This morning’s question comes from a highly unusual set of events, which stem around the notion of what is deemed appropriate territory when it comes to probing families in matters of divorce.
A dispute over contact in New York recently led one lawyer in court to make an inference about the mother involved, in a rather controversial way. The lawyer, who was acting for the father, was asked to investigate the mother’s medical records to confirm an abortion she had, had in fact taken place. The father then instructed the lawyer to bring the abortion to the attention of the court. The lawyer for the mother objected, but she was overruled by the judge overseeing the hearing.
Women’s groups were outraged by the court’s questioning in this case, with some taking the view it took women’s rights a step back and that it inferred women who had abortions were not good mothers and were viewed as unfit to parent. But some research suggests that abortion can cause depression and affect women after the procedure.
So, what do you think – Should the court be allowed to make inferences from an abortion or should some things remain out of bounds?
Over to you….
Researching Reform 
The court should be allowed to examine anything that may be relevant to a particular case including whether the mother had an abortion or not. There should not be bars to evidence being brought before the court. Otherwise justice may be seriously undermined.
In examining the evidence, it is then in the courts powers to accept or dismiss it in terms of relevance. If somethings are of a sensitive nature, then they have the power to accept the evidence but to deny public knowledge of the matter.
In another incident, you may have a person accused of sex with a child who themselves were subjected to child sexual abuse. The nature of that abuse may be a matter of privacy, but it may be a factor that led to the accusation of abuse in the case in question. This could work two ways. Every child that is abused does not become an abuser, but there is a tendency that incidents of abuse are higher amongst such individuals. It may be that a person bringing this matter to the court’s attention may be trying to disadvantage the defendant deliberately and cause harm on a personal level by causing them to relive a terrible experience. It will be up to the court to decide its relevance to the case in question.
LikeLike
Most claims in family courts regarding custody of children are a matter of the tail wagging the dog. A parent will try to claim something that happens with the other parent is bad for the children not because it is (or is anything out of the realm of ordinary parenting) but because they wan’t to restrict or control the time the other parent has with the children and are using the claim as ammunition. In this case the Dad is making a fairly useless claim to try to have that effect on the Mum’s care. As a support person for Dads I usually come across this type of behaviour from Mum’s.
LikeLike
We don’t know from the article above why he is bringing this to the attention of the courts. It may have nothing to do with the mother’s ability to care. The article does not say and there could be other, unrevealed, yet very valid reasons.
LikeLike
“The court should be allowed to examine anything that may be relevant to a particular case including whether the mother had an abortion or not.”
This is true, James, but the problem is that the abortion appears entirely irrelevant and, indeed, it is difficult if not impossible to envisage any circumstances in which it would be relevant. The article itself is a pro-choice polemic. I am more puzzled as to how the judge could justify the enquiry as having any bearing at all on the issue he had to decide.
LikeLike
We don’t know its relevance because the script gives us no detail. I have to carry out investigations in my professional life and go about it by establishing what is known as opposed to what is believed. In this case we can only make presumptions which are not facts and therefore the reasoning over why the mothers abortion is relevant or not is not explained here.
LikeLike
No. If a woman has an abortion it should be private unless it is truly relevant to the case. A woman may have an abortion for many reasons, but an inference will be made on the woman who decides to have one and prejudices will come into play.
LikeLike
I agree an abortion, like any medical procedure or condition, is a private matter and this should not be in the public domain. The courts should be criticized for this alone.
From what I know of custody battles, both sides can behave in a somewhat psychotic manner. In the midst of this are children who are suffering by their parents ripping each other apart. Because of the lack of detail, we don’t know in this case whether the abortion is or how it is relevant. It certainly should not imply that any woman who has an abortion is an unfit mother. That would be a ludicrous generalization.
As I keep saying though, we are not privy to the details on whether this woman’s abortion is relevant. It may well be for all we know. It may be that she has serious psychological issues that either led to her having an abortion or because she had an abortion and that could add an element of risk to the children. You and I are not in court and do not have the full facts. We can only therefore give opinion.
LikeLike
With reference to the article it would appear it was to paint the woman as being an unfit mother because she had an abortion. Stress too after an abortion was deemed to hammer it home! Note nothing was said about the stress of being in a relationship that is not wanted any more!
Court is far too adversarial causing more problems than it solves. Its wrong to deliberately pit someone up against another but is ignored in court where one must get the better of the other to win the case. It appears to be more about winning that what is right. The damage to ongoing relationships, especially if children are involved, is ignored too.
LikeLike
I completely agree with just about everything you have said. The one thing I hold out on is that again, it is not clear why her abortion was considered relevant. It is not explained. The Huff Post report I read was unhelpful at clarifying things. The reporter just trotted out a pro-abortion stance which is not proper reporting as it did not provide any detail into the case.
As I’m sure you will agree with me, the notion of having an abortion making a woman an unfit mother is, on its own, ridiculous. It’s as bad as saying that any dad who walks out on his family is an unfit father without first evaluating the circumstances.
My main concern in this case is how the children are being damaged by this. The whole matter needs to be taken away from a court setting and sorted out by a competent negotiator.
My opinion is that a lot of judges have no clue about child rearing. Most, if not all, have had their heads in books and courts and have left the raising of their own children (if they had any) to others. If this judge has assessed this woman’s abortion as relevant and it turns out not to be, then it simply exemplifies how out of touch the judicary is on the issue of parenting and real life.
LikeLike
I would think the majority of the `judiciary is out of touch with the masses. Whatever way you look at it Judges live very insular lives. They make their money from peoples misery and sitting day after day listening to the same old, same old, passing judgements on people that frankly do not live the same kind of life as they do. They may be rich and privileged but over time their thought processes must change and they will be warped by their working experiences. All of us are on the hamster wheel to some extent but they predominantly get to see and judge those who fall off it! They are exposed to excesses of human frailty and no doubt they become desensitised. If I were to judge some of the cases I have heard about recently I would not give the same sentence. Family Court is farcical!
LikeLike