The law is a sausage

I’m an attorney-type and I hate the courthouse. Why oh why, pray tell, would anyone who loves bratwurst want to visit the sausage factory? Why would you want to visit the kitchen of your favorite Chinese restaurant? Why would a law practitioner want to visit the courthouse? Nay, why did the majority of my classmates get stars in their eyes at the mere thought of ascending the steps to the courthouse? Somewhere along the line many of them were sold this romantic, overly dramatized misconceptions of what happens in there. Mind you, I don't have much experience there myself, but...

...I accompanied my mother to the courthouse earlier this week where she was petitioning for a modification to her child support and visitation order. Because my mother had served the father pursuant to a little-used statutory provision, the judge had to leave us for the end so she could do a little research. So we got to see the endless parade of broken people--good people at their worst.

One case that stood out was that of a man asking the court to make permanent a temporary restraining order against his wife. In the end this degenerated into a he-said-she-said situation. Normally in a jury trial the jury is entitled to credit whichever of the conflicting testimony it wishes. Here, it was entirely up to the judge. She (judge) saw the same thing I did: a sad, desperate man pleading for he court to help keep the woman away. Seem just a little implausible considering he was larger than she, etc.? Look what was happening. The woman was attacking the man every time he came to visit his children pursuant to the temporary visitation order. The woman had attacked him with a knife. The man had been arrested when he defended himself by grabbing her arms (and leaving marks). Now, to be fair, the man could have been lying, but the judge saw the same thing I did. Opposite a sincere-sounding, obviously distraught man was the woman who testified in a soft, unsure voice full of hesitation. She seemed to be evasive when she answered "I don't know" to yes/no questions for which she should have known the answers. In the end the judge did not credit the man's testimony so there was not sufficient evidence for her to make the restraining order permanent.

Was this the right decision? Probably. Despite the more believable testimony of the man? Probably. Why? Because a permanent restraining order against the woman--even if merited--might have had dire consequences for the pending child custody hearing. Frankly, she would have been screwed. So here we have an example of the judge making a crummy legal decision (arguably) in order to serve the broader interest of justice. The courthouses are like sausage factories. Skip the factory tour. Just enjoy the sausage.