Some I know had the choice of using this Judge or one in the district where his children had been absconded.
Because Swann is a known woman hater (essentially), and he had findings of fact from child protective regarding child abuse, issues of kidnapping, custodial interference, domestic abuse, family history of abuse of all sorts, this foolish person thought he would take the high road and get a judge which would not allow the other party to simply say the judge hates women (which she would have done to herself and her children).
Unfortunately for him, the unknown judge spent lots of time with her attorney, ignored several dozen instances of perjury, disregarded the CPS findings, ignored the law in numerous areas, made up his own laws, allowed farcical, nonsupported by the worksheets child support rulings, and found the father in contempt when the clerk would not take his ordered payments...
In Swann’s court, even if you feel he was biased or wrong, he goes down the list of considerations point by point to justify his positions. The father would have had his evidence considered in writing. The mother in the above case would have gotten the maximum contempt sentence for each count of perjury or obstruction.
I think he goes too far, especially with his anti smoking position and his godlike insistence on respect for the court and his decisions (i.e. this contempt issue above), but as far as East Tennessee judges go, he’s probably a straighter arrow than most.
Lessons learned: the devil you know is probably better than the devil you don’t (Obama or Clinton, anyone?).
Never take the “high road” in legal matters - it is too much of a crap shoot, and the dice are loaded.
If you can avoid court, do so at any livable cost, if not, it is life or death, fight accordingly.
TN does have some crazy family court and probate judges.
Here in Nashville both Muriel Robinson and Carol Soloman...both women have married over and over and over
Randy Kennedy in probate...
And how do those points line up w/ the Tennessee State Constitution:
TN Constitution, Article 1
Section 2. That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Section 3. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.
Does the judge, perhaps, think that he is not a "human authority"?
Does the judge presume that the boy's decisions [and right to make that decision] to "worship Almighty God according to the dictates of [his] own conscience" may be nullified? (i.e. that it is not indefeasible.)