|
Post by cenydd on Aug 12, 2013 9:12:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Daisy on Aug 12, 2013 9:54:46 GMT
That was clearly not a case for the judge to decide. If the couple had been married it would not have been an issue and the judge would never have been involved.
|
|
|
Post by alwayssa on Aug 18, 2013 18:22:57 GMT
You have to look at the petition. The petitioner wanted the judge to decide which last name to use for the child, the mother's or father's. It did not ask the judge which family name should the child use.
What the judge did was putting the Mother's last name, Martin, as the given name and keeping the family name, the father's, remaining. However, I disagre with the reasoning why the judge made that decision, but that is a separate argument.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 18, 2013 19:47:01 GMT
I clearly agree that this was not a case that the judge should even have heard as Jaleesa Martin, as the mother, had over-riding authority to name her child.
Additionally the judge ordering the change of the child's first name based upon her religious beliefs represents judicial malfeasance and magistrate Lu Ann Ballew should be immediately removed from the bench.
|
|
|
Post by wyly on Aug 19, 2013 6:34:30 GMT
the judge was clearly out of line...isn't Jesus a fairly common name among american latino's
|
|