> Legal Lady #26 Nov 3, 2010 Columbus, OH
And the article about the marriage situation never took the position that Judge Acker was wrong in his application of the law ....
The article was silent about then Judge Acker usurping the exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile court because the article's author was unaware of what was not known.
... only that the mom was unhappy with it (surprise).
The mom was unhappy because the ex parte conduct of then Judge Acker was brazenly and inexcusably lacking in basic judicial and attorney ethics.
I respectfully submit that the only folks surprised that the mother was unhappy are those woefully ignorant of the proper procedure when parents do not consent to the marriage of their minor child.
That was a hard case and one that Mr. montgomery should be prepared to deal with. Funny thing about probate court-- someone always hates the decision and always thinks it is unfair. Fair isn't the standard.
The case was a slam dunk for any one who understands what the words "exclusive jurisdiction" mean.
Agree that "fair" is not the standard. The Rule of Law is the standard and then Judge Acker was clearly ultra vires when he usurped jurisdiction and "granted permission" in an ex parte "application" (as he called it).
I suggest and hope that now Judge Montgomery would send the children to a juvenile judge to obtain consent then return with the consent.
Several "hated" the decision made by a Muskingum County probate judge (with NO jurisdiction) after he ordered a female sterilized.
Not only was his decision "unfair" it was actionable and there was no way that he could claim judicial immunity when he was hammered in a civil action. The Federal court was clear on the issue.