

:

When they were talking about waiving

Adair, it was in the discussion,

573

:

I believe, about whether or not

the FOC would have to be sworn

574

:

in before making a statement.

575

:

And I think White v Cole was brought up

576

:

because

577

:

White v Cole, one of the many things that

was stated in it is FOC is a witness.

578

:

That is why they got into the

rule, because it applies to FOCs

579

:

because they're witnesses.

580

:

So I think that's,

581

:

you know, to the extent that

582

:

they might

583

:

have downplayed, it might have

been, they were just raising it

584

:

for one specific point, which

585

:

was relevant

586

:

to the discussion.

587

:

And that is.

588

:

Like it or not, FOCs are witnesses

and like other witnesses have to be

589

:

sworn in before they can open their

590

:

mouth.

591

:

Christine: Yep.

592

:

Could not have said it better.

593

:

Well I feel like we can

kind of wrap up for today.

594

:

I mean, unless there's anything

else that you've seen loc recently

595

:

that you wanna chat about.

596

:

Hugh: No, I mean there are some things

going on in motion hour that are

597

:

worth talking about, but they're not.

598

:

They're not super, super urgent

and I know that, that, oh, I think

599

:

Christine: we can talk

about that on the next one.

600

:

'cause I saw some things.

601

:

Hugh: Yep, yep.

602

:

That's fine with me.

603

:

I'm just happy happy you're back and

we, we can address all the things that

604

:

have happened while you've been out.

605

:

Christine: Yeah.

606

:

I'm just really briefly,

I'm so glad to be back.

607

:

I just needed a little break.

608

:

I'll be very clear that Orange County,

seeing what was happening in California

609

:

without knowing the players was very I

know I use this word too much traumatic.

610

:

But I am genuinely concerned

that Louisville is gonna become

611

:

like California and the fact that

these, these parents in these.

612

:

States without cameras, they are

being gaslit in a way that's very

613

:

different than what's happening here.

614

:

And they can't get access to

their files, they can't get

615

:

access to a video recording.

616

:

And so they're being

gaslit from every area.

617

:

And just to see the emotional turmoil that

they were placed under, and then obviously

618

:

to come back and just, you know, feel like

everything's happening from all angles.

619

:

But anyway, to be clear, I want everyone

listening to know that if you think

620

:

you're going to tell me what to say,

how to say it, when to say it, or to

621

:

whom to speak, you have the wrong girl.

622

:

That's not gonna happen.

623

:

And see how it works out for you,

if you can, I can attest to to that.

624

:

Yeah.

625

:

So, and I mean, I'm open to be, I'm open.

626

:

I've been wrong before.

627

:

I'll be wrong again.

628

:

I am.

629

:

By no means perfect, but we

gotta calm down just a smidge.

630

:

But I am gonna take a break from some

of the lawyers here in Louisville and

631

:

I feel like just look more objectively

at the system because I do feel like

632

:

I was giving them some deference,

having been a litigator in that place.

633

:

But I do think that, you know, they

need to be very cautious of the things

634

:

they're participating in because the

system, in my opinion, is in real trouble.

635

:

Hugh: Yeah.

636

:

I, and I second your fear that, you know,

Louisville might become like California

637

:

if, if they start setting stricter

rules for letting people have access

638

:

to their case file or look at things

or the public from viewing the court.

639

:

And I, and I've said here that your

experience in California has made

640

:

me very thankful for how open things

are here and how, how discussions do

641

:

get started when people are able , to

watch and see what's going on.

642

:

It shouldn't really take published

appellate decisions, and I don't

643

:

think it necessarily does when

you know people are talking.

644

:

I know that other attorneys pull

cases that they're not involved

645

:

in and watch to see, you know,

how judges have ruled on things.

646

:

I've done it when I've had, you

know, someone has told me about

647

:

a similar case that's going on.

648

:

It was, it was important to my practice,

but I also think it's really important in.

649

:

discussions about how, you know,

things like Emberton and , the

650

:

Adair case and, and due process

is carried out in family court.

651

:

And I'm, you know, again, I'm happy

that discussion is taking place, but

652

:

I don't think it would if we didn't

have open courts the way that we do.

653

:

Christine: Absolutely.

654

:

All right, y'all, judge y.com,

655

:

send us everything.

656

:

I am Kentucky Christine

on TikTok and Instagram.

657

:

We are judgy on YouTube

and judging the judges.

658

:

Also, you can search judgy on Instagram.

659

:

Tell us your stories,

tell us your stories.

660

:

Thank you.

661

:

Hugh: Thank you.

662

:

Speaker 4: Next call.

663

:

We need some

664

:

Speaker 5: justice, justice, justice.

665

:

And I wanna ring bells in public.

666

:

I wanna ring bes in public nor crowd.

667

:

Yeah, but I To the fo Yeah.

668

:

I To the fo Yeah.

669

:

Speaker 6: I to the fo fo

670

:

teaser.

Next Episode All Episodes Previous Episode

Listen for free

Show artwork for The JudgeMental Podcast

About the Podcast

The JudgeMental Podcast
From the Creators of Judge-y
The JudgeMental Podcast features two attorneys, Hugh and Christine, who bring over three decades of combined litigation experience to the mic. Now venturing into a bold new initiative—"Judge-y", a website and soon-to-be app—they aim to give lawyers and litigants a platform to evaluate judges and promote accountability within the judiciary.

About your host

Profile picture for Hugh Barrow

Hugh Barrow