Episode 31

full
Published on:

15th Oct 2025

EP 31 Seaward

Episode 31: Seaward

In this episode of the JudgMental podcast, Christine and Hugh dive deep into a recent family court case that has become a "hot mess express." They discuss the controversial agreed order that blurs the lines between the roles of a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) and a parenting coordinator, raising serious ethical and legal concerns. The hosts break down the differences between these roles, the implications of allowing a GAL to make binding decisions for parties, and the potential violations of attorney-client privilege.

Christine and Hugh also revisit the motion to recuse Judge Shelly Santry, exploring the appearance of conflicts of interest and the broader impact on the families involved. They reflect on the systemic issues in family court, the unintended consequences of creative legal solutions, and the importance of following established rules to protect clients.

Tune in for a candid, insightful discussion about the complexities of family law, the responsibilities of legal professionals, and why sometimes, starting over is the only way to fix a broken case.

Key topics:

The difference between GALs and parenting coordinators

Ethical and legal pitfalls in agreed orders

The motion to recuse Judge Shelly Santry

Systemic challenges in family court

The importance of clear roles and boundaries in legal representation

Don’t forget to follow us on YouTube and join the conversation in the comments!

Transcript
Speaker:

You are listening to

The Judgemental Podcast.

2

:

We're Hugh and Christine, the Minds

Behind Judgy, the revolutionary app

3

:

that empowers you to judge the judges.

4

:

It's pastime for judicial accountability

and transparency within the courts.

5

:

Prepare for sharp insights, candid

critiques, and unshakable honesty from

6

:

two lawyers determined to save the system.

7

:

We need some justice.

8

:

Justice, my fine justice.

9

:

And I wanna ring, be in public.

10

:

I wanna ring, be in public crowd.

11

:

Yeah.

12

:

Christine: All right.

13

:

Welcome to the Judgmental podcast.

14

:

We are gonna give an update on

Shelly Ry and the motion to recuse.

15

:

And then also, , if you listen

to our episode from two days ago.

16

:

Oftentimes we get tipped, , just

by seeing what happens in

17

:

court or people send us stuff.

18

:

But I kind of did a deep dive in that

case and it's a hot mess express.

19

:

Hugh: Yeah.

20

:

I mean, you've shown me some of

the pleadings in it and I thought

21

:

we had issues with orders that,

that set things up for failure.

22

:

Yep.

23

:

, From the judge and then I realized

that they were agreed orders.

24

:

Which most likely meant the judge

had no hand in writing them.

25

:

The attorneys actually put

it together and the judge for

26

:

some reason signed off on it.

27

:

Christine: Yeah.

28

:

And so just to back up a little bit,

go back and listen to episode, I wanna

29

:

say 23, , where we talk about the

motion to recuse was filed against

30

:

Judge , Shelly Santry for going to

a partisan campaign of kickoff event

31

:

for, I can't say her name right.

32

:

Do you know how to say it?

33

:

Hugh: I don't remember who it was,

honestly, now that I think about it.

34

:

I honestly don't remember

Hettiaratchi Yeah.

35

:

Christine: Is that anything?

36

:

Oh, that's

37

:

Hugh: right.

38

:

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,

39

:

Christine: yeah.

40

:

, She's running for state rep and

the judge had her arm over Ms.

41

:

Hettiaratchi.

42

:

Am I saying that right?

43

:

I don't wanna be insulting.

44

:

Hugh: Well, I'm not

her, so what do I know?

45

:

Okay.

46

:

, Christine: So anyway, and

the judge got very defensive.

47

:

There is no order out yet about

the recusal, but at the same time

48

:

as the recusal, there was a motion

that was to change the GAL to a.

49

:

, Parenting coordinator, which are

very different distinct roles, right?

50

:

Hugh: Yep.

51

:

Christine: And a GAL literally is

an attorney that is appointed to

52

:

represent a child's best interest.

53

:

That is acts as an attorney.

54

:

Hugh: Yes.

55

:

Acts as an attorney.

56

:

The child is the client.

57

:

Yeah.

58

:

Now , it's distinct because

59

:

your governed by the best, the child's

best interest, and that can sometimes be

60

:

in conflict with what the child wants.

61

:

Yeah.

62

:

But.

63

:

You have to act as an attorney.

64

:

You have to follow the

same rules as an attorney.

65

:

You don't get to follow file reports

or inform the court of anything

66

:

differently than anyone else.

67

:

You file pleadings.

68

:

You, , present evidence in trials.

69

:

You, , conduct, , you know,

testimony with witnesses.

70

:

You cross, cross-examine

other parties, witnesses.

71

:

You are acting as an attorney.

72

:

Because you're acting as an attorney.

73

:

You can't be a pseudo judge.

74

:

Yes.

75

:

You can't be a parenting coordinator.

76

:

, You can't.

77

:

We, we have, , hell, it's a, it's an

old case now that, that, that says

78

:

the GAL is very distinct from the

advisory witness, , court appointed.

79

:

Position of an FOC.

80

:

Oh yeah.

81

:

They are distinct roles

in Kentucky at least.

82

:

Christine: Well, let's back up.

83

:

So I was a juvenile public

defender for many years.

84

:

It's the job I absolutely loved

when I represented my children that

85

:

were charged with crimes or status.

86

:

Offenses is something we have

in Kentucky where if you're an

87

:

adult, it wouldn't be a crime, but

you're entitled to representation.

88

:

Mm-hmm.

89

:

I represented my juvenile

children the exact same way

90

:

that I would represent an adult.

91

:

Sure.

92

:

The exact same privilege.

93

:

It was what they wanted.

94

:

I was an advocate for my client.

95

:

The distinction for GS in custody actions

or any of these other actions are.

96

:

That you have the same attorney-client

privilege, everything, but the

97

:

actual, your client is that child

or those children's best interest.

98

:

No, that's right.

99

:

Yeah.

100

:

And,

101

:

Hugh: and so as an attorney talk about,

like you say, they're very different

102

:

things when you're talking about a

parenting coordinator versus an attorney.

103

:

So as an attorney, let's say you

represent one of the parents, what

104

:

are some things that you would

never be able to do as an attorney?

105

:

In the case representing a party,

106

:

Christine: make binding decisions.

107

:

Testify to the court,

108

:

Hugh: talk to the other party.

109

:

Yeah, talk to, I mean, as an

attorney, you don't get to.

110

:

Speak to the other litigants

outside of their attorneys, you

111

:

without their attorneys present.

112

:

That's just, in

113

:

Christine: fact, you'd lose

your license if you did it.

114

:

Hugh: Yeah, that's right.

115

:

Christine: So to back up, because

our audience doesn't know what

116

:

happened in this agreed order yet,

is that we had a attorney that's

117

:

appointed to represent the children.

118

:

Mom's attorney, other mom's attorney

that all agreed to appoint this person

119

:

as a GAL that essentially was given what?

120

:

Hugh: Well, in, in the agreed order.

121

:

I think the person is already a

GAL at this point, and they're

122

:

just appointing powers to the GAL.

123

:

And the powers include coordinating

child related things with the attorneys.

124

:

It order, I mean, not with the

attorneys, with the parties.

125

:

Mm-hmm.

126

:

It orders the parties to communicate

certain things through the GAL.

127

:

So in this order, you're telling litigants

who are represented by an attorney

128

:

to communicate directly with another

attorney representing a different.

129

:

Like it's insane.

130

:

The ethical rules don't allow for, allow

for that for, but then it also says that

131

:

they are bound by the decision of the GAL.

132

:

So it, the GAL is not only given

some parenting coordinator roles,

133

:

which parenting coordinators in

Kentucky help make sort of Yeah.

134

:

Well I say health and I

saw your reaction to it.

135

:

The idea is that they do

some micromanaging of.

136

:

Parenting decisions that generally the

court isn't well suited to handle, because

137

:

you can't just keep coming in front

of the judge every single, every other

138

:

day and having someone make a decision.

139

:

Now, I'm, there are lots of pros and

cons to it, but just as a descriptor.

140

:

Yeah.

141

:

So you're, you're allowing an attorney,

well, you're not allowing, you're

142

:

forcing and appointing and giving the

power to an attorney who represents

143

:

a party, the child to a case to

make binding decisions on other.

144

:

Parties

145

:

Christine: that we don't Yeah.

146

:

And we don't even know the

facts that are of dispute yet.

147

:

It's just basically no.

148

:

If there are any facts or situations

in dispute, this attorney can

149

:

make the ultimate decision.

150

:

And it's not limited.

151

:

Yeah.

152

:

Hugh: Is if this GAL says something,

the parent, , the parties,

153

:

the the parents have to do it.

154

:

Yeah.

155

:

Like that's delegation of judicial

responsibility to someone who is

156

:

an attorney representing a client,

which it violates a lot of rules.

157

:

It's, it's a shit show you, you can't.

158

:

You can't delegate judicial authority.

159

:

You can't order people to follow

the recommendations of one attorney

160

:

representing one party in the case.

161

:

There's so many problems with it and

162

:

Christine: let's make it like

a little bit more simple.

163

:

So what let it would be akin to if

Hugh is representing a client, dad.

164

:

Christine is representing a client

mom, and we sign an agreed order that

165

:

says Counsel for dad can make all the

decisions about anything and Mom shall

166

:

go directly through counsel for dad.

167

:

Hugh: Yeah.

168

:

And that's without her attorney present.

169

:

Yeah.

170

:

You know, and, and there are

huge ramifications for if.

171

:

A client speaks directly to, , an

attorney for another party.

172

:

Christine: Yes,

173

:

Hugh: you can be waiving all

kinds of privileges that will

174

:

come back to haunt you in the case

175

:

Christine: or saying something

that's not in your interest that

176

:

an attorney can protect you from.

177

:

Hugh: Yeah, that's right.

178

:

And.

179

:

That's what's being set up in this case.

180

:

Basically requiring the parties to

go through another party's attorney

181

:

without their attorney present.

182

:

And I think that with communications

and then be bound by an attorney's,

183

:

one of one party, their decisions

on virtually anything kid related.

184

:

Christine: Yeah, and I think the

bigger problem too, in this case,

185

:

and we'll have to go back and look at

the agreed order, but I think these

186

:

parties are currently having no contact.

187

:

They can't even talk to each other.

188

:

Hugh: Yeah, I, there are

just so many problems and

189

:

Christine: all it does

is make the GAL rich.

190

:

Hugh: Well, initially I thought,

I've seen these types of orders

191

:

out of certain divisions.

192

:

, I've seen them challenged,

I've challenged them.

193

:

So I was thinking, oh no, we've got,

we've got a judge who's entering,

194

:

issuing these orders and sort of

delegating his or her power Yeah.

195

:

To another person , and

lazy, and it's been.

196

:

You know, there's law on this and there's

lots of reasons why you can't do this.

197

:

But then I noticed that not only

did the judge order it, the parties

198

:

drafted it for the judge to order.

199

:

So we have all of these attorneys

involved and the judge for all.

200

:

Creating this mess together and , nobody

raising a red flag about it all going in

201

:

and saying, this is how we want the case

to be set up, and this is who we want

202

:

making the decisions for our parties.

203

:

And this is, we just want

to blanket waive all kind of

204

:

privileges and protections and.

205

:

Yeah, it blew my mind when I saw

that that was an agreed order

206

:

and just couldn't believe it.

207

:

So just

208

:

Christine: some backstory about how

kind of we communicate about stuff.

209

:

I'm like super annoying in a lot of

ways, and I'm like, old school Catholic.

210

:

I don't think this has anything to do.

211

:

I'm talking about like, just like,

I like to gamble, but every time

212

:

I send him something or tell him

something, I'll be like, guess who?

213

:

You know what I mean?

214

:

Like, guess who or how long was the date?

215

:

Like I'm always like, make a bet.

216

:

Let's do this.

217

:

, And you did not guess the judge.

218

:

And that's because it was an agreed order.

219

:

Hugh: No, that's right for context.

220

:

Well, no, no, no.

221

:

Yeah, no, that's right.

222

:

And it was, it's not something I

would've expected out of this court.

223

:

Mm-hmm.

224

:

I'm a, , I'm shocked, , a little

bit by that, but I did not know it

225

:

was an agreed order, so I guessed

incorrectly because there was,

226

:

. Yeah.

227

:

One, one of our judges here

in Jefferson County was really

228

:

known for these types of orders.

229

:

Yeah.

230

:

And just regularly delegated, well,

there's, there's two of them that

231

:

were particularly bad about it.

232

:

Three of them that did it fairly

regularly that just would delegate their

233

:

power and would get reversed on it.

234

:

And there were so many problems,

and he would do it all the time.

235

:

Christine: And, and he doesn't care.

236

:

This,

237

:

Hugh: this was not one of

the, , this is not one of those

238

:

divisions that I've, I'm used to it,

239

:

Christine: and I think this is

even, first off, I am torn with.

240

:

What happens next?

241

:

So when the motion to recuse was

filed, the reason it came onto my radar

242

:

is because there was also a motion.

243

:

For a parenting coordinator and

it basically said the GAL is

244

:

acting as a parenting coordinator.

245

:

And then I looked up at the order

and I was like, yeah, they are.

246

:

And those two roles cannot be done

at the same time by the same person.

247

:

No, but I think that

even goes, it's a mess.

248

:

That case is a mess.

249

:

I don't even wanna know how much

these parties have paid, but I can

250

:

see now there's not a question in my

mind that, , Shelly has to recuse.

251

:

Because that GAL was given an obscene

amount of power and the appearance of

252

:

a conflict, which I already thought

existed, but it's a shit show.

253

:

I think it just needs to be scrapped and

start, everybody needs to start over.

254

:

Hugh: Yeah.

255

:

But that's not necessarily what happened.

256

:

So, first of all, I'm interested

in your opinion on how this

257

:

agreed order changes the conflict.

258

:

'cause , I didn't make that

connection, but starting over with

259

:

another judge, you're gonna start

with the same order in effect, like.

260

:

Recusing and it being assigned to

another judge doesn't start over again.

261

:

It just takes the same shit

show to a different location.

262

:

Christine: I think it won increase

the appearance of the conflict,

263

:

given the nature and power

that this GAL has via an order.

264

:

When I say start all over, I think

at least that provision of the

265

:

agreed order needs to be struck

because I think it really violates.

266

:

Just basic principle, I don't

think it's, it's a void order on

267

:

its face because it's essentially,

illegal is not the right word.

268

:

Give me the word I'm looking for.

269

:

I

270

:

Hugh: think that it might be, I mean,

I think that really, I think if I

271

:

were, if I were coming in on this

case, one of the first things I would

272

:

look at is some of the Supreme Court

rulings from the Supreme Court of

273

:

Kentucky to see if there's something

that's so very specific about it.

274

:

In an interpretation of a statute that

you could then tie it to a statute and

275

:

say, this is, this is void on his face.

276

:

I don't know that that'd be

the first place I'd look.

277

:

I think that's a long shot.

278

:

Yeah.

279

:

But , it's so contrary.

280

:

It's a nightmare to

clearly established law.

281

:

And then, you know, looking back

on the case where people complain

282

:

about the GAL acting as a parenting

coordinator and needing to switch the

283

:

roles, they created it, they created

the problem with that language.

284

:

That's exactly what they did.

285

:

, And maybe.

286

:

I gotta look at the timing.

287

:

I wonder if the judge refused to convert

the GAL over to the parenting coordinator.

288

:

So they just made an agreed order,

which virtually did the same thing, but

289

:

continued to call the person the GAL,

290

:

Christine: which you can't

do, which you can't do.

291

:

And then there was a response

that was filed on October 6th.

292

:

Today is October 9th, I think.

293

:

And it basically was saying.

294

:

I don't know what it

was saying to be honest.

295

:

, But they didn't want the judge

to recuse, I don't think.

296

:

And they didn't want the GAL

changed, , and that the costs

297

:

were already cumbersome.

298

:

But this is just your perfect example

of a family court case that becomes

299

:

incrementally a shit show because you

have these agreed orders or you have

300

:

these things that you could never,

it's easy to say in a mediation room,

301

:

okay, just sign this, or, oh this.

302

:

But like the long-term effect.

303

:

, , and to go back to my point earlier

about why I think it's a bigger deal,

304

:

I think that knowing how much power

this GAL has when the parents saw the

305

:

GAL with the judge, that would, that

would make your, a pit in your stomach.

306

:

Hugh: No, , I agree with that.

307

:

And I'll go , out a limb and say

that I think that this, like so many

308

:

messes we see in family court was

created because people were trying

309

:

to be creative in working to help

their clients and help this family.

310

:

And have created giant mess by not

following the law and following the rules.

311

:

I don't think that anybody manipulated

to create the situation to get

312

:

a leg up or to game the system.

313

:

I think it's just something

that happens regularly within

314

:

the system that's improper.

315

:

Yeah.

316

:

That creates a much bigger mess.

317

:

Yeah.

318

:

'cause at least what I know about the

attorneys in this situation, it would, it

319

:

would shock me if someone knowingly got.

320

:

Their client into this message?

321

:

Oh,

322

:

Christine: I don't think they did.

323

:

And knowing the two main

attorneys on this case, I don't

324

:

think it was a knowing thing.

325

:

It was, improper in my opinion.

326

:

Hugh: No, , I would say that.

327

:

, But also their argument about how

the costs are already so high.

328

:

Yeah, I get that.

329

:

You want to keep the same person

involved so you don't have to get a new

330

:

professional and get them up to speed.

331

:

I get it.

332

:

That ship has sailed.

333

:

Like you've now created this problem

where you can't, this person , is

334

:

worn too many hats improperly.

335

:

Mm-hmm.

336

:

, I, in my, that's what I opinion.

337

:

They can't, they can't continue on

this and you have to get someone

338

:

else and you have to start clean.

339

:

My point was just that by one judge

recusing and kicking it down the

340

:

hallway to another doesn't start clean.

341

:

You still have these same exact problems.

342

:

You just have a new judge who comes

into it with fresh eyes looking

343

:

at this and probably thinking, oh

crap, this is a, this is a mess.

344

:

Christine: Well, and I think too, you

know, the, one of the things once this

345

:

motion to recuse the judge, it was filed,

and I don't understand why, like you

346

:

talked about this on the last episode

when we talked about, , the recusal

347

:

is like judges, the appearance of a

conflict is enough, but the GAL, , that's

348

:

appointed, that's running for office

should have been like, one, I can't

349

:

be a GAL and a parenting coordinator.

350

:

The fact that the GAL

put herself in that role.

351

:

Fucking terrifies me.

352

:

That shows that you don't have enough

sense to come in out of the rain.

353

:

Hugh: Yeah, but we see that all the time.

354

:

I've never seen

355

:

Christine: that.

356

:

Hugh: Oh, I see.

357

:

Oh, well, I practiced before the

FOC and the GAL roles were actually

358

:

separate and they were combined,

like they are in so many other

359

:

states, which I don't understand.

360

:

So I'm, I'm kind of used to that, and

I know that a lot of the people that.

361

:

Were FOCs or gals before that

split of the roles, still

362

:

exercise them interchangeably.

363

:

Improperly,

364

:

Christine: yeah, but no, what I mean

is like her signing that agreed order,

365

:

appointing her as a guardian ad litem

to make, to essentially carry out

366

:

the parenting coordinator role if she

thought that she could do that ethically.

367

:

That's concerning to me.

368

:

Hugh: Yeah.

369

:

But , I also understand why Yes, I agree.

370

:

Like on its face, you should

look at this and say, no.

371

:

Nope, that can't.

372

:

I mean, the same reaction I had when I

read it and be like, wait, it says GAL.

373

:

Yeah, stop.

374

:

You can't do these other things.

375

:

But when.

376

:

The courts are regularly signing orders

and giving people those powers to try to

377

:

move cases along a little bit more and

delegating a little bit more of their

378

:

job over here, a little bit over here

in the, I, you know, in, in the hopes

379

:

that , it makes things more efficient.

380

:

, It doesn't, you know,

efficiency whi, which it's not.

381

:

It creates more problems,

more costs, drags things out.

382

:

So it's a fallacy that's more

efficient, but efficiency doesn't

383

:

cover, doesn't change the fact

that it's legally improper.

384

:

Christine: Well, not even that though.

385

:

The GAL basically said by signing that,

, order said, I am not, I mean, you violated

386

:

her duty to advocate for her client,

which is the child or children's best

387

:

interest, because that is a violation

like , an attorney representing mom or

388

:

dad couldn't sign something like that.

389

:

You, I mean, was there even a

conversation with the child or

390

:

children about what was happening?

391

:

Her actual client?

392

:

Hugh: Yeah, and I would

also be curious to know if.

393

:

There was knowing waiver or something.

394

:

Yeah.

395

:

By when the parties speak directly to the

GAL, like if I were ever going to allow,

396

:

and there's been limited circumstances

maybe where I represented someone

397

:

that was in such a unique business or

something that in order to move the case

398

:

forward, I would allow the other attorney

to come in and just with me present.

399

:

Yeah.

400

:

Yeah.

401

:

Ask questions of my client

about the business to get a

402

:

better understanding of it.

403

:

Oh yeah.

404

:

And, but there were always so many rules.

405

:

You this, you represent this

person and you're gonna be

406

:

talking directly to my client.

407

:

There's so many rules that have

to be followed and things, boxes

408

:

that had to be checked before

I would allow that to happen.

409

:

But

410

:

Christine: even if you're in

the middle of it happening, you

411

:

would just say, stop talking.

412

:

Hugh: Yeah, exactly.

413

:

Mm-hmm.

414

:

Like I wonder like, did

anyone even think about that?

415

:

Are they just authorizing their client

to talk to an attorney for another party?

416

:

About any number of things, just

so they don't have to talk to

417

:

their client about it, and they

don't have to solve the problem.

418

:

Christine: And I think this is

one of the huge, there's so many

419

:

problems in family court, but just

the fact that you had lawyers that

420

:

did objectively, in my opinion, make

the situation for this family worse.

421

:

And to go back to my point is once

that recusal was filed, I think if

422

:

the GGAL had any sense at all, at all,

she would've just said, you know what?

423

:

You've got two parents that feel a certain

kind, or at least one of the parents

424

:

that feel a certain kind of way about me.

425

:

I've got a duty to represent my client

or clients, and I'm making decisions that

426

:

are binding, like in a judge position.

427

:

This is a mess.

428

:

I need to just step out.

429

:

I need to bow out, not make

any more money off this family.

430

:

Hugh: But instead, the GAL signed

off on the agreed order and,

431

:

Christine: and still argued that the

judge shouldn't have to recuse the

432

:

GAL said on the record, your honor's

not gonna, and I'm para phrasing here.

433

:

Your honor's not gonna endorse

me, which I thought like we

434

:

talked about was even bigger.

435

:

'cause she's speaking for the judge.

436

:

It's just an absolute mess.

437

:

And I wonder what would happen

if this person does win the race?

438

:

I mean, are they, how are they gonna try

to legislate more power to family court?

439

:

Which is concerning personally.

440

:

Hugh: That is a, that is

a, , yep, that's a much deeper

441

:

topic that I had not considered.

442

:

And now.

443

:

Yeah, now I'm concerned.

444

:

Yeah.

445

:

Yeah.

446

:

Thanks for that.

447

:

Christine: Oh, my bad.

448

:

I know.

449

:

I'm always like the debbie

downer riling everybody up.

450

:

Although every once in a while

y'all, when you see he really

451

:

go, I mean, I'm just like, okay.

452

:

Yeah.

453

:

Hugh: It's, it's bad.

454

:

Christine: It's hysterical.

455

:

Yeah.

456

:

, Judge y.com

457

:

when this airs, it's gonna be,

the leaves are gonna be changing.

458

:

Get all up in the comments.

459

:

Kentucky Christine, judging the judges.

460

:

, Go to our YouTube for crying

out loud and follow us on

461

:

YouTube before I have a stroke.

462

:

Hugh: Yes, yes.

463

:

Before she has a stroke.

464

:

Absolutely.

465

:

Peace.

466

:

Next call.

467

:

We need some justice, justice, justice.

468

:

And I wanna ring bells in public.

469

:

I wanna ring bes in public nor crowd.

470

:

Yeah, but I To the fo Yeah.

471

:

I To the fo Yeah.

472

:

I to the fo fo 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