Let’s get something clear up front: We support father’s rights.
In far too many domestic matters, divorce hearings and custody cases in South Carolina, there is an inherent bias against men … which is patently unfair.
Judges should rule according to facts submitted into evidence, paying no mind to parental genders … especially when the best interests of minor children are at stake.
Unfortunately, it would appear as though some in South Carolina are seeking to leverage this inherent unfairness in an effort to excuse their own bad behavior … which makes a mockery of legitimate efforts to get judges to impartially consider the facts of each family court case they must deal with.
We have been alerted to once such instance as it involves S.C. family court judge Monét Pincus.
This news outlet has been provided with a host of documentation – including video evidence – related to a case involving one of Pincus’ primary critics in her bid for reelection to the bench, which is under consideration this week.
(Click to view)
(Via: S.C. Courts)
Without naming names or getting into the details of the situation, we can state unequivocally that this particular critic of Pincus (above) – who was involved a highly contentious divorce case in Kershaw County, S.C. – has absolutely no standing to allege bias or unfairness against her (or any of the other family court judges who have ruled against him in his case).
These judges – male and female – acted appropriately at every step of the way, based on our reading of the case files.
We only bring up this matter in connection to Pincus because she is involved in a hearing this week at which this particular “father’s rights” advocate is reportedly scheduled to provide testimony against her.
Based on the evidence we have seen – including videos of this father appearing to physically abuse his former wife – the judge acted well within her rights in ruling against him.
Obviously there are multiple sides to every story. And to be clear: We have no opinion on Pincus or her renomination. We are simply stating that those looking for a reason to oppose her renomination should probably look someplace other than the “father’s rights” advocate who is testifying against her.
She may be a terrible judge who deserves to get the boot … just not over this.
More importantly, we do not wish to see a movement that brings a needed perspective to the debate over judicial reform get bogged down in petty grudges held by individuals who frankly deserved the justice meted out to them.
Most importantly, we maintain these qualification hearings are pointless given that state lawmakers (most of them practicing lawyers) will ultimately decide who they want to serve in which judicial slots … a notoriously corrupt process that this news outlet has spent years exposing.[su_dominion_video]
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our stories? Please feel free to submit your own guest column or letter to the editor via-email HERE. Got a tip for us? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE. Want to support what we’re doing? SUBSCRIBE HERE.