Was Judge Judy unreasonable?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I started to put this in Great Debates, but thought better of it, realizing that the name “Judge Judy” alone might prejudice discussion one way or another, and IMHO has a bit of a better reputation and history, in my opinion, for less emotional and more rational discussion. But here’s the gist of it…

A case came before her in which a man sued his ex-wife for costs incurred and emotional distress when she filed a false police report about him kidnapping their daughter and made him late for his wedding. Long story short, she stipulated that, given the circumstances, she should not have called the police on him. Therefore, there was no question but that her report was false.

But Judge Judy was having a bad hair day. Those of you who watch her know that she is quite moody, some days being almost flippant and other days almost morose. This day, all her cylinders were on “Go ahead, make my day.”

During the case, she revealed that in reading the brief, she had been sympathetic to the father and thought the mother had behaved reprehensibly, but in the course of the trial changed her mind. Why? Because the father was paying no child support.

Mind you, he was under no obligation to pay any child support. He produced court documents stating exactly that. She took his documents — I am not making this up — wadded them into little balls, and tossed them onto the floor in front of her bench. She screamed at him that his obligation to pay was a moral one if not a legal one. She called him a deadbeat and refused to let him say anything whatsoever about it.

The judge dismissed his case with a contemptible lecture about fathering and lambasted the mother for allowing the girl to visit him at all.

In the after-trial interview, it was revealed that she was a woman of means, had full custody of the child, and refused to let him visit except on rare occasions (including the occasion on which she let the girl visit him and his new wife). Meanwhile, he has voluntarily bought her clothes, toys, and so forth, and pays for her schooling.

It seems to me that Judge Judy ignored and destroyed evidence, that she disregarded the findings of other courts (who said he owed nothing in child support), that she invoked morality when in other cases she has specifically said that she is not there to judge morality but only legality, and that she slandered this man in front of God and everybody by calling him a deadbeat.

What is your opinion?

2

I think she’s a moron. But then, I’ve always thought that of her, so what you post doesn’t surprise me in the least.

Then again, she’s in the TV business, not the justice business. If her plaintiffs and defendants don’t go over the top like good TV-people should, then she has to step in and Provide the Madness.

3

She’s an idiot. I’ve always thought it and a show like this just proves it.

4

She was wrong to do that. However, it’s partially the dad’s own fault for taking the case through Judge Judy’s court in the first place. What was he thinking?

5

Unreasonable? Based on the way that you described it, she was downright prejudiced. If I was him, I’d sue.

6

I was wondering about that. Can he sue her for destroying his court documents and calling him a deadbeat? Or does she have some sort of immunity?

7

I’ve never seen the show, so I’ll tackle this based purely on the facts presented.

Filing a false police report is a crime in itself, everywhere I’ve ever lived. I assume this was some sort of civil suit for damages.

Payment (or non-payment) of child support has no bearing on the mother’s behavior.

In addition, payment (or non-payment thereof) should have no bearing on visitation. Connecting the two seems to me like renting out the kid(s) to the non-custodial parent, as in “it’ll cost you $xx a week to see your kid.” Pfft.

So the decision was based on irrelevant facts, and it sounds like some excuse for a TV personality to rant about a personal issue with deadbeat parents. Yep, unreasonable.

8

I think they give up any kind of appeals or libel suits when they sign up to go on there. At least that’s what I remember from the Peoples Court, I would have to assume Judy is the same way.

I’d have to agree with yellowval, you know when you go to Judge Judy that you’re not really going for justice but for show biz. There is no way I would take a serious matter like this in front of her.

9

You should only go on Judge Judy when the facts of the case are against you but you have a better personality than your opponent. You charm Judy and the studio audience and the facts are dismissed as irrelevant.

10

I am apparently very stupid. Judge Judy is REAL? I thought it was just a show loosely based on court cases for entertainment value only.

Wow. Judge Judy. Real. :eek:

11

From the Judge Judy Website:

Is that the case…from Yesterday?

She downright tore the poor guy a new rectum. Unfortunatly, I am sure they have to veritably sign their existence away before they get on the stand…

She was wrong! Pulling thsoe shenanigans on national T.V. Feh!

12

Yep, Phil. That’s the one.

13

Incidentally, it seems to me like there should be some reasonable limit on what she can get away with no matter what people sign. I mean, she was just this side of pinning him down and pissing on his face. At the very least, her destruction of his property (his court papers) ought to incur some sort of penalty.

14

I stopped watching Judge Judy after I heard her berate a woman for Gasp having premarital sex and living with a man before she married him. I can’t even really remember what the case was about, but that just stuck out in my mind because her comments were so ugly and the fact that the woman had premarital sex had nothing to do with the case whatsoever.

15

Not defending Judge Judy’s behavior, but I remember the case a little differently.
While she certainly shouldn’t have wadded up his papers and thrown them on the floor, and the issue of child support wasn’t relevant to his case , he didn’t have a court order stating that he didn’t have to pay support. He had a letter from a child support agency stating that there was no court-ordered support, and some court papers that had nothing to do with support at all (restraining orders, I think). Not the same as a court ordering that he didn’t have to pay support- if the mother never went to court looking for support, there wouldn’t be a support order.

I don’t remember the judge lambasting the mother for allowing him to visit at all- she did lambaste her for “allowing him to be the favorite parent” by causing the scene at the church, which surely upset the child and which the child would blame her mother for.

I’m also not so sure she dismissed the man’s case because he didn’t pay child support. She was certainly upset about it, as she was upset about the mother going to the church and causing a scene. But there was testimony about the child not being returned on time (she was supposed to be back with the mother before the wedding) and the father and/or his family putting her off. If the mother accurately reported that to the police ( and I don’t remember what the father said about that), and they arrested him, then she didn’t file a false police report- * even if it wasn’t the best way to handle the situation*

16

This is why I don’t watch Judge Judy. If I wanted to watch an opinionated harpy make snap judgements based on no evidence in order to screech at halfwits I’d go somewhere where you could see that sort of thing.

I miss Judge Wapner. Man, did I love People’s Court! Watching poor, grumpy old Wapner explain and re-explain the law to slack-jawed mouthbreathers was a beautiful thing. But he always based his judgements in terms of the law, not his opinion on whether someone should have been a better daddy to keep their daughter from getting knocked up in the first place.

17

Judge Judy worked in family court system before she became a TV judge. I don’t remember how many years…a few decades at least. I always keep that in mind when I’m watching her. I can’t imagine how many horrible cases have been tried in front of her and how that’s jaded her over the years. It seems that her number one priority in any case where children are involved, even tangentially, are the children.

If she told him he had a moral obligation, if not a legal one, she may have met in the broader sense. I’ve seen this very debate on this message board numerous times–what is the obligation of support and is it really about the money? Sometimes, I don’t think it’s about the money at all really for Judge Judy.

Let me guess. The woman was suing her ex-lover for money (she claims they’re loans, he claims their gifts) and various items (she claims she bought with her own money, he claims they had a joint account.) Those cases drive me batshit too, because there’s no laws for “shaking up” like there are for divorces. They bring her receipts and expect her to sort through them because they can’t/won’t do it themselves. I’ve seen Judge Judy chastise people who do this, essentially warning them that there’s nothing protecting them, there’s no safe-guard, if they aren’t married. If the lady had married her lover, she wouldn’t be in that situation, IOW. Whether it’s right or wrong to chastise someone over it, I don’t know, but Judge Judy wasn’t lying to her.

Anyway, I watch Judge Judy and the People’s Court a lot (Judge Milan rocks, I think.) It seems that when both judges give their lectures, it’s usually something they’ve 1.5 billion times before, the same mistakes over and over, and quite frankly, I don’t know how they don’t launch into lectures more often. They get some monumentally stupid, self-defeating people who oft-times don’t even have a legal leg to stand on.

18

There are no laws for “shacking up” either…sigh

19

I happened to have Judge Judy on the telly whilst I was doing laundry and reading the Dope. This is the first time I’ve watched the show.

Whether the man was morally wrong is immaterial. He was legally not required to pay child support. That Judge Judy completely disregarded the prior legal findings and found against the plaintiff based on her own moral values (and not based on the law) shows that she has no respect for the law she purportedly represents.

She was wrong.

20

I don’t think she was wrong, the case was not even about child support but the guy just kept bringing it up again and again. I don’t even remember anyone ever claiming that the police report the mother filed was false. That dickcheese deserved to have his bullshit lawsuit thrown out. I mean did he really think he deserved monetary compensation?