Episode 6, Season II | "Due Process Denied: Inside the Broken Family Court System with Attorney Christine Miller" - The Love Doc Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Welcome to the Love Dog Podcast. I'm your co host Raina.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
Butcher here with our host, doctor Sarah Hinsley. Hey girl, Hey,
what's up?

Speaker 3 (00:19):
Oh?

Speaker 4 (00:20):
Not much. Just so excited for our guests today.

Speaker 1 (00:23):
Same, I'm so excited.

Speaker 4 (00:24):
In our last episode, we had Meg Miller from her
platform Stand with Meg, who has probably the most horrific
family court story I have ever heard. And now we
have someone that I have connected with on TikTok who
is from the lovely state of Kentucky where we are.
She's in Louisville. And although we are sports rivals, yeah,
we are not going to hold that against you.

Speaker 3 (00:45):
Oh yeah, good, okay, okay.

Speaker 1 (00:47):
Yeah, go c Goky.

Speaker 4 (00:50):
But you I found you on TikTok just like I
did Meg, and you are doing some outstanding things for
improving the family court system and advocate for accountability, specifically
of judges in the system. And you got to sit
here through the recording of Meg's podcast, and I know
a lot of what Meg is saying, you know, or

(01:12):
what she said on that episode. Some people are going
to go, yeah, how did that happen? Or how did
that happen? And Christine's shaking her head the whole time, like, yes,
that can happen, Yes, this does absolutely, And so you know,
as unbelievable as Meg's story sounds, it is unfortunately all true.
And I've been through my own horrific family court battles
and as Rainy As has also here. But we're so

(01:35):
excited to have you, and we just want you to
tell us a little bit about what you are doing.
And well, first give us a take on on Meg's story,
because you just sat through it.

Speaker 3 (01:46):
Absolutely. And I started this platform for a plethora of reasons,
but one of the big ones I could not go
anywhere in Louisville without someone telling me their horror stories.
And so if there's anything I can say is that
you are not crazy. The system is. You are not crazy.
The system is. These stories seem so unbelievable because a

(02:08):
system that was designed to protect families and children's would
never allow any of this to happen, right, right, would think?
The reality is the courts are getting it wrong more
often than they're getting it right. And I do think
with meg scenario, it's one of those that I could
see some morning signs for sure, especially with the income
that her husband was making. And then we talked about
child Sport. Now with his case in particular, it seems

(02:31):
he had his own business. So when I was reading
her decree, it showed that he had a lot, a
big difference with net income, which obviously you do if
you run a business. You know I've run one, you
run one. But that is a really easy place to
hide money. And so you have someone with an incentive
to pay Luss child Sport to hide money. So that
was a red flag. The tracker on the car, major

(02:54):
red flag to me. That shows domestic violence all day
and you would know better than I. Absolutely, And then
the notion that you have, let's just say, hypothetically speaking
that Meg, everything that she's saying isn't true. Well, I'm
saying the family court system isn't working, and she's got
a decree from a state that says she gets eighty

(03:16):
percent time with her children. So if the family court
system were working, how did that outcome happen? Right? If
she's not telling the truth, which clearly I believe that
her story is accurate, I think she's doing a lot
of work. There were so many red flags, especially the
notion of the ex husband filing to modify or terminate

(03:36):
maintenance at the same time that.

Speaker 1 (03:39):
It wasn't even that much maintenance to begin.

Speaker 3 (03:41):
With, right, But maintenance has nothing to do with children,
you know what I mean. So certainly, if there were
an issue with children, you wouldn't be filing in a
separate jurisdiction to terminate maintenance. That wouldn't be money, would
not be your top priority if your children were being abused.

Speaker 4 (03:55):
In my opinion, and so as unfathomable as it sounds,
it is real, folks. And I think it's really important
to highlight that you were a family a court attorney,
family law attorney, I should say. And so you've seen
the corruption, You've seen the I don't even know what

(04:17):
word you know, people being so misguided, people not following
rules and regulations, not allowing people their rights. Tell us
a little bit about your experience practicing family law and
why ultimately you decided to leave.

Speaker 3 (04:29):
So I started as a public defender. I was a
public defender in eastern Kentucky. I did juvenile work, loved
it so passionate, but I wanted to get back to Louisville,
That's where my mama was. I was ready. I was
twenty nine, I think when I started my own firm,
and I met a guy that was a criminal attorney
and they needed a family law practitioner to come in
for their firm. And I thought, you know, I'll try

(04:50):
it for a little bit and then I'll dabble back
into the criminal and my parents had been divorced, and
I absolutely loved it. I started my firm in twenty fourteen.
I was able to have flexibility. I could get resolutions
from my clients. You know, in private practice, you could
choose your clients, which I couldn't do when I was
a public defender. And so I was super happy for

(05:11):
the first three or four years. And then as you grow,
you get bigger. I had a firm, we bought a place.
You're making more money, you get more of the high
asset cases, you get more of the high conflict cases.
And I started to see very quickly that the system
was changing as well. We had a different set of
judges that had come on the bench, but COVID was

(05:32):
really a game changer. I think a lot of these
judges realized that they could sit at home or do
stuff on zoom, remodel their house, get on social media,
and the delays became absolutely out of control.

Speaker 4 (05:49):
Yep. The delay was the demise of the father of
my children.

Speaker 3 (05:53):
And the conflict it was encouraged you started to see.
So in Kentucky we have guardian at items, which are
orneyes that are appointed to represent the best interest of
the child or children. We had a case Morgan v. Ghetter,
it came out in twenty thirteen ish that established these focs.
And focs are court appointed attorneys that still have the

(06:14):
duty to the best interest of the child or children,
but they're essentially investigative, so they do reports. But we've
created this system where we have all of these attorneys
that can make a significant amount of money their whole
livelihood frankly, by being appointed, and they have immunity and
these ridiculous.

Speaker 2 (06:35):
And go into more detail about that, Like when you
say immunity, like immunity from what.

Speaker 3 (06:40):
So judges have judicial immunity and so if they're acting
in their official capacity then they cannot they're protected from
lawsuits essentially, And immunity is a problem throughout our country
in all avenues, Like government officials should not have immunity. Really,
if you misbehave or if you act, you know, out
of negligence, there should be consequences like anyone else, but

(07:02):
in Kentucky in particular, and we were we're a national
model for family court. How terrifying is that?

Speaker 4 (07:09):
Yeah? I commented on your video and I was like,
oh my gosh, family court started in my state. FML. Yeah,
and you didn't reply and I was like, yeah, yeah,
I am so disappointed in my state.

Speaker 3 (07:20):
So, and there were family courts essentially like in other jurisdictions,
but family Court in Louisville started in nineteen ninety one.

Speaker 4 (07:27):
I believe.

Speaker 3 (07:27):
It was a pilot program, and it was the notion
one family, one court, one judge. So if you had
a domestic violence order that was filed, that's going to
go to the exact same judge that you have the
divorce or that's going to go to the exact same
judge that you have the dependency, neglect and abuse action,
and so this judge should know everything about this family. Well,
didn't work out like that, and unfortunately in Kentucky we

(07:49):
have well, I'm unfortunately, in my opinion, we had a
constitutional amendment in two thousand and one I believe, or
two thousand and two that established family court in our constitution.
It's not going away. Anytime soon.

Speaker 4 (08:03):
Right.

Speaker 3 (08:04):
But then you have back to like COVID, you have
these judges that have just so much power immunity A
Family Court Rule six in Kentucky allows for them to
point all these third party experts. So you have the FOC,
the gl custodial evaluators, reunification therapists which don't even get
me started on that. That is, in my opinion, you

(08:26):
have reunification because you have this court manufactured abandonment. Right,
it's not actual, it is actual abandonment, but it's not
what reunification therapy was meant for. In my opinion, I'm
not a psychologist, but the court is ordering these people
to be away from their children, right, And then you
have a therapist that's going to make ten twenty thirty
thousand dollars on reunification.

Speaker 4 (08:48):
Custodial about evaluators charging fifteen twenty thousand dollars for that's cheap. Yeah, yeah,
that is. That was like the initial starting price that
we were given.

Speaker 3 (08:58):
Custodial evaluators are made up to thirty five forty thousand dollars.
They have this judicial immunity and essentially it's quasi judicial immunity,
but essentially that means that they're protected. They're an arm
of the court. They're appointed by the court, and so
that court appointment allows them keeps them free from liability. Frankly,

(09:19):
and one big thing I noticed, and again I'm not
in y'all's field, but if they will not do a
custodial evaluation without that court order, because without that court order,
there's no immunity. So if this is science and if
it works, why aren't you providing that service?

Speaker 2 (09:35):
Right?

Speaker 4 (09:35):
I mean, I know in our case it was like, well,
can we go get this done privately? It's like no,
they have to order it, and we asked for and
it got denied.

Speaker 3 (09:46):
Well, and I mean that could be a blessing and
a curse because the thing about these custodial evaluations they'll
take eighteen months. And so just big picture, let's step back, like,
if we're really creating a system in the best interest
of children who age out of the age of majority
at eighteen eighteen months two years of their life, are like, well,
we've got to wait for this magical thirty page report

(10:08):
with diagnostics that's going to tell us who is the
better parent. You know, I struggle to see the science
behind that ye have y'all ever read one?

Speaker 4 (10:16):
I have read one. I have not I have you know,
I have read one, and they're kind of brutal. You know,
they're kind of brutal. And one of the things that
they do in custodial evaluations is they give the MMPI right,
And an MMPI is an assessment of essentially personality per se,

(10:38):
right and the state of your kind of emotional well being,
and it can detect for a lot of different things,
but it is and Meg kind of touched on this
in her episode. You can actually be flagged for being
quote unquote too positive or not having a big enough
stress response right to what you're experiencing. But then if

(11:00):
your stress response is too big, then they can judge
that too, So that MMPI really walks this fine line
of looking at all of these very intricate things. And
a lot of people get test fatigue because it's so long,
and they get a lot of anxiety coming in to
take the test, and then there's the social pressure of

(11:20):
you know, oh my gosh, this affects the custody of
my children. And there's a lot of problems in and
of itself with self report assessments. Lots of bias, lots
of issues with memory. Recall, I mean humans aren't robots, right,
you know, we're fluid. We can change in our mood
from day to day, we can change in our perspectives
after things happen to us. And then having so much

(11:41):
weight put on that one assessment is in my opinion,
a little bit nuts.

Speaker 3 (11:48):
And is that really indicative of how someone parents? I mean,
we don't wire in this country a parenting exam before
you have a child.

Speaker 4 (11:54):
Right, No, No, I think it just you know, it
measures you know, the person's psyche. Really, it's not really
measuring how good of a parent they are.

Speaker 2 (12:03):
But does it even really measure that to like, I
mean it's to a specific degree, because, like you just said,
there could be multiple variables that come into play that
don't make it valid.

Speaker 4 (12:15):
Yeah, I mean, you know, the test is designed in
such a way that it's supposed to catch like malingering.
It's supposed to catch if someone's being trying to be
too positive or if they're trying to you know, show
a false disorder. It's meant to try to catch those things.
But it's still not a perfect test. I mean, with
any assessment, there's what we call error, right, which an
error can come from the test itself. It can come

(12:37):
from you know, the person taking the test not reading
the questions correctly, or you know, lying or being biased
or poor memory. Recall, there's all sorts of error that
happens in these assessments, and psychologists have to interpret the assessments.
You know, of course there's a scoring mechanism, but there's
still some level of human interpretation in the way that

(13:00):
you know, you take this score and you present it
to the court, right, Like the language by which you
present this information and the way that you could shape
it or mold it to highlight certain things or to
you know, not highlight certain things is still up to
a human person that could have bias or motive for
one side or the other side. Because of the financial aspect,

(13:24):
like who's paying for the evaluation?

Speaker 3 (13:26):
Absolutely, and I think that custodial evaluators. It draws a
particular kind of psychologist, Like a girlfriend of mine is
a psychologist, and it is like, I wouldn't touch that
with a ten foot or oh, like who am I?
She says as a psychologist, we really shouldn't be predicting
the future like that, Like it's a slippery slope as
far as us saying that this is science to say

(13:47):
what's going to happen in four years and how someone's
going to parent, And then we have stories of people
that were found to be the better parent, and then
the children have been unlived or been you know, come
out when they get older and say yes, I was
in an abusive situation. And I do think One Mom's Battle,
which has a huge platform, I do wish the One

(14:08):
Mom's Battle and the Father's Rights movement would come together
because I do not think this is a gender issue.

Speaker 4 (14:12):
It is so not a gender issue.

Speaker 3 (14:15):
Family Court's getting it wrong more often than they're getting
it right. If they could unite, I think there could
be some movement because they both have large platforms. But
that being said, One Mom's Battle does have a movement
that children are coming, and that is so true. Family
Court has changed dramatically in the last ten to fifteen years,
and we're going to see twenty year olds that are
going to go to their gals and their foc and

(14:37):
going to say you met me once, you never met me,
Now you met my step mom never. You know what
I mean, like, how could you do this? And I
don't understand how these attorneys don't realize that is the
child is your client essentially. I mean, certainly with the
guardian at lightem But how in the world can you

(14:59):
ascertain paying the best interest of anything without having met
the person.

Speaker 4 (15:05):
Yeah, I mean I've told my story, you know, FOC
in my case did fifteen minutes of investigation, fifteen minutes
of total investigative work, and on a case that took
over a year.

Speaker 3 (15:17):
Ten page report.

Speaker 4 (15:18):
No, it was like three pages, four pages.

Speaker 3 (15:21):
See, some of ours will be ten page reports, but
it will it will be, you know, the same. I'd
like to run the copy to pay to see how
often they're using the same verbiage. Same with custodial evaluators,
because I think it's lucrative. And then to go back
to the financial component. If you incentivize chaos, it's going
to lead to chaos. If you incentivize conflict, it's going

(15:43):
to lead to fifteen.

Speaker 4 (15:44):
Hundred dollars for fifteen minutes.

Speaker 3 (15:46):
Yeah, and I'm sure it's checking emails, But why do
we have an attorney appointed for the child that's going
to just be checking emails that two lawyers are already
sending and not meeting with the school, not me being
with the doctor, not meeting with the child, not meeting
with the preschool teacher. You know, we just had a

(16:06):
custodial evaluator that did a lesson that said, we try
to limit the people we talk to, and we try
to not limit anyone that could potentially be biased. And
it's like, you mean a witness, right, yeah, I mean.

Speaker 1 (16:18):
This is al Yeah.

Speaker 3 (16:20):
So they will interview people like the pediatrician, which I
think is fine, but like you were talking about psychopaths
and sociopaths, they can present amazing and amazing.

Speaker 2 (16:30):
How often do you really see a pediatrician like not
that often?

Speaker 1 (16:34):
Like you need to be.

Speaker 2 (16:35):
You need to be interviewing people that this child has
close relationships with.

Speaker 4 (16:39):
And that's why, like an attorney isn't well versed enough
to understand the science of alienation, for example, to see
a child and to look at the child and be like, wow,
this is alienation or coercion.

Speaker 1 (16:52):
And that's what's so interesting.

Speaker 2 (16:53):
I think about this dynamic, you know, having both of
you here today and really the answer, right, So we've
got an attorney, we have a psychologist, you know, a
specific psychologist that you know studies human behavior.

Speaker 1 (17:06):
So what's the answer. Where does the reform happen?

Speaker 4 (17:11):
I personally think there needs to be jury trials and
they need to be speedy.

Speaker 3 (17:15):
I think jury trials would go a long way. I
think we have to start with the judges. I think
we need judicial accountability. And what I mean by that
is we have judges that want to be social media stars.
We have judges that are working part time. We have
judges that are delegating their judicial authority to g als
FOC's custodial evaluation and doing no work and doing little
to no work. I want people to know, when you

(17:35):
go in front of a judge, you should expect, especially
where I practice in Louisville, Kentucky, you should expect that
the judge has not read the motion that is before it.

Speaker 4 (17:44):
Oh, I know these judges are not reading the motions
because they scramble and then they continue it and then
it's another hearing where you pay your attorneys and you
show up to be well, let's check back in in
three months. Soa go take a online parenting course and
come back in three months, absolutely, which is going to

(18:05):
do nothing. And for somebody who has NPD or is
a psychopath or has BPD or has you know, some
of these personality disorders.

Speaker 1 (18:14):
What's that even presenting?

Speaker 2 (18:15):
I mean, obviously I see the problem that you're saying,
like the judge isn't really reading the motion, But I mean,
how how is this presenting the problems that the children
are facing?

Speaker 1 (18:26):
Like is it even no?

Speaker 3 (18:28):
Yeah, they are not putting the children first? How can
you make a determination on a child when you don't
know the allegations about the parents in the case. And
we talked, y'all talked a lot about due process. So
due process is notice and an opportunity to be heard.
I taught a high school class and I loved it.
I t had a law class and I was like, notice,

(18:49):
opportunity to be heard. But that second prong opportunity to
be heard is to present your case, to cross examine,
to have this done under oath. I mean, so much
of this is happening where they're not even testifying under oath.
I mean, it'll be an ex parte motion and X

(19:09):
partay ye Affidavid, And you know, I understand there are
situations that call for X parte communications and there are
horrific cases where children do need to be removed parents.
But going back to Meg, let's just think about this.
So why is it that there are so many high
asset divorces where children need to be removed? Right? Yep?

Speaker 4 (19:32):
When there's there tends to be millions of dollars at play.
Those are the ones where you know things are going
really wonky and we have to ask ourselves why. Because
they have the money to keep the cycle going. And
the bad players, the judges, the focs, they know this
and it's their livelihood and they want money, and the
judges want people to donate to their campaigns. And it

(19:54):
is an all vicious signs of scheme. In my opinion,
it's all big paramid scheme.

Speaker 3 (19:58):
And I want to be careful about what I say
for my judicial not judicial ethics, but my legal ethics.
But you know, I've been practicing. I'm being a license
raighter now for fifteen years. I have not taken a
case in probably two or three I have never had
a bar complant filed against me as a public defender
or as in private practice. And so I do think
the judges are really struggling with how to handle me.

(20:19):
But I do know that I'm under a microscope. I mean,
I'm getting some traction in Louisville, and so I'm waiting
for the moment that they try to file and say
I'm violating my ethics by telling the truth, which I mean,
bring it on, but I don't think. I also think
that the system is so similar to law enforcement, and
as a former public defender, I love most law enforcement

(20:40):
to be honest, like some of the people in eastern
Kentucky that I still talk to to this day, or
some of the former cops because we really developed a
good relationship in working on cases. That being said, there
are bad cops, no doubt, no doubt. And the problem
where we saw police reform was the cops that saw
bad behavior didn't report it. And we're in the same

(21:00):
boat with judges. We're in the same boat with the
family court system.

Speaker 1 (21:05):
They're afraid of the consequences.

Speaker 2 (21:07):
Yeah, and their cultural thing maybe that you know, without
getting too much into it, because we don't want to
get canceled, but you know, I mean there are some
cultural things that are happening I think just in our
world in general, that are causing maybe law enforcement and
judges to stay quiet and to stay silent.

Speaker 3 (21:22):
Well, it's protect your own And you know how I
really got my first TikTok that I made was because
of the TikTok judge we have in Louisville, Kentucky. And
I had left the practice because of her and a
plethora of other reasons. I mean, I just couldn't be
a part of the system anymore. And life is too short.
It wasn't fulfilling. I felt like I was doing more
harm by participating, you know, because these delays and then

(21:45):
the emotional component as an attorney that you're not providing
help to these people that are paying you so much money. Right,
But we had a judge that selfie recorded a domestic
violence hearing for TikTok fame, and I reported that I
saw it Super Bowl Sunday. I sent it to the judges.
I was like, y'all, surely this is enough. Surely, and

(22:08):
the media was local media was going to do a story.
And then one of the judges got it axed and
I was like, you know, if she can figure out TikTok,
I can too. Yeah, And so I thought it was
a Louisville problem. I mean, that's how naive I was.
While even a year ago, I was like, it's just
our Louisville judges and then all of a sudden, I
start getting messages from counting came out of the woodwork

(22:30):
overywhere it's the system.

Speaker 4 (22:34):
It's the system. And because I think the system has
been set up to have this immunity to protect the
bad players, they're essentially running around with free rein with
people's the most precious things in people's lives, their children
and when their hands.

Speaker 3 (22:50):
We need judicial accountability, they need to work full time.
We need to know who's donating to their campaign. There
is zero reason that attorneys should be donating it. And
I'm going to turn either did I mean, I'll be
brutally honest. I've donated to campaigns, I've held fundraisers for people,
and I think about it now, Oh my goodness, if
I were going through the system, how would you feel

(23:12):
about that?

Speaker 4 (23:13):
You know, because you know my husband, you know, he's
been through two divorces and of course my divorce and
custody battle, and you know, getting small town is a
real thing too, that's a rough thing, and it's happened
over and over again, and it's one of those things
where it's like, oh maybe, like say we're in Lexington,
but the case is in the next county over right,

(23:36):
And so you know, you come in with your Lexington
attorney and they come in with their small town attorney
who's then BFFs with the foc and rubbing elbows and
chucking and yucking it up and there in the court
and you're sitting there like, oh my god, I'm screwed.

Speaker 3 (23:51):
Yep, we caught home cooked. Yeah, it's like you you
don't get home cooked.

Speaker 1 (23:54):
Yeah, I got home cooked, not in the good way.

Speaker 3 (23:57):
And I was right, well, I mean, I'm from Louis
Vagret Mole County, but I was raised legally in eastern Kentucky.
And so I remember one time I went to Harden
County or Bullet County and they were like, I was like,
y'all don't know the first thing about home cooking. Somebody,
I'll give you the number of an Eastern Kentucky prosecutor.
He'll teach you. But it's so true, I mean, and
it's a small network of people and a lot of attorneys.

(24:19):
Like when I was practicing, I didn't see a lot
of this because I was able to choose my clients
and if I ever had and I mean, I am
not going to be the attorney that says I didn't
I always only represented innocent people, okay, because that's a radical,
insane thing to think as an attorney. But I wouldn't.
There were certain things that I was just no, no, no,
you know what I mean. I'm not going to file

(24:39):
emotion about a half hour because that's just silly. We're
wasting money, you know. Or I would tell my clients like,
if you want to redo my kitchen, it needs it,
but put this in a five twenty nine account for
your kid, right you need, or stop the bleeding. If
you're in family court you've already lost. Stopped the bleeding.
And to back up as far as like Meg's story.

Speaker 4 (25:00):
If.

Speaker 3 (25:02):
It's unbelievable and you go in thinking, Okay, I'm going
to go to the judge, I'm going to go to
my lawyer. I'm going to tell the truth, and that's
going to be that it's going to work out. It's
going to be hard, and I'm really scared to tell
the truth. And this is the hardest thing I've ever
done because I never talked about the domestic balance that happened,
or I never talked about what was going on behind
closed doors, and so you go and you have that

(25:22):
moment and the attorney's like, the judge's going to give
fifty to fifty, and the judge is like, well, well
calm down, ma'am. Whoa. We're in a court of what
ma'am ma'am Like the way they speak to people or sir, sir, whoa, sir,
bailiff sir, and you are just being gas lit. Time's
ten after trying to share.

Speaker 4 (25:42):
Your story, and one of the things that they say
is like, don't show any emotion. Don't you dare show
any emotion. Don't you dare? You know? And you're just like,
this is the most emotional thing I've ever been through
in my life, breaking on there, and you're expecting me
to sit here like a statue against this man who
you know, in my case, has assaulted me, has burned
things in my driveway, has drove my kids drunk, kidnapped

(26:05):
one of my children for days on end, where I
didn't know where my one and a half year old
child was. Oh my goodness, and I could get no help,
no help.

Speaker 1 (26:15):
Yeah, And you're not allowed to show any emotions.

Speaker 4 (26:16):
And I'm not good. Don't show any emotion because you'll
come off as the unstable one. Right, that's what That's
what they'll think about you.

Speaker 3 (26:23):
And there is no training for judges as far as
I know, for understanding this emotional component. And also in Kentucky,
you there's no requirement that you have to have ever
practiced family law to be a family law attorney. There's
no requirement. How many prosecutors do we have that are
on the bench. Prosecutors have never had a client right,

(26:44):
I mean they have no idea how to do client management.
They have no understanding of you know, no one ever
called me because they were having a good day. No
one's like Christine, life is going good. Can I give
you three hundred dollars an hour to sit here and
have this conversation. They are going through the first time
in their life. They're paying an obscene amount of money
for it, and then they're being told that they're a

(27:06):
little child and to sit and stay and behave, and
then they're not getting the outcome they want and it's
being delayed, delayed, delayed, I think.

Speaker 4 (27:12):
Delayed, delayed, delayed, learned.

Speaker 3 (27:15):
Yes, the inconsistencies in the delays are a problem. And
so I have started. I've got a partner, he's a
former family law attorney that was like, I'm out, I'm out,
and there's a lot of us. But we are starting
a judge which is judge dot Oh sorry, can.

Speaker 4 (27:30):
You even have it on your shirt?

Speaker 3 (27:32):
Sweat shirt but judge so judge dash wiy dot com.
And what we want to do. We're going to take
the first eight weeks or so. We want people to
email and call and tell us your story so we
know where to look. Because what's interesting about this and
from the illegal perspective, is I'm so interested in patterns

(27:53):
and so you see the same thing over and over.
It's the same play, different actors, and these judges will
rule a certain kind of way. And so it's so
important that when people go in the process, if you
draw Judge Brown, which that's the TikTok judge, you need
to know what you're dealing with. So we want to
have the availability for you to be able to look

(28:14):
at orders from her every time she's been turned over
by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court watch
video of her. We want court watchers. You know, people
love to watch the murder trials or the Karen Reids.
Y'all need to be watching family court.

Speaker 4 (28:29):
Oh my gosh, it's insane. And they talk, These judges
talk to you like dogs.

Speaker 3 (28:36):
It would shock people. I mean, I've seen a family
court judge basically throw something. We have a judge right
now in Louisville that he is so sarcastic, so demeaning,
and the profession draws a lot of people that probably
haven't had power before.

Speaker 4 (28:58):
There's a lot of things to people, a lot of
bad things to people.

Speaker 3 (29:01):
And he thinks, you know, I don't know that he's
thought it through, but he thinks, you know, the best
best I can surmise is that if he just yells
at somebody, then they'll just oh, okay, I'll be a
good parent, or oh okay, I'll stop doing that. And
if that were possible, why don't you just, you know,
yell for world peace and have world peace happen.

Speaker 4 (29:20):
It's just it's it's silly.

Speaker 3 (29:23):
Yeah, And they'll talk to you like you are the
dumbest person they've ever met. The way that judges speak
to attorneys in family course is shocking.

Speaker 4 (29:33):
Yes to me, yes, it is shocking.

Speaker 2 (29:35):
I want to know more about judge, you though, so
like walk our listeners through it so they can go
to the website is it is it active?

Speaker 3 (29:42):
It will be active on Monday, so probably by the
time this.

Speaker 4 (29:44):
Okay, awesome ye.

Speaker 2 (29:46):
Will be active, so they can go to the website
and then just kind of walk them through the process
in terms of what they'll find there.

Speaker 3 (29:52):
So right now, and I've been in this space for
about a year, and so when I first started the
family Court reform again, I thought it was just Louisville,
and then I've kind of blown up, you know, in
all different places, and there's a lot of movement even globally.
But we are looking to collect stories to see where
we should go. We're starting in Louisville, but we want
to hear all of your stories because Judge is essentially

(30:14):
going to you know, watch the judges and judge them
like they're judging people, and we really want to call
out the good judges. So if you were there doing
your job, I actually had the opportunity to read, not
in its entirety, but Meg's initial decree, which was out
of was a Missouri or Kansas initially.

Speaker 1 (30:31):
Both, right, she had two jurisdic.

Speaker 3 (30:33):
Missouri was the first one, very well written decree and
you know, I know nothing about this judge but reading it,
you're like, Okay, we've touched every base. And so there
are judges out there, and I know them that have
gone home crying about cases, that have gone home sick
about what they see every day, and so, you know,
judicial accountability. It could come off as so negative, but

(30:55):
really we want to showcase the good judges. We want
to showcase the ones are doing their job, you know,
and not trying to be social media stars.

Speaker 2 (31:03):
Right, So let me ask you this because you know
I'm kind of, you know, not smart when it comes
to all this stuff. But they can you pick which
judge you get in family court? I mean, if there
are multiple judges in a county.

Speaker 3 (31:18):
So in Louisville, how we do it? There are ten
and they used to be assigned by last name, which
was a mess because then you would know it was
by mother's last name, or in same sex marriage, it
would be petitioner's last name and you would know. And
so then if you drew, like a division seven, the
retainer would be double, or if you drew you know,
division four, you might be like, okay, it's going to
be okay today. But now they do random assignment, which

(31:41):
complicates things too. And so you have the delays. But
another problem is the inconsistencies. You know, ten judges in
Louisville will rule very differently on the same fact pattern,
very differently. You might have a situation with abuse allegations
that are very similar across the board, and one judge
will do equal parenting, one judge you'll do supervised visit.
One judge will order a custodial evaluation. And so when

(32:03):
you start talking about this equal protection under the law,
you know, it's problematic to have the same fact pattern
and get dramatically different results, right, Which just.

Speaker 4 (32:13):
Goes to show you that these standards or guidelines that
are for the best interests of the child, you know,
the best interest standards, they obviously can be wildly like
interpreted in wildly different ways.

Speaker 3 (32:27):
Yes, and like to go back to your point of
a jury trial, and that is what protects the criminal system. Yes,
and you know we need checks and balances. Absolute power
corrupts absolutely. These judges operate with little to no accountability.
In my opinion, the Court of Appeals in Supreme Court
don't really have an understanding of family court because most
of them never practiced it. I do think we're seeing

(32:49):
a lot more Court of Appeals opinions come down on
family court though, where they have just they are like, y'all,
what are you doing. I mean the baby case that
I posted on where the judge removed an impent from
dad in open court when mom mom wanted to give
the baby up for adoption and the dad filed, which

(33:13):
is like unheard of and notified all the adoption agencies, like, listen,
if she wants to give the baby up for adoption,
I want the baby. So he got the baby seventeen
minutes after the baby was born, and they did an
agreed order before, and they did an agreed order after
that Dad would have sole custody. He wasn't seeking any
sort of child support. And then there was an issue

(33:35):
with his mom, he you know, and so his mom
got back with the mother and they went to court.
And it's evident, in my opinion, the judge hasn't read
the file and they have a hearing that was canceled,
talk about due process, and she orders him to return
to the next week and hands the baby over an
open court.

Speaker 4 (33:55):
That's that's nice.

Speaker 2 (33:57):
See a great example of this not being gender specific
happened to me into.

Speaker 3 (34:01):
Yeah, absolutely, yeah, And the Court of Appeals issued rich
and essentially that is extraordinary relief, saying they issued an
emergency order as well returning the child, which quite frankly,
I don't think I've ever seen because they were just like,
this was a gross miscarriage of justice. And so I'm optimistic.
I still, to some degree, want to believe in the system,

(34:22):
you know, I want to believe that the pendulum has
just swung too far one way and it will correct.
I'm not optimistic. I know y'all want hope on this,
but I'm not optimistic until we have a dramatic shift
in how we view stories that happen out of family
court and how we elect judges and how we hold

(34:44):
judges accountable.

Speaker 4 (34:45):
Yeah, one of the things that just bothers me so
much about family court is that there is just no
accountability around perjury. So, you know, in my experiences in
family court, someone can literally just say whatever they want.
And if you're one of those people that's like, no,
I'm an honest person, I'm only going to tell the truth,

(35:06):
and you know, I'm just my morality is like I
couldn't under oath say something that wasn't true. But yet
there are so many people that don't have that morality,
and so they're just gonna say whatever they want. And
there's no penalty for perjury, so if you're caught lying,
it's like, oh, well that's at least in my audienists

(35:29):
that's yeah, you know, well.

Speaker 3 (35:30):
It's so problematic. Also, we have lawyers in there, so right,
I'm a good writer, so if you tell me a story,
I can write it down in a way that's going
to be the most persuasive, and that's who's writing the
affidavits a lot of times. Also, we have this notion
for judges, and I've talked to so many like therapists
about this that think people there's no way someone would
say something this crazy if there wasn't a nugget of

(35:53):
truth in it. And while that can be true on
one side, on the same on the flip side of
the coin, I guess people make stuff.

Speaker 4 (36:01):
Obviously they don't understand mental illness, personality disorder.

Speaker 3 (36:05):
But that person is the nicest person I've ever seen.
And you know, as an attorney you can see your
client sometimes, you know, I mean, especially you said on
the last podcast you've never seen a psychopath. I think
I have twice when I was practicing criminal But I still, like,
right now, the hair on my arms are standing up,
like I could feel it.

Speaker 2 (36:23):
With everything, I think I've seen a psychopath. I mean,
I was a victim's advocate for three years and so
in Harlan, So I definitely think I saw one psychopath,
like a true psychopath. It was a murder case and
like it was, it would make the hair on your
arms stand up for sure.

Speaker 3 (36:42):
And I just don't think though people realize that there
are so many you don't want to say bad people,
but honestly, to some degree, I do feel like I'm
one of those people that's like I'm not going to
lie under oath or I'm not going to go to
that level because it's wrong. Like there's right and wrong,
and some people don't have a wrong parameter.

Speaker 4 (37:01):
Yeah, they don't have that moral compass and when they'll
do whatever they have to do to see the person
that they want to suffer suffer.

Speaker 2 (37:07):
And I think too, when specific people are being influenced
by not wanting to lose their money, you know, they'll
say and do whatever right. Like you know, I think
that maybe in Meg's case that was a big variable,
you know, her her ex husband didn't want to lose money,
and so he was willing to do whatever it took

(37:28):
to not have to pay.

Speaker 3 (37:30):
And you see that a lot. I think the Denver
gazett is doing a lot of great reporting. Another side
of this that Judgy kind of wants to take on
is just some investigative journalism, because I don't think we
have that anymore. Yeah, I mean in this country as
a whole to some degree. But family court is so
hard to report on because it's nuanced, it's not clickbait,

(37:50):
it's not oh my goodness, the judge issued a zero
bond on a SA case. It is complicated. You have
to read through everything, you have to have the understanding
that people lot or you know. It requires work. But
the Denver Gazette is doing great work out of that.
And there was that case where family court took mom's

(38:10):
kids away because of essay allegations against stepdad. Criminal court
gets involved and they're like, this didn't have this was fabricated.
But the gl it came out that the gl did
very wealthy family. We're talking multimillion millions of dollars. Gl
was flown out to Hawaii to visit the kids while
the kids were with Dad had built over one hundred

(38:33):
thousand dollars and was like there were text messages of
like the gl snork like where's the snorkeling gear? But
Mom sued in civil court for defamation twenty one million
dollar verdict which goes back to year. Yes, that goes
back to jury trials. The jury saw it.

Speaker 4 (38:51):
Yeah, the jury. That's what I'm saying. Due process, it
should involve a jury of our peers, right, I mean
it should.

Speaker 3 (38:58):
I mean I think due process legally speaking, doesn't necessarily
encompass a jury trial, because you can get evicted without
a jury. Yeah so, But and I don't necessarily know
that if you file emotion to you know, modify the
parenting schedule, that should be a jury trial situation. But
when you have these determinations, you have a three year
divorce with custody. Yeah, Texas does it, and it works

(39:21):
better in Texas than it does here. Now they have
some weird laws on the book still there in Texas. Well.

Speaker 4 (39:26):
I mean, it's just we have to have something that
makes people accountable for perjuring themselves as well. You know
what I'm saying, there's no accountability in family court. I
feel like if you're in criminal court and you go
perjure yourself and then it comes back that you were lying,
you know there could be some repercussions for that, right
where you lied under oath and suade a jury a

(39:47):
certain way because you lied. Yeah, it's not that way
in family court.

Speaker 3 (39:51):
But there are just consequences in criminal court, even if
it's not getting prosecuted. It's that the jury won't believe you,
or that the judge won't believe you if you're in
that situation. But we don't have that. On the flip side,
the defense is, well, you know it's their kids, or
we want to move on. We want to move on,
We want to move on, and you can't just brush

(40:11):
everything under. I don't know that I'm a component in
more criminalization because I quite frankly, I think the system
is such a mess that if we have more hearings
on this, but you're right, there should be consequences.

Speaker 4 (40:23):
There are none.

Speaker 3 (40:25):
Yes, And I don't want to go on record saying
it's encouraged to lie in court. But if someone were
to ask me what will happen if I lie in court?
The answer is probably nothing. I mean, you should never
do it. As an officer of the court, obviously tell
the truth. But I've seen people lie and then you
have people that finally do get their kids or the

(40:47):
process ends after three years and they go into I
never want to talk about it again. I can't open
that wound. And I am curious for the kid's perspective,
Like how much like y'all talked a little bit about
the damage of children, but that abandonment component for these
kids that are it's just they're an object in high

(41:09):
conflict cases and we're just pulling kids out of families
left and right.

Speaker 4 (41:13):
And what I don't understand is how do they get
it wrong in both instances where it's like, Okay, maybe
there is a very dangerous parent, like in my custody situation,
a father driving their kids drunk. A father that you
know is physically abusing mom, emotionally abusing mom, verbally abusing
mom in front of the children during exchanges, keyed my car,

(41:33):
lit things on fire, you know, in my driveway. My
oldest daughter wouldn't go with him for an exchange because
he was drunk and she could tell he was drunk.
But he picked up my one and a half year
old out of my arms, basically tossed her in the
back of this truck and pushed me away as I'm
trying to claw my way in the truck to stop it,
and then took off. No help from police. They wouldn't

(41:55):
even file a report because it was quote his parenting time.
But I'm like, he was drunk, and they're like, well,
we can't prove that, so no help, no help from CPS.
Everything's always unsubstantiated, you know. And then yet I've also
been involved in a case where the parent, you know,
shouldn't have had their child taken and did have their

(42:17):
child taken. Yeah, right, So it was like so many
times I've seen it, just it's always wrong, Like how
do they always get it wrong?

Speaker 2 (42:24):
Why?

Speaker 3 (42:24):
Christine tell us the common denominator though in those cases
are probably a person is a person with a personality disorder. Yeah,
they're involved in all of them. And so family court
is a playground for narcissist. Family court is a playground
for narcissist. It's like, oh, it doesn't work if I
go to CPS, so I'll go to the guardian at lightem.

(42:46):
That didn't work. I want a friend of the court.
That didn't work. I want a custodial evaluation that didn't work.
I want a parenting coordinator that didn't work. I've got
a therapist, and I can pay this therapist because this
therapist is so good and all of the things and
doesn't take our insurance, so somehow the other party doesn't
get notified of it. And you've got fifteen sessions and
everybody you're just feeding, feeding, feeding that little narrative, and

(43:09):
then you may have lost, you may have been unable
to commit seven people. But then now you've got this therapist.
It's like, oh my goodness.

Speaker 4 (43:16):
And they're going to write this report that just blows
everything up, because.

Speaker 3 (43:19):
All it takes is one right. It takes one of
these quarter pointed actors to say, oh my goodness, and
then all of a sudden the custody flip, and then
to go back to law enforcement a little bit. Law
enforcement are trained and it is it's civil right.

Speaker 4 (43:33):
Right, civil I can't we can't get involved.

Speaker 3 (43:35):
Which they can't just because it's civil. So you don't
want from the liability standpoint of law enforcement, they're just like, WHOA,
you're in family court. Let family court deal with it.
But we have too many chefs in the kitchen and
family court and no one's in charge.

Speaker 4 (43:49):
Yeah, nobody's in charge. I mean I remember the time
where my husband was ex husband was following me around
my daughter's softball game and just intimidating me and threatening
me and just I mean drunk. I could smell it
on him that he was drunk. And then he went
and he keyed my car out in the parking lot,
and then you know, of course I called the police
and then I said, please breathalyze him. I said, if

(44:09):
you breathlese him right now, you will see that he
is highly under the influence. And my kid it's his
time sharing. I'm gonna have to release my kids to
him in a vehicle. Breathalyze the police and they were
like no, they were like, we don't have probable cause,
Like we can't just go breathalyze him.

Speaker 3 (44:22):
And there's a different high functioning alcoholics, and I don't know, but.

Speaker 4 (44:25):
He was very high functioning, very high functioning.

Speaker 3 (44:27):
You only know if you know the person, right, you
know what I mean. There are those tales and it's like,
you know, I don't know what the answer is other
than to bring awareness first, because and one thing I
do want to touch on and I hear this so
much is oh my gosh, if that happened to me,
I'd be in jail, and or if that happened to me,

(44:48):
I would be this And I wanted I want people
to think about it like, well, if he ever hit me,
I'd leave because we all think that, right, and then
it happens. And so these pe people that have been
traumatized by family court, like I see a lot of
they'll be like, oh my gosh, well, how did that
person go on vacation? Well what are they supposed to do?

(45:09):
Sit at home for eighteen months? Right and cry? Right?
You know, So we have to normalize the fact that
we I think, as human beings, we do not want
to admit bad things can happen. So therefore we kind
of say like we don't understand them or they're unbelievable.
But so many people that go through family court that
are fighting, they they get like, oh, there has to

(45:32):
be more to it because they're not dead, and it's
like it's the same as people not leaving with domestic balance.
Human beings will survirath.

Speaker 4 (45:40):
Yeah, yeah, I mean I get it.

Speaker 3 (45:41):
I know.

Speaker 4 (45:41):
You know, we said about Meg's case because we can't
imagine what it would really be like to actually be
in that situation. I mean, I remember a situation where
my ex had passed out and my you know, it
was court ordered that my eight year old daughter at
the time have a phone so that, you know, if
he passed out or something happened, that she could call me. Well,
she called me. She texted me, Mom, I can't wake

(46:02):
up dad. I can't wake up dad. And my two
year old other little child almost too not even quite two,
is running around there. There's only fruit snacks in the pantry.
There's nothing, no other food there. They can't wake them up.
We had a no contact order at this time, so
I can't just go over there and get my kids,
so I have to call police. Well, he woke up
right before the police got there, locked all the doors,
closed off, closed, you know, all the curtains, turned off,

(46:25):
all the lights, hid them in a closet, and avoided
police for four hours and CPS marked it all unsubstantiated,
even though they had all the text for my daughter. Interviewed.
My daughter, daughter told them this what had happened. The
police had been there, you know, and I couldn't get
to my I couldn't get to my child, and of course,
you know, yeah, the trauma. I mean, my daughter has
been in years of therapy and luckily she is a

(46:47):
healthy and happy and thriving young girl. I mean, the
therapy has been incredibly beneficial to her and she she's
never really had any major problems, thank goodness. But it's
it was something that she lives with, right, Like I
remember that night that I couldn't wake my dad up.

Speaker 3 (47:03):
And she never should have had to gone through that, obviously.
And it's not as though though there wasn't a government entity.

Speaker 4 (47:10):
But there was a judge cared because CPS said it
was unsubstantiated, and so I looked like the bully.

Speaker 3 (47:15):
Well, I wonder if you were to sit down with
that judge now what they would say after he I.

Speaker 4 (47:19):
Would love to sit down with her. I would her
to sit down with her and look her face to
face and say, do you know that because you didn't
follow your own local rules that and you gave an
exception and after exception after exception, that this is what happened.
And I'm not blaming her for his death. He he

(47:41):
you know, did the drugs and did the alcohol. But
could I have maybe gotten testing that maybe could have
sent him into rehab again, or could have done something.

Speaker 3 (47:52):
Family courts failing, and that's what it's failing, over and over.
If I had one success story, and I do have
success stories from criminal cos you have people that got
caught up in the system. And like I had someone
on my TikTok yesterday. It was like, Hey, it's Amanda,
and she was like, I've been sober eight years, I've
paid my house off. And I mean when I was practiced,
Amanda was in and out of jail for a year

(48:14):
and she got sober. She was so sweet, you know.
But that was at the height of the drug epidemic
in eastern Kentucky. But there are success stories after success
stories in criminal court, sure, And I don't know that
I can go back in my decade in family law
and really be like, oh my god, the system made
anything better, which should terrify people. And I talked to

(48:34):
a lot there's a lot of US lawyers out there
that know it's not working. It's a very small group
of people that are these focs and gails because a
lot of people wouldn't touch that with a ten foot poll,
you know what I mean. That's not I didn't become
a lawyer to write a report and not meet anybody, right,
you know what I mean, Like that's just a kind
of you know, to each their own, But that's a

(48:55):
bizarro pathway for a lawyer to go and or custodio
of I Like, they're not healthy anybody, They're just like.

Speaker 4 (49:03):
Right, psychologists don't make that much money like without doing that.
So I'm assuming clinical psychologists that are even if they
don't take insurance, they're not making anywhere near that amount
of money. So it probably seems like a very lucrative avenue,
you know, if they have the moral compass to actually
do it right. But I'm not saying that they all do.

(49:25):
I mean, I'm not gonna lie. There are so many
weirdos in my profession, so many weird people, so many
weird people. And I am a social psychologist. I'm not
a clinical psychologist. But you know, of course I ran
a clinical psychology program. I trained alongside clinical psychologists. You
want to talk about weird people, there's some really freaking
weird people. Yeah, and they're making decisions about people there

(49:50):
of themselves. There's something up right, And you have.

Speaker 3 (49:53):
This family court has created an avenue for psychologists and
lawyers to kind to flip roles, like lawyers think they're
psychologists and psychologists think they're lawyers.

Speaker 4 (50:04):
Right, like they're you know, just like what I was
telling you about the FOC and this clear case of alienation,
and they were like, hmm, I'm puzzled why a child
would say this in front of mom and then get
in a forensic interview and say, uh, well, I just
had to say it to make mom happy. But I
don't know how that happened. That's just weird, hmm. I

(50:24):
guess there was just a little miscommunication. I mean literally,
that's what the determination was. And it's like, no, if
a child is saying some very exaggerated claim and then
goes in and says, well, I had to say it
to make my mom happy, that should raise a red
flag around alienation.

Speaker 3 (50:40):
You know. And I don't know the specifics of your case,
but I almost don't want to give difference because we
have Google. I mean, you can google and what that is.
And also if that's what you find, you shouldn't be
an FFOC ever, again, like it doesn't mean you're.

Speaker 4 (50:55):
A bad person per se, Like it's just ignorance.

Speaker 3 (50:58):
Well yeah, it's like, I'm a good person, but do
you want me changing your break lines? Like I know
my best shock, I watch you?

Speaker 4 (51:06):
And so why is a judge allowed to appoint an
attorney that is making a decision on whether alienation is
happening or not?

Speaker 3 (51:13):
And that was a Supreme Court case and then now
it's in our family court rules. And I do think
the judges realize, like during COVID, that they could do
all of these appointments, Like I went to court for
the first time and like maybe a year, year and
a half in person just to watch because then I'm
gonna start doing that more frequently. But it was shocking
to me how bad it has gotten even in the
last two years. But there are so many cases that

(51:35):
there will be an gal and an FOC and two lawyers.
So you're like, let's just step back for a second
and just like ask a kindergartener this, like should there
be four lawyers involved in a divorce where you work
at ups?

Speaker 4 (51:49):
Sen or you're a teacher, you know right now and
then you're you're gonna go bankrupt.

Speaker 3 (51:53):
We are bankrupting families, we are taking away children's education,
We're traumatizing children. It's like, and I don't I struggle
with the notion because I don't believe that everyone's bad.
But I do think the road to hell is paved
with good intentions and there are a lot of well
intentioned people that believe what they are doing is for
a better cause. And it's really hard when you're in

(52:14):
a system because the incremental changes happen over time, and
you know, it's just it's the way we've always done everything,
or it's the way we do things, or you know,
we have the same yale that gets appealed every single time.

Speaker 2 (52:29):
So a nice person, right, So I want to know,
besides bringing awareness to it, which I think is huge
in terms of the law itself, where does the reform begin?

Speaker 1 (52:39):
Where do you start?

Speaker 3 (52:41):
And it's hard. I studied under Justice Scalia in law
school and separation of powers course in Ireland. If you're
familiar with Scalia, he was known for his descent. So
I'm like twenty two sitting in Ireland studying abroad, like
reading forty seven page descents. You know, but he was
an extraordinary human being. But we do have separation of power,
so the judiciary supposed to protect itself and it's supposed

(53:02):
to people that our judges are supposed to have reverence
for the bench. And some of the old judges they
were they were so amazing, Like if you'd see them
in public, Hay judge. You know these judges now I
call them by their first name. It's like no. But
I think we need to have some of the laws
need to change. As far as the FOC's, I'm very concerned,

(53:23):
Like in California they allow taxpayer focs and gal's essentially
minors council, which right. They also do not have cameras
in courtrooms. So I think a task force, if the
legislative measure, would go a long way. I want judges
to have time sheets. You've lost your privilege. You got
to be at the courthouse by nine and you can't

(53:44):
leave till five. Bummer, You're on the taxpayer dollar.

Speaker 1 (53:47):
You know, right exactly you signed up for this.

Speaker 4 (53:50):
And it is so apparent in both of my cases
that these judges just didn't know what was going on.
I know, you haven't read this. You're flipping through it
act and scrambling and then continuing it, yeah, and delaying it.

Speaker 3 (54:06):
They're so unprepared. It's shocking, and I really think with
Judge just getting this information out there. I'm working with
Susan Bassie. If you don't follow her too out of California,
she does. She's not a big TikToker, but she does
true investigative journalism. But when she posted the baby case
that I did, she had people call her to be like,
thank god I didn't go to family court.

Speaker 4 (54:27):
You were right.

Speaker 3 (54:28):
And I had a good friend of mine that was
contemplating divorce about a year ago, and you know, beautiful children,
and there was a pit in my stomach and I
was just like, they're going to take away your kids' education.
Like I know what's going to happen. They're both good parents,
you know they have issues, but love their kids, equal parenting,
Split the assets according to income. You're paying a little

(54:50):
bit of maintenance and move on. But attorneys will bill
fifty sixty thousand dollars for that, which.

Speaker 4 (54:57):
Is the girls both right. I spent my entire retirement
on my custody battle. My entire everything that I had
banked away from in retirement since the moment I started
working was gone. I drained my entire retirement and this
recent court battle not to say whether it was family
quart or not. Cost fifty thousand dollars that stemmed from

(55:20):
a heinous false allegation against my child that never happened.
That there was not one shred of evidence or proofs
that had happened. And thank god, everybody that was in
the investigation with my daughter saw immediately like this is
so bogus, right, Like this didn't happen. The supposed victim

(55:41):
said it didn't happen. We had camera evidence that it
didn't happen. The story changed so many times that it
was clear that there was a lack of consistency in
the allegation. I mean, there was everything on our side.
So at least my daughter was very protected because the
police didn't even open a case. They're like, there's no
we can't open a case because there's no evidence, there's
no crime. The victim is even saying there's no crime.

(56:03):
And so we see that a little. But in terms
of the follow up of Okay, well what do we
do about this false allegation and like the maliciousness behind it,
there's nothing you can do, and that the diner tried,
but there's like not much you can do about that.

Speaker 3 (56:20):
Yeah, And then but then you're talking about being in
another lawsuit. But that Denver case when the jury heard it,
came back twenty one million dollars for defamation and other
civil actions. Oh get that that mom still did not
have her children right like literally there was still a
custodial evaluator that said she shouldn't be and so crazy.

Speaker 4 (56:39):
Yeah, so one court of found the truth and in
family course.

Speaker 2 (56:42):
Well, and no amount of money is worth not having
your children.

Speaker 4 (56:47):
So I would sell everything I owned, yes, yeah, and
they I would do with Meg. And Meg's still sitting
here because we just recorded her beforehand, and so she's
she's getting to watch this episode. But I would probably
do exactly what she's doing. I would quit my job.
I would learn the.

Speaker 1 (57:02):
Lots everything I possibly could.

Speaker 4 (57:03):
I would sue that, excuse my language, the fuck out
of everybody that I could possibly sue in order to
get my kids back, and I would not I would
be on a rampage and I would not stop until
my kids were back in my arms again.

Speaker 3 (57:13):
Oh, I mean the pro say movement. I have pro
say litigants that follow me that that becomes their sole life,
as it would like, and they will email me legal
arguments and like, I have a group of lawyers that
like I should. They're like their team Christine, but they
still practice, you know, so I'll be like this pro
say litigant had this argument, and I'm like, I love it,
you know what I mean, because you take someone's kids
and that will be their sole factor. And it's like

(57:36):
with the criminal system, at least there's finality. Even if
you have to go to prison for eight years. It's like,
I'm going to do my time, I'm gonna get better,
I'll be able to see my kids. But there is
no reprieve from family court. And I got divorced, I
mean we didn't have children, think goodness, and we resolved everything.
But I remember I was a divorce attorney at the time,
and I remember being like, that's a person that knows
everything about it, right, you.

Speaker 4 (57:57):
Know everything about you, and they can use that to.

Speaker 3 (58:02):
And they can lie, yeah, and torture, and so you're
like I would get an email from my lawyer and
it would be that heightened oh my gosh, and I
knew the answer, but it's that whatever Psychologically that.

Speaker 4 (58:14):
A rush shight or flight response.

Speaker 3 (58:16):
Where you're just like, oh, I want to hurt somebody
or how is this happening? And so I do think
the system. I think, first off, if we have judges
that work full time, it will help if they read motions,
if they know they can't do worse than what they're doing.
I do think we need some component of AI. Now
I'm super hesitant about some of that, but I do

(58:36):
think if we could compare these orders, we'll be able
to see clearly how across the board it is. Also,
if we have time, let's touch on those gag orders,
because that's got to stop.

Speaker 4 (58:48):
You know, the very first thing I signed in my
custody order was like, you can't say anything about this
on social media, in print, anywhere, or I will drop
you as a client.

Speaker 3 (58:58):
Well, there are two issues there right. One The first
is an attorney saying that is very bizarre to me.
So the attorney client privilege is held by the client. Okay,
I don't own that privilege. The only person that can
tell me that they can waive that and it survives death.
The only person that can wave that is the client.
So if a client wants to put every email that

(59:20):
I ever sent them on Reddit and talk bad about me,
well one, I don't care. But two there's nothing I
would ever do about that. Like, then there's nothing that
would prevent them from being able to do it. It's
their privilege. I'm the professional. There is a dramatic power imbalance.
Attorneys have so much power and people that have never
practiced outside of family law don't realize the power that

(59:40):
we have when it comes to family law clients. Like
if I were to tell a client, you'll get your
kid back if you go run down the street naked,
they do it. I mean they listen to everything I say.
And coming from the criminal world, it was so shocking
to me because in the family world, they're asking you
all of these questions and it's like, I'm a lawyer.
I have no idea where you should go to daycare,

(01:00:03):
you know. I mean, I'm twenty nine years old. I
don't even have a child, like and so. But that
in my is red flag, Like I don't like that,
especially because lawyers are constantly asking for Google reviews. In
this world, a lot of lawyers are trying to be
social media influencers. But that hurts my belly. But two,
the bigger issue is the judges doing these gag orders.

(01:00:25):
Gag orders the purpose of a gag order is to
protect the outcome of the case. And what I mean
by that is, if you're going to go to jury trial,
you want to untainted jury pool. So that's why we
have gag orders. Okay, whoa OJ Simpson, y'all can't talk
about this because it could tain a potential juror or
Karen Reed, y'all can't talk about it. They're scarcely used.

(01:00:47):
I still do feel that they're problematic from a First Amendment,
but I understand the point because impartial, fair juris that's
the foundation of the United States of America. But where
the judge is the trier of fact, the finder of fact,
what why are they trying to gag you outside of
that courtroom? Because one, they should never hear a single

(01:01:08):
thing that's happening outside of that courtroom because it's ex
partey and two they're the ones making the decision. They,
in my opinion, are insane. I have seen some I
saw a gag order once Judge Christine Ward out of Louisville,
Kentucky ordered a mom to not post anything pertaining to

(01:01:29):
her minor child. Now, as a lawyer, I'm like, well,
what if she put a picture up there while she
was pregnant. That's pertaining to your minor child. That is
so broad, so encompassing. What if and I know nothing
about this case other than like the order, but I
don't know the parties. I just stumbled across it during

(01:01:49):
my research. But what if the mom was friends with
the child on Facebook or saw the mom's Facebook and
saw mom to lead all the pictures of her? What's
that going to do to right? So in what world
is that in the best interest? And also, judge, what's
trying to hide?

Speaker 4 (01:02:04):
You know, I think that's some part of what's going
on here. No, we don't want you talking about this
case on social media or you know, like in Meg's case,
having a private Facebook support group that's a private group
where she's talking about what's been happening to her. Yeah,
because they don't want to be exposed.

Speaker 1 (01:02:21):
They're being exposed.

Speaker 3 (01:02:22):
And it's so bizarre that they don't want criticism. I mean,
I don't love criticism, don't get it wrong. But at
the same time you signed You didn't just sign up
to be a judge. You fought for it. You ran
a lot of times these judges are spending one hundred
thousand dollars for a campaign where they're going to make
one hundred and sixty, which is bizarre to me, you know.

(01:02:45):
And I think that's another thing Judge's going to look
at as as far as why are there people who
have millions of dollars and spend hundreds of thousands of
dollars to get a job that pays that that is
a desire for power.

Speaker 4 (01:02:58):
Yeah, it's a desire for power. There's no weather explanation
behind it, unless you know, you're just someone that wants to,
you know, change the world so much. But has a
family court judge, I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:03:10):
And I do think we have good There are good
family court judges in the world, you know, But I do,
you know, But well, I struggle with it. You know.
I've made a hard stance about our family court bench
that I will not say any that I think they
all need to be held to account because they don't
hold each other accountable. And that is almost more dangerous.

(01:03:33):
You know. It's like the person that sees a bad
act that doesn't report it to protect the robe who's worse,
you know, right, And I struggle with that, and I
really do struggle to think of a family court judge
that I'm willing to say something positive about the bar
Association can say do with that what they will, But
you know, I struggle because just the demeanor alone is inappropriate.

(01:03:57):
If you watch your dentist and it's like, sit down, right,
how didn't you do this?

Speaker 4 (01:04:01):
You're gonna you'd never go back what has happened? I mean,
I remember gosh, one of the judges in one of
the cases saying, if you think that I'm going to
make it ruling today about this, this, and this, when
you haven't even and my attorney wasn't even asking for
that today. She just wanted to enter in some evidence, right,

(01:04:24):
and it was like, here's you know what's going on.
Here's an update to the case. That's why we're here
to do an update. And she cut her off before
she could even get anything out, and just dreamed her
a new one. And I think and then and then
she was like the judge, that's not what I'm trying
to do here, right, And then she was like, oh, okay.

Speaker 3 (01:04:42):
It's so infuriating, and I just want to get the videos, Like,
let's just get the videos out there. I think if
that was out there, we'd get new judges. On the
bench because we're elected here in Kentucky, and I think
that would be a start if we got one judge removed,
or if we had one judge get an election flip.
Because what happens in particular in Louisville and what happens
in small towns to a different degree, it happens there's flip.

(01:05:04):
There's cons and pros on both sides. But in Louisville
there's ten judges. And so if you want to run
for family court, you got a family law practice, you
challenge one of them, Well, your client, you better be
prepared for all prepared for all your clients to pay.
And so they ran unopposed last time because people can't
take the loss, they can't afford a campaign and then
know their clients are going to be retaliated against. That's why,

(01:05:28):
that's that's why I left the practice of law, because
I'm not the practice. But I left family court because
of a judge that xpartayed me. We had a whole
thing about it. The judge had to recuse. It was
a horrific case. I'm not going to get into the details,
and one day I will tell it, but I had
to go before her two weeks later on a different motion,

(01:05:50):
something so simple, one family, one court, right, this case
should have been in front of another judge that had
hurt everything else, and in front of all of the
attorneys everybody. She was just like nope, like just dead
in the eye. And I was like, I'm done, right
because I'm not gonna have my client suffer, right because
and it was, you know, a certain level of trauma
for me wanting to be a lawyer my entire life

(01:06:12):
and first generation attorney, you know, Like, but I didn't
become a lawyer to be a good little girl and
behave and turn a blind eye to injustice. And so
I took some time off. I took a lot of
time just to be like, what what has happened? Process it?
And then, like I said, I got back into this
because I thought it was just the Louisville judges and
then it's all of them. But in the small towns

(01:06:33):
you have the family court judge that knows Comwall attorney,
county attorney, you know.

Speaker 1 (01:06:37):
And so that's what happened to me. Yeah, I got
home cooked.

Speaker 2 (01:06:39):
I mean they were all reven elbows, and I mean
I often joke like it was me against city Hall
like it was.

Speaker 1 (01:06:46):
I had no chance.

Speaker 3 (01:06:47):
Now, I ain't scared of much, but I'm scared of
Eastern Kentucky. Yeah, I'll tell you that right now.

Speaker 2 (01:06:50):
I mean not just Eastern Kentucky like Harlan, the armpit
of the States. And yeah, I mean, I'll get into
my story later. It's still not as anywhere close to Meggs.
But I got real roaded, no doubt. I got real roaded,
and it was scary, and it really felt like it
was me against the entire County of Harlan in terms

(01:07:14):
of everyone that held any type of political power.

Speaker 3 (01:07:18):
And they don't think that in small towns. It's so bizarre.
The same families have run it for so long. It
was such a culture shop for me to go to
Eastern Kentucky. We had a judge whose husband had already
been to federal prison, and then there were all these
allegations about him. He was a former prosecutor. Well after
I left, he went to prison for trafficking heroin. So

(01:07:41):
clearly there were some truth to those allegations. I mean,
he pled guilty to it, but everyone in the community
talked about it. But they were held to such esteem
that no one would challenge them. We don't have that
in Louisville as much.

Speaker 2 (01:07:55):
There's a cultural I'd call it pride. I think, you
know in southeastern Kentucky, where you know, you protect your
own and it's it's real, it's it's a it's I
tell I tell people.

Speaker 1 (01:08:07):
All the time.

Speaker 2 (01:08:07):
I'm like, you drive two and a half hours south
of here, it's like a whole different world. It's a
whole different world.

Speaker 4 (01:08:13):
It's a completely different world. You drive through Lexington and
drive to southeastn South Harlan Techy, you won't even recognize that.

Speaker 1 (01:08:21):
The people, I mean, the people are different.

Speaker 2 (01:08:22):
And don't get me wrong, like I have wonderful things
that I can say about Harlan and the people of
Harlan County. I met some of the most wonderful people
that I've ever known in my life there. But I
also dealt with some of the most horrific people of
my life. And you know, the rock bottom of my
life there because of what those people did. And it
was because you know, again, my ex had deep, deep,

(01:08:45):
deep roots. I mean, you're talking his mom's moms, moms, moms,
and then his dad's dad's you know, I mean, I'm
talking it went deep and so I mean, for me,
it was just a matter I just threw in the towel,
you know. I eventually just waved the white flag of surrender.
But well, I'll get into that later. But it's a

(01:09:06):
real thing and it happens a lot.

Speaker 3 (01:09:07):
Well, I think that's what's going to be shocking because
we and I do have task to eastern Kentucky. But
we're gonna get videos. We're doing all the judges in Kentucky.

Speaker 4 (01:09:14):
So tell me a little bit about that, Like, can
I just go into the courtroom and just video with
my phone? Can anybody do it? Or is it just
you because you're a member of the bar.

Speaker 3 (01:09:23):
So I'm hesitant to say that you can do that
now the judge obviously we've got a TikTok judge that
selfie recorded, you know, but everything in Kentucky is recorded,
which is good, and so you can request the tapes.
There's a cost associated with requesting those, which is what
we'd like to do. I mean, we want to build
a platform where we can request tapes from every judge

(01:09:44):
so you can just see, you know what I mean.
And I think people will be shocked to see how
court's conducted. In eastern Kentucky. And I think these judges
in eastern Kentucky and western Kentucky, once they're on a national.

Speaker 4 (01:09:55):
Please Central Kentucky, please please, please please.

Speaker 3 (01:09:57):
And once they're on a national platform like they their
behavior will immediately change.

Speaker 4 (01:10:02):
You know, I just said this beforehand. I said, you
know what I hope has more power than being a
family court judge in a county is somebody with a
two million person platform like me. I would like to
think that that holds more power and that we can
get more done because we have a bigger voice, and
we can expose what they're.

Speaker 1 (01:10:23):
Doing and bring awareness.

Speaker 4 (01:10:24):
Bring awareness for sure.

Speaker 3 (01:10:25):
And we will grow. I mean I think once this hits,
you know, I think we're six months away from really
the pendulum like swinging into where we're in a lot
of states.

Speaker 2 (01:10:34):
Yeah, and this is a I mean it's a beautiful resource.
I mean that has never existed and.

Speaker 3 (01:10:40):
These judges are so For example, why is your judge
not on Wikipedia?

Speaker 1 (01:10:45):
Why?

Speaker 3 (01:10:46):
I mean your state rep is right? If your state
rep is on TikTok, dance into sexy red drop blow
let that you know what breathe, you better believe their
opponent's going to run an ad on it. But our
judges are just doing that like it's Tuesday.

Speaker 4 (01:11:00):
Yeah, but then nobody wants to run against them because
then they're going to be black balled.

Speaker 3 (01:11:04):
Well, I think that it's twofold. If they thought they
could win, they might, But these judges control the calendar
as well, and that's why that full time component in
the accountability because they can cancel to go to campaign events.
But if public if there is a niche for somebody
to be able to get in and win, you know,
I think they'll do it. And I think time's up

(01:11:26):
on these judges. I it's shocking to meet literally the
sweatshirt which I love and I just got embroidered. Yeah,
when I went there, I was like, oh, hey, I
never met this person. I'm like, I'm Christine. I'm talking
about family court reform and he's like, well, I got
a story for you.

Speaker 1 (01:11:40):
Hear that everybody does.

Speaker 3 (01:11:42):
Literally I've changed hairdressers and they have a story, you know,
my dentist holding me down like you're not going to
you know, And I'm just like, you can't go anywhere
because it's affected everyone.

Speaker 2 (01:11:53):
Which makes me sad too because it just kind of
shows you the amount of divorce and just amount of
broken you know, homes and families that there are. But
you know, again, I think one I know, Doctor Hinsley's
mission is to save the family unit, you know, and.

Speaker 4 (01:12:11):
Whatever form, if we can save it, I will save it, all.

Speaker 2 (01:12:14):
Right, I've said it. I've told her a million times.
If you can save the family unit, you can save
the world. Because this, this whole series that we're doing
on Family Court is a result of the family unit
being broken. And so, you know, I think it just
comes full circle in terms of what our mission is
and being able to bring awareness to these things, but

(01:12:34):
overall to bring awareness to what love really is right,
and what love really looks like, and what you know,
godly love looks like.

Speaker 4 (01:12:43):
Because nobody wants to end up in this system. Nobody
wants to end up in Family Court. And I'll say
it again, my divorce was the best thing that ever
happened to me. I do it all again a million
times over to land where I am right now. But
it was awful. It drains your money, it rains your soul, and.

Speaker 2 (01:13:00):
It really affects your children, it does it, you know.
I mean, I'm a product with the victims I'm a
product of divorce, and I'm a product of a divorce
that happened later in life, you know, when I was
nearly eighteen years old, and I still have pain and
scars from that, you know, and so it and it
doesn't go away. And of course, obviously no one goes
through life unscathed. But if if I could have prevented

(01:13:24):
that from my own child, obviously I would have. And
if I could have prevented the pain that came from
the fight, you know, I would have.

Speaker 3 (01:13:31):
But we're also not just talking about divorce and custody
with family court, and I think, but I think a
lot of people don't understand, like we have the substance
abuse issues that we have in this country. There are
so many people that go through family court taking nieces,
nephew's grandparents, I mean grandparents taking grandkids. Yeah, yeah, and
they're getting it wrong in those cases. Like you are
much more likely to touch family court than any other

(01:13:53):
court it in our country. You know, you're not likely
to be evicted, I mean perhaps traffic court. Right.

Speaker 4 (01:13:59):
Yeah. That was one of the biggest motivators for my
husband adopting my girls. For me was you know, because
in their eyes. He is dad, right, He's raising them
as if they're his biological children. If we didn't do
the legal paperwork, nothing would change. But I think one
of my biggest fears was, well, what if something happens
to me and then my ex's mother, who's very much

(01:14:23):
involved in at least still my youngest daughter's life, she
could go after custody. I mean even though if I,
you know, said I want him to go to my brother, well,
my brother lives in a whole nother state and she
could probably prove a lot more involvement than my brother,
and she could prove, you know, a lot of things.
And I was like, no, I want this solid where

(01:14:46):
if something happens to me, they go to my husband
and he's going to continue to raise them as dad.

Speaker 3 (01:14:51):
Absolutely, and people don't realize how bad it is. And
I you know, I think knowledge is power, and I
just want people to understand. You know, if there's one
thing you can take away from me, is that it
can happen to you, like it can happen to you.
No one thinks it can happen to them, and it
can happen to you.

Speaker 4 (01:15:05):
Yeah, people's lives are changed overnight. I mean I have clients.
You know, I have a pretty pricey individual coaching rate,
and there's reasons for that, because if I didn't, i'd
be booked out six months. I've booked out like a
month and a half right now. I'm even at that rate.
But they will book an appointment with me because they're like,
I just found out that my spouse is living a

(01:15:26):
completely different life and I didn't see this coming, not
for I didn't see any of it coming. Like I've
had the rug pulled out from underneath me. I am
completely shocked by this. I'm going to be divorcing. But
you know, I didn't think this was what ever happen
to me? Right, so it can happen to you.

Speaker 2 (01:15:43):
Oh yeah, yeah, And there's I mean, it doesn't matter
socioeconomic status, none of that matters.

Speaker 4 (01:15:48):
It doesn't matter, you know I think that.

Speaker 2 (01:15:52):
I'm just I'm just so glad that you are here,
that you're bringing awareness to this so other than Judgy
would which will be live and active once this airs.

Speaker 4 (01:16:03):
And just to be sorry to go ahead, go ahead,
I'm very interrupt you today because I'm all passionate.

Speaker 2 (01:16:09):
Yeah, no, I just wanted to for you to tell
our listeners world that they could find you.

Speaker 3 (01:16:13):
I'm Kentucky, Christine on TikTok, It's Miller Time Louisville on
Instagram and YouTube, and then Judge will have all the
socials and it's Judge dash Wise.

Speaker 4 (01:16:22):
Okay, okay, and Judge Just to kind of what I
wanted to interrupt about with just kind of like again,
tell us remind our listeners of the mission and why
it's so important and what they will fill out on
Judge if they go. So.

Speaker 3 (01:16:33):
Judicial accountability is coming and that's what Judge's going to do.
Judge's going to judge the judges, like the judges have
been judging everyone else it and we want your stories.
The goal is ultimately it will be an app. We
are going to have the capability to have attorney verified
reviews anonymously. We will have reviews of litigants, and then
we're going to have a court watching platform where you

(01:16:55):
can watch and then review. And so I want everyone
in the nation at the end of this, but I
want everyone in Kentucky to be able to see their
judge pull orders from their judge, to see how they're
judge orders. I want them to be able to watch
tapes to see how the judge behaves in court. And
I want to have a place where you can get
Court of Appeals opinions, Supreme Court opinions on that judge

(01:17:18):
because they are, in my opinion, they're all over the
place on the Internet and hard to find because they
don't want you to know. So this will just be
a website for judicial accountability because it is pastime.

Speaker 4 (01:17:31):
You need transparency because bad things only happen in the darkness,
and how you bring them to the light, then the
bad things stop happening.

Speaker 1 (01:17:39):
Amen, Absolutely well, thank you so much.

Speaker 4 (01:17:42):
Christine, thank you all so much, so amazing.

Speaker 1 (01:17:43):
It's been so enlightening and so wonderful to listen to you.

Speaker 2 (01:17:47):
So of course, go check out Christine at Christine Kentucky,
Christine Kentucky.

Speaker 1 (01:17:52):
Christine on TikTok.

Speaker 2 (01:17:53):
Yes, and then Millard It's Miller Time Louisville, Miller Time.
It's Miller Time Louisville on Instagram. And then of course,
if you have a story today, please go see Judge
that's Judge dash Hy dot com.

Speaker 4 (01:18:06):
Right, Yes, that's right, and tell your story, your story
that I saw it. You can just like put your
first name only, or it can be like, Okay, that's amazing,
because yeah, some people are still probably in the midst
of their battle and they don't want, you know, of course,
to be retaliated against. And so that this is such
important work that you're doing, Christine, and I know that

(01:18:27):
you know you're growing your platform. Please go follow her, guys,
because we need to link arms here and we need
to get reform for all the parents all that have
suffered and all of the children that are going to
continue to suffer because there is no transparency, no accountability,
and no consistency in family court.

Speaker 2 (01:18:47):
Absolutely, so thank you, and of course thank you to
our sponsor, Cozy Earth. We love you Cozy Earth so much.
We always know that Cozy Earth makes the perfect gift
for any occasion that's coming up. So if you need
to get somebody the perfect gift, go check out Cozy Earth.
Their sheets are made from the viscous from bamboo.

Speaker 4 (01:19:05):
Yes, and it is the softest, most luxurious.

Speaker 1 (01:19:08):
Once you go Cozy airth sheet can go back.

Speaker 4 (01:19:10):
You can't, you can't. Just everything feels like sandpaper after
Cozy Earth and their pajamas are just I think that's
going to be the very first thing I do when
I get home actually is just step into my really
soft Cozy Earth pajamas. You can prepple with my husband
y and decompress. I'm going to make they have the best,
best best pajamas on Earth.

Speaker 3 (01:19:29):
They do.

Speaker 2 (01:19:30):
I'm excited because obviously, you know, I have a college
aged son now that's going to go to Morehead this fall,
and so I'm going to do his whole dorm in
Cozy Earth sheets, yacopters, and I've already been looking online.
They've got you know, the gold and the blue colors,
so it's going to be great. So thank you Cozy
Earth for all you do. Of course, for our listeners,
you can go to cozyearth dot com and put in

(01:19:52):
promo code love Dog for forty percent off your entire purchase,
which is so very generous, So thank you very much,
Cozy Earth. And of course while you're there, please out
doctor Hinsley Services at the lovedog dot com. And for
our listeners you can you can put in love Love
dot twenty seven to receive twenty seven percent off, and
please go check out our Patreon's account. We now have
a Patreon's account at patreons dot com. Slash the lovedt

(01:20:15):
podcast and thank you because we have our first Patreon
Carissa Nicole, Thank you so much.

Speaker 4 (01:20:21):
Carissa, Yes, thank you for being a super fan.

Speaker 1 (01:20:24):
We appreciate you so much.

Speaker 4 (01:20:25):
It's just so exciting.

Speaker 2 (01:20:26):
Yeah, and of course you get all the perks of
being a member for on our Patreon account, so please
go check that out while you're there. And until next time, peace, love,
and perspective.

All Episodes

Episode 6, Season II | "Due Process Denied: Inside the Broken Family Court System with Attorney Christine Miller"

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Cardiac Cowboys

The Joe Rogan Experience

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Episode 6, Season II | "Due Process Denied: Inside the Broken Family Court System with Attorney Christine Miller"