Stolen Vows

The Illusion of No-Fault Divorce and
The Rise of the American Divorce Industry

Star Chamber Operating in Butler County?
The Journal News (Hamilton, Ohio), Dec. 11, 2003
- Judy Parejko

Apparently, Ohio's high court is endorsing the type of justice handed out by England's hated medieval Court of Star Chamber, which is remembered for using arbitrary and secretive proceedings in opposition to personal rights and liberty. Even though Parliament abolished the Star Chamber Court in 1641, its name still persists as a reminder of a justice system known for blatant abuses.

Is it fair to label Butler County's form of justice this way? Let's take a look.

Article 16 of the Ohio Constitution's Bill of Rights says: "All courts shall be open . . ."

These five words seem very clear to most "ordinary" people. Then, how is this phrase being distorted so that it is "okay" to shut people out of hearings - hearings dealing with issues regarding their very life-blood, such as in divorce and child custody?

Court process, whether called hearings or a trials, should be open to the public unless there is good reason. Having lawyers and judges work behind closed doors to decide someone's fate is not what most people would consider an open court. But, then again, this is Ohio - where the rules are sometimes bent.

According to County Commissioner Mike Fox's report, entitled, "A Culture of Secrecy, Fear and Judicial Abuse," distortion and misapplication of the law is de rigeur in Butler County. But, Butler County is not alone. In fact, citizens throughout the state are routinely hoodwinked about the black letter of the law during divorce proceedings, although most people will not notice, and neither will state legislators - because the divorce bar wants it that way.

Anyone who carefully studies the rules governing divorce in Ohio will notice that two of the "causes" for divorce seem to be at odds with each other. These two causes are Ohio Revised Codes Subsection (B) "willful absence of the adverse party for one year," and Subsection (J) "On the application of either party, when husband and wife have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation."

As things work now, the courts refuse to read these subsections together. Moreover, the divorce bar, which historically advises the legislature, does not want them read together because it would mean that (J) implies "by mutual consent".

Lawyers have been bending the law in Ohio to deliver the product - divorce - sought by their eager clients. Being able to "guarantee" divorce to clients assures a steady flow of business.

Technically, no one has challenged this misapplication of the law, but that's not likely to last. For some reason, it's taken 30 years for anyone to notice that things are amiss in Ohio.

While the issue of misapplication of the law is harder to understand than the issue about closed court hearings, both provide examples of how family well-being ranks second to the judiciary's need to maintain absolute power over the process, resulting in absolute power over people's lives as well. After all, Amy Stone, who serves as the high court's counsel, admitted that "the client's presence may cause more problems than it solves." By leaving them out of the hearing, "justice" a lot easier for legal operatives to dish out.

Is this what we want from our justice system? And, is it possible that jurisdiction over families' lives might be better placed elsewhere?

The Scotland Children's Panel is one example of an alternative. This Panel is made up of community members who hear the "problem" and then help the family to restore its health. Mike Fox's report - in which he so boldly exposed the dark underbelly of our "justice" system -was slapped down by those who can never be seen as "fair" in their assessment since they come from within the same system. Could the high court's role be akin to a "protection racket" for those further down the food chain?

Amy Stone, whose role is to defend the style of justice dispensed in Butler County and elsewhere in the state, maintains that things are on the up-and-up. Perhaps an unbiased third party should be hired to look into the claims in Fox's report - not a judicial insider.

Fox seems to have a naive belief that the justice system should work for the people - not for those who run the show.

As a native of Ohio, I now watch this unfolding story in disbelief from my home-state of Wisconsin, where I've never encountered "closed" hearings, except in cases of child abuse, and then the courts are closed only to spectators - not to the family members.

I've also learned it's not just Butler County that has a "problem" in Ohio - it's statewide. What makes Butler County stand out from other counties though, is that it happens to have a rare ingredient - the likes of Mike Fox on the County Commission.

Judy Parejko is the author of Stolen Vows (www.stolenvows.com) and can be reached at jparejko@juno.com.