One of the most significant challenges in family law arises when family law judges preside over quasi-criminal issues like Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (DVROs). DVRO cases, compounded by scarce judicial oversight, the infrequency of appeals, and the trauma potentially violent and dangerous situations, sets the stage for catastrophic outcomes. Judges, perhaps inadvertently or due to bias, lack of training or lack of care, frequently issue careless rulings and mishandle trials. This leaves litigants, often with minimal recourse, in a precarious position.
This happens even when parties are represented by counsel, so please don’t fall into the trap of believing attorneys can “save you” from an wayward judge.
We have the transcript, for a DVRO trial, before Alameda County Judge Tamiza Hockenhull-Stone. The matter where the court acknowledges that “matter (was) only set for one afternoon.” It became clear that all issues could not be resolved that afternoon.
Instead of continuing the matter, and setting a future trial date to hear the remaining issues, Judge Hockenull-Stone rushed through the respondent’s defense to conclude the matter before close of business that day.
We will highlight direct quotes from the transcript to spotlight this problematic behavior:
Judge Hockenhull-Stone said (and this is a direct quote) “So, let me just say this. It is 4.49 p.m. I’m not going passed 5:00. I will be rendering a decision in this case whether closing arguments are made or not.” The transcript reads “passed” when it’s clear “past” is the intended word.
Would this have happened in criminal court?
The problem with Family Law cases is that with so little judicial oversight, judges are free to “do as they please”. They make their own rules and in the process, they often decimate lives.
We get so many stories from people who are hopeless, desperate, devastated. We don’t focus on pulling your heartstrings with case details, instead focus on factual issues, where we can substantiate the problems through filings, transcripts, witnesses or other resources. Notice, we are not discussing the merits of the case, because the allegations don’t matter. The focus here is on a Judge deciding to rush through a trial, violating due process, all in the interest of her Court Calendar.
Lastly, we must address the elephant in the room. many will rightfully point out that the litigant still has the option of post-trial motions. The issue with post-trial motions is that you’re asking the Judge to “grade their own homework.” Most judges will not correct their mistakes. Even if the trial judge is no longer presiding over the case (for example, a new Judicial Assignment), another judge is also unlikely to correct the mistake of their peers.