The JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 43: "Crystal Clear"

In this episode, Christine and Hugh dive back into the complexities of Jefferson County Family Court, sharing updates and insights on recent cases and court decisions. Christine opens up about her recent 24-hour fast and addresses rumors, before the hosts turn their attention to the latest developments in family law.

Key topics discussed include:

The ongoing saga of a mother detained by Lauren Ogden, her new legal representation, and the push for transparency in FOC (Friend of the Court) billing and reporting.

The importance of requesting and reviewing FOC files and billing records, and the challenges attorneys face in obtaining complete and accurate documentation.

A deep dive into a recent Court of Appeals decision overturning Judge Lauren Ogden’s restriction of a father’s parenting time, and the troubling aftermath in court proceedings.

The hosts’ candid reactions to the judge’s response (or lack thereof) to being overturned, and the broader implications for families navigating the system.

The problematic role of FOCs in the courtroom, including issues with billing, testimony, and the need for greater accountability.

Listener stories and calls for more transparency and reform in family court processes.

If you have your own stories or experiences with FOCs in Jefferson County, Christine and Hugh want to hear from you! Visit judge-y.com or use the judge-y app to share your story and connect with the community.

Tune in for a frank, insightful, and sometimes jaw-dropping look at the realities of family court. New episodes every Monday!

---

Find more episodes and resources at judge-y.com and on the judge-y app.

Follow The JudgeMental Podcast for more updates and real talk on family law.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

The content of this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice. Engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the hosts, guests, or their firms. The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any law firm, company, or organization. We make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or applicability of the information presented. Any reliance on the information in this podcast is at your own risk. Laws are constantly changing, and every situation is unique. You should always seek the advice of a qualified attorney for your specific legal concerns.

You are listening to

The Judgemental Podcast.

2

We're Hugh and Christine, the Minds

Behind Judgy, the revolutionary app

3

that empowers you to judge the judges.

4

It's pastime for judicial accountability

and transparency within the courts.

5

Prepare for sharp insights, candid

critiques, and unshakable honesty from

6

two lawyers determined to save the system.

7

We need some justice.

8

Justice, my fine justice.

9

And I wanna ring, be in public.

10

I wanna ring, be in public crowd.

11

Yeah.

12

Christine: All right.

13

The rumors are true.

14

I did participate in a 24 hour fast.

15

Hugh: Yeah.

16

Yeah.

17

Christine: I was arrested and we're

just gonna let the lawyers lawyer, but

18

I cannot wait to let y'all in on it.

19

But for today's purposes, I just wanna get

back into Jefferson County Family Court.

20

Hugh: Oh boy.

21

Oh boy.

22

And we have a good one.

23

Christine: Yes, we do.

24

So to follow up on briefly on the mom

that was detained by Lauren Ogden.

25

She has retained new counsel.

26

She's retained Bryan Gowin who actually,

if you're following, he won the writ

27

emergency order for the baby case.

28

And an interesting motion has been

filed as y'all recall, there's a

29

motion pending to remove the FOC.

30

That would be Pashens Fitzpatrick.

31

And Bryan has requested her entire

file, including everyone she's

32

talked to, all her building, all

her billing, et cetera, et cetera.

33

Hugh: Yeah, I always

found that, the litigants.

34

And anyone who is dealing with a

case that has an FOC appointed,

35

as we've talked about many times,

you're entitled to not only report,

36

but what went into the report Yep.

37

And the investigation.

38

, And I shocked that people just

generally don't request it.

39

Yes.

40

Like attorneys don't ask for that.

41

They just see the report or sometimes

don't see the report and don't

42

even raise an issue with that.

43

But I, I always found it, really telling

when I would ask for those and I would

44

just get complete you know, it just

haphazard case files that looked like

45

they were thrown together right before the

deadline to give it to me and it wouldn't

46

have half the stuff that I asked for.

47

Right.

48

Or would have things that looked like

they were thrown together just to,

49

you know, looking back, these are the

people I think I talked to, or I went

50

through my phone and I put together

a list of who I talked to and the

51

records weren't really kept very well.

52

Christine: Yeah.

53

Hugh: And, I made as much as I

could out of that every single time.

54

Christine: Well, and also

the billing is so important.

55

I mean, you all have to remember

listening that these people are

56

billing at their hourly rate.

57

Mm-hmm.

58

Now lower than some attorneys, but

still between two and $300 an hour.

59

If I could change anything in the statute,

I would absolutely require GS and FOCs

60

to submit their bills to the actual file.

61

Agree.

62

Because that way agree.

63

We have agree.

64

Public record.

65

Yeah.

66

Of how much, and just to be clear,

how much adults are paying for

67

children to be represented by lawyers?

68

Not anyone else.

69

Lawyers.

70

Hugh: Yep.

71

And I, you know, one of the

things I always had trouble

72

getting them to explain was.

73

The at the times where I did finally get

complete billing, I would notice that.

74

The bills would look exactly

the same to both parties.

75

And I would try to say, well,

who, who did you talk to?

76

It just says phone call.

77

And you bill the exact same amount.

78

Are you billing both of them for

the same phone call or, yeah.

79

Yeah.

80

But, but I was never successful at

getting a judge to allow me to get their

81

phone records because I wanna see your

phone records, I wanna see who you're

82

calling and make sure you're not just

billing both parties the exact same thing

83

and double billing for the same work.

84

Christine: Yeah.

85

I mean, there's no question

that's discoverable.

86

They're fact witnesses.

87

How would that not be discoverable?

88

Hugh: No,

89

Christine: they're parties to a case.

90

No.

91

Are they?

92

Yeah.

93

Hugh: Yeah.

94

Well, they're not, well,

they're not parties.

95

They're wit, I mean,

96

Christine: witnesses the

deposition though, they would

97

have to answer via deposition.

98

I mean,

99

Hugh: if you had an expert that was hired

by one of the parties who was going to

100

come that, that you would be entitled

to discovery of that expert sources.

101

Mm-hmm.

102

And all the things that they did.

103

I don't know why we can't do that with.

104

With FOCs, and I don't think there's

a technical reason why we can't.

105

The judges are just very protective

of them and have just denied

106

it when I've asked for it.

107

Of course, the same judges

that denied me the ability to.

108

Take a deposition of a child's

therapist who was, you know, the

109

basis of a, of the FOCs report.

110

So

111

Christine: what I did not know about that.

112

Hugh: Oh, that was, that was one of the

major issues in the Van Ganek opinion.

113

Was she that the FOC routinely

referred to the therapist as a source

114

of information, but I, the judge

entered an order that I was not.

115

Allowed to do any

discovery of the therapist.

116

Christine: You cannot make this shit up.

117

No.

118

And just to pivot, we did

recently watch a video.

119

We're gonna put that on.

120

This is the, is it van Nada?

121

That's how you say it.

122

I'm not sure.

123

Van.

124

Well,

125

Hugh: yeah, yeah, yeah.

126

Okay.

127

What we, yeah.

128

Christine: Okay.

129

I've posted several on my private.

130

We're gonna post a video that talks

about what happened, Lord, after, right

131

after the court of Appeals opinion is

returned, overturning Judge Lauren Ogden.

132

On her restriction of

dad's parenting time.

133

I mean, is there any other way to say it?

134

Hugh: No, no, no, no.

135

They came back, she restricted

this father's parenting time.

136

The court of appeals in a, you

know, another fairly lengthy

137

decision where they talk about.

138

You know, the things that Judge

Ogden has done wrong in the case and

139

found that there was no justification

under the statute for her to have

140

restricted the father's parenting time.

141

Christine: Yep.

142

Hugh: They explicitly reversed

the order that restricted his

143

parenting time as it, so when it's

reversed, it's no longer in effect.

144

Right.

145

And then the parties came back to

the court and I, I couldn't believe.

146

You know, it comes back at motion hour.

147

I, it just, there were so many things

wrong with the appearance at motion hour.

148

Absolutely.

149

And it started with the judge

saying, oh, did they do that?

150

I haven't read it.

151

I haven't seen that opinion.

152

Exactly.

153

And this was almost two

weeks after it came out.

154

So has filed a motion related

to parenting time and sort of

155

what's going on in this case?

156

Do we need a hearing or whatever?

157

The father brings up the fact that,

I don't know why we need a hearing.

158

You were reversed.

159

They said that there's no reason

for there to be any restriction.

160

Christine: Yep.

161

Hugh: And they reversed your order and.

162

Basically we should go back to

what the parenting schedule was.

163

And she said, oh, I haven't seen that.

164

I haven't read it.

165

Yep.

166

And didn't do it just, and

like, whatever, whatever.

167

I don't care.

168

Christine: Even worse.

169

So I think the order overturning

170

We're in motion hour

171

And dad pro se killing it.

172

He's an out lawyer and some

lawyers, you know, in my opinion.

173

And he wants his parenting time back.

174

Well, what's interesting too, obviously

she's like, I haven't read it.

175

I didn't know I'm just

gonna get a hearing date.

176

Which further delays this father's

time, his constitutionally protected

177

right to parent his children,

178

Hugh: but she's already restricted

without any actual basis under the

179

statute according to the Court of Appeals.

180

Christine: Yeah.

181

Not according to us.

182

Right.

183

Yeah,

184

Hugh: I didn't see it.

185

I didn't look at it.

186

I know the court of appeals said you

had no basis for doing this, and they

187

reversed her and got rid of that order,

restricting his time, and now she's

188

saying, well, it's been a long time.

189

Basically you haven't seen the

children in a long time and

190

unre, you know, restricted.

191

So we need to have a hearing

about that happening.

192

And it's like, that's not

what's supposed to happen here.

193

Exactly.

194

You were wrong.

195

Your order is gone.

196

He should be seeing his kids.

197

Christine: And do you really believe,

I mean, I struggle to believe that

198

a judge that's been overturned isn't

reading the opinion where they've

199

been overturned for a two week period.

200

Well, I mean, judges I

used to know wouldn't have

201

Hugh: if.

202

That.

203

Okay, so first of all, anything

that happens like that,

204

everyone's talking about it,

205

Christine: right?

206

Hugh: We know, I mean, we're not even

practicing within family court right now.

207

We know when judges are overturned, right?

208

It's just family lawyers talk about it.

209

The judges talk about it, that

courthouse, there are quite a

210

few people in the courthouse that

are happy when certain judges get

211

overturned 'cause they're sick of.

212

Seeing the problems that come from it.

213

Everyone's talking about it.

214

Yeah.

215

And I know that because when my cases

would come down and I would get, you

216

know, a judge would get overturned the

next time I was over in the courthouse.

217

It could be the next day people

down in the clerk's office,

218

you know, people know about it.

219

Christine: Yeah.

220

Hugh: So that just seems

implausible, but and

221

Christine: unacceptable.

222

Even

223

Hugh: worse.

224

Yeah.

225

You're a

226

Christine: judge, right?

227

Well, and even worse than that,

it's a motion that's before the

228

court dad is having the case called

and he even says, I attached the

229

opinion to the motion I filed.

230

Yeah.

231

And she hadn't read it.

232

Hugh: Yeah, he had filed it.

233

Attached the opinion.

234

Yeah.

235

When you're appealed, you have to name the

judge sort of as a party to the appeal.

236

So this isn't something that's going

on, and they're acting as the judge

237

and , the parties get the order back.

238

The judge gets the order too.

239

Yeah.

240

They are copied on everything

from the court of appeals.

241

So the judge got notified, not just like

the parties that the, this opinion is

242

coming out, here's what's happening.

243

They sent it to her and she's

claiming that she didn't know.

244

And I, I don't know that that's not true.

245

Christine: Yeah.

246

Hugh: But I, I don't know what's

worse saying on the record that you

247

haven't seen it when you clearly.

248

Know about it or the fact that

you're a sitting judge, you've

249

been overturned, you had plenty of

notice that you've been overturned.

250

This case is coming in front of you

so that you need to be up to speed on

251

and you didn't bother to look at it.

252

Christine: And that just segues right

into literally one of the big problems

253

in, and the things that everyone

complains about that's listening at

254

home is the main concern seemed to

be getting a third party attorney

255

appointment paid and in on the case.

256

Hugh: Yeah.

257

God.

258

That was shameful.

259

And it was shameful for a couple

ways because the person,, well,

260

let's see the FOC on the case.

261

Oh God.

262

So many problems.

263

Where do I start?

264

Christine: Well, I mean, the first

would be she's an FOC that hasn't

265

filed a report and she's speaking.

266

But even bigger than that, yeah,

267

Hugh: speaking without being.

268

Without being placed under oath.

269

Oh, totally.

270

So,

271

Christine: and then, not even that, she's

an attorney, she's an appellate attorney.

272

She handles appellate cases, and she

starts off by explaining to the judge

273

how quote, unquote bizarre this case is.

274

And bizarre that this

order reversing her is

275

Hugh: well, and it is saying that she

can't, it's not clear from the order

276

which, or I mean, from the court of

appeals decision, which order's being

277

reversed and it's hard to follow.

278

It is as clear just simple

black and white, crystal

279

clear what's being reversed.

280

The language is clear and.

281

There's no way in the world this

person who holds themselves out as

282

someone who loves appeals, and that's

their her favorite thing to do.

283

Right?

284

Doesn't know that it's, there's,

there's some motivation behind saying

285

that this is difficult and, and right.

286

Shielding the judge on this.

287

Christine: So, looking at the facts, we

find insufficient evidence to suggest

288

the blank children party's names

would be in serious danger, either

289

physically, mentally, emotionally.

290

Or morally if they have

visitation with dad.

291

Dad's home is suitable for the

children and there is no evidence Ms.

292

Bryant has contact with them.

293

In addition, appellant is not using

drugs, is employed, seemingly has

294

control over his mental health.

295

Finally, the FOC testified that the

children want to spend time with dad.

296

The evidence in this case

did not support the end.

297

Danger.

298

Seriously.

299

Standard found in KRS 4 0 3.

300

Hugh: Yeah.

301

And it says reversed and remanded.

302

Yes.

303

So they are very clear.

304

The restriction and the finding that he's

a danger to his kid has been reversed.

305

There's nothing unclear about that.

306

There's nothing ambiguous.

307

They're not dealing with

five or six orders and don't

308

specify which one's reversed.

309

They are crystal clear.

310

The briefs are clear about

what order is being appealed.

311

I think it's, frankly, it's appalling.

312

The FOC sitting there talking about

how confusing this is and mm-hmm.

313

Trying to muddy the waters here and

to have this dragged out longer.

314

That part maybe made me angrier than

anything else without question, just.

315

It was just bullshit.

316

Total.

317

There was nothing, there was

nothing confusing or outta

318

the ordinary about this, or

319

Christine: bizarre.

320

I mean, it's like Shelly Santry

calling the judicial ethics

321

hotline and telling that story.

322

It's just, it's insane.

323

And what's even worse about that

is actually the FOC says, oh my

324

goodness, judge, this is so bizarre.

325

Then she's like, well, they gotta re-up.

326

They gotta re-up.

327

Oh yeah, they gotta re-up.

328

Hugh: I I'll, I'll continue

working on, as long as they.

329

They pay me more money.

330

And then the rest of the rest of the

court appearance, al almost everything,

331

there's something about sentencing

or , a purge date or something.

332

Yeah, on a contempt, but.

333

Most of the, the bulk of the rest of

the time is discussed and how much the

334

parties need to pay this F-O-C-F-O-C

335

Christine: and re-up.

336

Re-up.

337

I mean, she can't understand

a very basic court of appeals.

338

And she's talking about reup.

339

Well,

340

Hugh: she yeah, my, I don't believe

for a second she can't understand it.

341

Right, right, right.

342

That's the, not to mention the fact that.

343

She's an appointed witness

in this case, right?

344

Not an attorney on this case, right?

345

There is simply no reason in the

world the judge should be taking a

346

professional opinion from an expert

witness without putting someone under

347

oath, without following the statutes

on a report and allowing her to even

348

talk about how confusing this order is.

349

Right?

350

Christine: And Alison Russell, it's

not spring break in New Jersey,

351

you're not re-upping on anything.

352

Hugh: Oh my God.

353

Yeah, it, yeah.

354

I don't know that it is one of those

situations where the more and more we

355

talk to people and they talk about their

impression of what's broken in the system.

356

It was a perfect illustration

of every bit of that.

357

Christine: Absolutely.

358

Hugh: I don't, I'm not paying attention to

what the court of appeals tells me to do.

359

Didn't even know that there was an order

reversing I'm gonna do what I want to do.

360

Regardless of what the order says, you're

gonna have to wait to see your kids more.

361

Oh, and by the way, my buddy here,

who I'm just talking casually about

362

on the record, this FOC is going to

need to get paid more and it's just,

363

Christine: Yeah, if that doesn

doesn't, I can't make it up.

364

If that doesn't say it all, I

don't know what will judge y.com.

365

We want all your stories from FOCs

Jefferson County, happy Friday.

366

Can't wait to share more with

everything that's been going on.

367

And we will see you on Monday.

368

Hugh: See you.

369

Next call.

370

We need some justice, justice, justice.

371

And I wanna ring bells in public.

372

I wanna ring bes in public nor crowd.

373

Yeah, but I To the fo Yeah.

374

I To the fo Yeah.

375

I to the fo fo teaser.

376

Speaker 3: Content of this

podcast is for informational

377

and entertainment purposes only.

378

It is not intended to be and should

not be construed as legal advice.

379

Engaging with this content does not create

an attorney-client relationship between

380

you and the hosts, guests, or their firms.

381

The views and opinions expressed

on this podcast are solely those

382

of the individuals involved and

do not necessarily reflect the

383

official policy or position of any

law firm, company or organization.

384

We make no representations or

warranties regarding the accuracy,

385

completeness, or applicability

of the information presented.

386

Any reliance on the information in

this podcast is at your own risk.

387

Laws are constantly changing

and every situation is unique.

388

You should always seek the advice

of a qualified attorney for

389

your specific legal concerns.