JUDGING WHAT'S BEST FOR CHILD?

by Mumia Abu-Jamal

[Col. Writ. 9/14/02]

"...Life is important, direction is urgent, freedom is God given, it ain't to be taken away by some judge's opinion..." -- John Africa, The Judge's Letter

Imagine a judge, intervening in a pending, serious case, without having read any of the case record, or transcripts, and issuing an order that throws the case into utter chaos, only to depart, as quickly, and mysteriously, as she appeared.

Alberta Africa doesn't have to imagine, as she is involved in such a case now, an ugly, messy custody case, involving her child, Zack, and the father, John Gilbride. For nearly 4 years, the case was handled by senior judge Edward Rosenberg, and the status quo was held in check. Visits were allowed, albeit supervised, in the mother's home.

In comes Judge Shelley Robins New, who, in a one day hearing overrides Judge Rosenberg, and orders unsupervised visits, away from the maternal home, for days, with a man that abandoned the child when he was an infant.

By so doing, Judge New has set the stage for chaos.

For MOVE folks have seen before how little government officials and judges care about MOVE children. They recall how bloodthirsty cops targetted such kids on May 13th, 1985, when babykiller-in-chief, Police Commissioner Gregor Sambor described them as "combatants."    There will be some who will argue that Alberta and other MOVE folks should trust the courts, but many of these same people would've said the same thing about priests a year ago -- but who would dare argue this today?

It is said to be a principle of family law that all decisions involving a child should be based upon "the best interests" of the child. How can it conceivably be in Zack's "best interest" to subject him to the wrenching removal from his mother's presence (the boy has never been apart from her -- ever)?

A clinical psychologist on the case expressed "shock" at the judge's actions, adding, "... this judicial order is tantamount to guaranteeing that six-year-old Zack will be miserable, traumatized, and totally undermined in his development." She described the child as "very much loved and loving." The child, however, experienced hostility and other psychologically inappropriate input from his father.

If a lawyer took a case without reading the record, we would rightly conclude that lawyer was ineffective. When a judge does it (as she reportedly admitted from the bench) what do we conclude? Is her judgment based on reason, or mere conjecture - pure opinion?

Why should her opinion be respected? Because she wore a black robe that day?

There is nothing messier than the cauldron of child custody battles, where love, hate, ego and regret boil up into a stew of sadness and smothered rage.

Both adults, Alberta and John, deserve more than a drive-by judge, who pops in, and pops out, without reading the record , leaving wreckage in her wake.

MOVE will not submit to this uninformed, unjust, and profoundly biased opinion, just because it is produced by a politician who occasionally dons a black robe.

The stage is being set for another disaster in Philadelphia, because Judge New abruptly entered the case, bringing with her the same old stuff, of anti-MOVE bias, from the past.

Philadelphia is at a crossroads -- which way will it go?

 

Text © copyright 2002 by Mumia Abu-Jamal.
All rights reserved.
Reprinted by permission of the author.

Share this page with a friend

International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room 206
New York, NY 10011
email: mailto:iacenter@action-mail.org
En Espanol: iac-cai@action-mail.org
Web: http://www.iacenter.org
Support Mumia Abu-Jamal: http://www.millions4mumia.org/
phone: 212 633-6646
fax: 212 633-2889
Make a donation to the IAC and its projects

 

The International Action Center
Home     ActionAlerts    Press