Levers denies racism

| 02/08/2010

(CNS): Following the publication of the Privy Council’s judgment regarding Grand Court judge, Justice Priya Levers and her comments in court, Levers has denied she is a racist. When asked by CNS, she stated that, despite reports in the Jamaican media, the PC had not accused her of being a racist but had said one of her comments could have been perceived as such. Married to a Jamaican and having spent almost three decades practising as a lawyer there, Levers said she was not racist towards the people of that nation. She pointed out that the tribunal which examined the allegations against her had accused her of racism, but the PC had stated that she had given the perception of it — an important difference she noted.

In the wake of the Privy Council’s ruling and its recommendation that Levers be removed, the judge insisted her comments were not meant to be racist. “The Privy Council states that I am not a racist and that I am not anti-Jamaican,” she told CNS. “In paragraph 94 their lordships do not suggest that I, who am after all married to a Jamaican, am a racist. What they have said is that a comment I made could be perceived to be racist.”
 
Levers says that she regrets the manner in which she made the comment because of the perception it gave, but she said it was one comment made during one case of literally hundreds of cases in which she had appeared and her intention had been to comment on people who came to the Cayman Islands and behaved badly. “Their lordships have deemed it to be a perception of racism and I have the utmost respect for their lordships,” she added.
 
Levers pointed out that the accusations of racism were particularly hurtful and upsetting as she herself had been ostracised by her own family for marrying a black Jamaican, but had still voluntarily given up her native Sri Lankan passport to take a Jamaican one when she married. She said she had practiced as a lawyer there for almost three decades. And, she added, her three children were all born in Jamaica, and she had kept a home in the country during her time on the bench in Cayman.
 
Accepting the ruling from the Privy Council which recommended her removal, Levers told CNS that despite the situation the commission had resurrected her reputation and criticised the tribunal for going too far. Levers, who is expected to be removed from the bench by Governor Duncan Taylor this week, said she hoped that people would read the judgment for themselves.
 
“The Privy Council makes it clear that the tribunal had no right to damage my reputation before the case went to them,” she said, adding that she was grateful the Cayman Islands Constitution required that the PC rule in such cases. “I hope the people will read the PC judgment and not just the tribunal’s report or the news headlines.”
 
She said that at least the PC had repaired her reputation as a good lawyer and a person with high standards, although she acknowledged they had pointed out fatal flaws in her career. Levers said she was not attempting to justify the findings against her but she said she felt it was important to emphasise she was not a racist.
 
She also pointed out that some people had suggested she had come to work in the Cayman Islands for the money, or health coverage, which she said simply was not true. Levers said that having worked as an acting judge here she had liked the jurisdiction very much and wanted to work here. She said she came with her own money, her own private health insurance and had bought her own house.
 
Levers said she had worked very, very hard during her time in Cayman despite being unwell, and even during the year she was having dialysis she still sat on some 45 cases. She said she was disappointed that all her hard work had ended like this but hoped that she had seen that justice was done and people would recognise she had the interests of the Caymanian people at heart.
 
Levers said she did not want to comment further on the ruling at this time until her circumstances were officially settled by the governor.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Headline News

Comments (41)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. TennisAce says:

     I am actually aware of the case that is the subject of the extracts and if you guys knew the whole truth, you would not believe it.   While Levers, J. acted injudiciously how many of us in our private capacity have long held the view that many expats come here, marry  Caymanians in order to gain some form of rights? 

    In addition, there are many Canadian and American women who have had children with Caymanian men who attempt to return to their nativecountries with the children, thereby depriving Caymanian men of their parental rights.   How many of you are aware of this?  

    Sometimes things are not so black and white as you will see.  I make no apologies for Levers, J. as she should have known better and she was in a position where she did know better.  It is all water under the bridge now. 

    I have known her since I have been working in other jurisdictions and her area of speciality was matrimonial law.  She was one of the first to bring a claim to the Privy Council on behalf of a woman who lived with a man for many years without the benefit of marriage and contested the fact that she was left with nothing.  She has always championed the cause of women in Jamaica and elsewhere when the courts have let them down. 

    She is not the evil woman that the PC and others have made her out to be.  People had their own agenda in destroying this woman and it did not help that Levers, J. aided and abetted those who wished to destroy her.  Hopefully, this decision by the PC will close a very ugly chapter in  Cayman’s judiciary. 

    The old boy network wins once again. 

    • Anonymous says:

      With regard to your second paragraph, guess the men are so naive and innocent they don’t know what they are doing?

    • Ex-Caymanian & Not by Choice says:

      Tennis Ace, not to many people have a sweet taste in their mouth when it comes to Justice Levers, but what you have said is all true, She did push for the benifits of children and women, now bear in mind she called it as she saw it! I thought that she was a real Bitch when i had to go before her once before, but after getting to know her a lil better, I found her to be a very concerned individual, she has seen some very distrubing cases in her time on the bench and had some very hard decesions to make as well, I am sorry for the persons whom brought this about on her because we had at least one Woman who actually cared about Us.  I may also get many thumbs down but I don’t care, I can only speak of my personal experience with her. 

    • Anonymous says:

      To my mind, one of the most poignant statements that the Board of the Privy Council made in arriving at its decision was with regard to Levers J lack of self-insight.  Her responses to the press demonstrate this. 

      Long before the matter reached the point of a hearing, she could have sought to have held back the tide of destruction of her career by apologising for her behaviour, bringing her behaviour into proper decorum, and salvaging what she could of her career.  She took the nuclear option — an option that must always be long and carefully considered,

      I do feel sorry for Levers J as another human being, but obviously we cannot afford to offer sustenance to this fatally flawed character of a judge. 

      Thankfully some people were willing to pay the price of exposing this sad story and to lay it to rest once and for all.  Too often in the civil service as a whole no one has the courage to make the necessary hard decisions.

      To those who had a good experience/relationship/personal interaction with Levers J, one cannot ignore the larger picture.  Obviously, she had to have had her virtues — and I would be very surprised that she did not have those who loved and respected her.  This has been true of many other widely lauded persons who ultimately fell from grace because of one or two fatal flaws.

      Even the Privy Council’s Board had difficulty reconciling the person with the richness of background, talent, accomplishments and dossier of support with the sad spectable of judicial and personal behaviours presented to them. 

      And by the way, I read the Compass’ editorial today raising the question as to whether a different method should be adopted rather than the serious constitutional steps that will ultimately lead to Levers J being relieved of her post.

      Removing a judge is a very serious matter — and it is important that it continues to be treated in such a serious way.  The reason is that this protects the independence of judges.  And that independence is not just, as some people may feel, for the beneift of the judges — but for the benefit of those who appear in court before them.  Judges must be allowed to make their decisions without fear or favour.  That happy state of affairs could be conceivably compromised if a community could easily dispose of a judge.

      To Levers J, I share the sadness you must feel — no one can rejoice about this.  The recovery may be difficult, but you will one day look back on this, quite possibly as a providential turning point in your life.  The value of a life is not measured in status or money — you may, indeed, find that the best is yet to come.

       My very best wishes to you as you move forward with your life.  

       

       

       

    • Anon says:

      TennisAce, this may be the first post of yours on which we absolutely agree. I am also personally aware of one of the cases. The truth is that in many cases (not all) Levers only said out loud in court what many people think or say in private. 

      I also have to question whether all would pass the same level of scrutiny she has experienced.

       

       

  2. Halloween Jack says:

    It is shame that this cost so much.  It is a shame that this has brought disrepute to the Cayman Islands.  It is a shame that this was not settled some time ago.  It is a shame there was a need for a Tribunal.  It is even more of a shame that the Tribunal’s decision was not accepted.

    I have tremendous respect for the Chief Justice for taking this difficult, necessary and some would say long overdue step in the first place.

    It says a lot that this article seems to be focussed on the individual concerned seeking self-justification rather than apologising to the people of the Cayman Islands for her behaviour and for our money she has wasted. 

    Could she simply say "sorry"?

  3. anonymous says:

    Explain please your statement about visitation and custody what did she have to do with this?

  4. Anonymous says:

    Poor Justice Levers.  I imagine that she was a victim of office politics – proabably a bit too brash, a bit too outspoken, unaware and unbelieving that her actions could ever lead to her dismissal.  That’s what happens when you mess with the Powers that Be.  The "misbehaviour" aspect I imagine was likely the means to get her fired.  I imagine that her behaviour likely needed to be remedied – but instead of firing her, they could have suspended her first.  That would have sent her a message – why "execute" her when a good slap on her wrists would have done the trick – unless of course, you wanted her out???  When your kid misbehaves, you tell him to stop it.  When he/she continues to misbehave you don’t execute your kid, you put him/her in time-out.  If it continues, you give him a good assin.  That’s why, especially in Cayman, one has to learn to keep his/her mouth firmly shut – bad things happen when you don’t.  The Powers that Be don’t like loud people raining in on their parties. 

    • Anonymous says:

      No Comparison here. You are comparing Apples to oranges. This is the Public Domain. Not privaate or family matter. It is at the level of the state, not a village.

    • Anonymous says:

      People like you annoy me, you obviously couldn’t be bothered to read the Judgement on the case. It stats quite clearly that she was warned on a number of occasions both formally and informally but she choose to ignore the warnings hence why it had to come to this.

      Please read before making ignorant, useless comments next time.

    • Anon says:

      Judges are held to higher standards.  Simple as.  Her behaviour was most injudicious.  Simple tings.  The right decision was made and she was no scapegoat/victim of office policies – just the author of her own misfortune (a phrase commonly used in law and one that seems very appropriate indeed here).

  5. Anonymous says:

    To me she was quite nice. It does seem that she does not suffer fools gladly.

  6. Anonymous again! says:

    I am afraid that the very fact that Levers has seen fit to comment to the press when she has been the subject of comment in the highest tribunal for British Territory is really a very good demonstration of her lack of judgement and inability to keep her thoughts and views to herself – one of the very comments made at both the enquiry and the Privy Council.  I for one, as a laywer who practices on this island and was often at the sharp edge of her injudicious, capricious comments based often on the fact that she had already pre-judged the case, will not be sad to see the end of her days of sitting.  May this bring in a new age of judicial accountability on this island.  There has been too little of it, and with respect, too little discipline exercised for too long by those who are in a position to do so.  Being a judge holds a great public duty and accountability.  Such powershould be exercised carefully and thoughtfully.

    At the same time may I suggest something like the professional rules of conduct for solicitors/ barristers in England to stop some of the cowboy like behaviour of some of the lawyers that practise here.

     

    • Anon says:

      There is nothing inappropriate about the nature of Levers J.’s comments to the press. The legal process is at an end.     

      • Looking into the fishbowl says:

        Not quite actually .  The Governor still has to remove her.

    • Anonymous says:

      From the quality of your prose and the fact that you have time to comment on CNS boards instead of doing your job, it could give one the appearance that your career as a lawyer may not be that successful. Remember, it matters not what you are, just what you appear to be.

      Maybe its your inherrent flaws as an attorney which resulted in your being on the pointed end of her sharp tongue rather than her pre-judging a case. Accountability first right?

      • Anon says:

        "inherrent"  What does that mean? 

      • Looking into the fishbowl says:

        Actually the court of appeal time vindicate me and rule she was wrong so perhaps you should think before you make such acerbic remarks. As it is I managed to bill 11.5 hours today – in at work at 6 and didn’t leave till 9 – I have no inherent flaws as an attorney.  I am entitled to read and write what I wish on my own laptop whilst eating my sandwich at my desk at lunchtime.  XXXX

        • Jack Straw says:

          "Actually the court of appeal time vindicate me and rule she was wrong"…what?! Hopefully those 11.5 billable hours you racked up today included some form of grammar class. 

          And as an aside, tons of billable hours doesn’t make you a good attorney. I know paralegals who work that hard. The fact that you don’t know that perhaps says it all.

          • Anon says:

            As a former lawyer, and a person who subsequently trained lawyers in time management – I can tell you that billing 11.5 hours a day means nothing at all.  What matters, is the quality of the work, the value to the client, and whether that time was reasonable in the context of the work done.  I have met many Attorneys who thought they could charge a couple of hours for perusing and considering a two line incoming email.  I too, have met paralegals who can bill this.  Its nothing special in the line of work you chose.

        • Anon says:

          Dear me. What does this actually mean?

          "Actually the court of appeal time vindicate me and rule she was wrong".  

          Knowing Levers I can see that she would have had little time for you. One of your inherent flaws as an attorney is your embarrassingly poor level of expression.

          • Anon says:

            Yes well I am still free to continue my chosen profession as a lawyer.  Sadly for her, Levers J is not. She is shortly to be removed from office in a public (and possibly embarrassing) manner.  So say what you like, and make whatever remarks you would like to about my grammar, prose, ability to articulate, billable hours, inability as a laywer, inherrent (sic) flaws and so on and so forth.  All of your critical and accusatory remarks have failed to understand my point – it is about judicial accountability and stopping poor practices amongst the lawyers and judiciary generally.  I was welcoming in a new era to Cayman.  An era where all who encounter the judicial and legal profession are hopefully served well.  I have spent two decades at the British Bar where opponents treat each other with respect, don’t pull fast ones and uphold the traditions and standards of the Bar first and their clients next.   This maintains independence and a high level of service to the users of their services.  I see very little of that on a day to day basis. There are of course exceptions at the English Bar for which I am ashamed and exceptions at the Cayman bar for which I am grateful.  That was my point.  It was entirely missed. (again obviously I am a rubbish lawyer and my prose is poor and  I must take grammar lessons.)

            • Anonymous says:

              Justice Levers may also continue her chosen profession as a lawyer. She is not being disbarred-many of the people who comment here seem to fail to understand this. Your posts are in effect saying that local or non-English lawyers are not up to your high English standards. This BS persists in the Caribbean because of colonialism.

              If you were such a great lawyer-with that level of seniority- you would have had the integrity to confront Justice Levers or the Chief Justice about the problems you had with her, instead of posting anonymously on a news website.

              • Anon says:

                I did raise my concerns about her to the appropriate forum. I used my own name too.

            • Anon says:

              You are confusing posters. Clearly my post correctly said "inherent".

              Levers was all for higher standards and that was her undoing. She did not suffer fools gladly. Yes, some of her remarks were injudicious.

    • Anon says:

      The lady does not suffer fools. Where do you fit in the broad spectrum of the Judiciary?

      I just hope the people have all read and understand there is recourse for all members of the Judiciary now and if need be, take the necessary action to have any that need it, disbarred as well. Ensure you have a signed agreement with your Attorney with clear instructions and use the Complaints commissioner’s office if necessary.

      This type of so called "Justice" needs to be extended across all members and I say, it’s about time. The days of ill prepared Attorneys must end if Justice is to prevail.

  7. Anonymous says:

    She is not racist, she has been very kind to me a Native Caymanian. I am sadden that she is to be removed, but such is life, and life is full of merry-go-rounds. One thing I must say is everyone should read the PC’s ruling,  God bless you Mrs. Levers you are a woman of valour in my book.

    • Anonymous says:

      Talk of her being racist is XXX

      CNS: This comment was flagged. It was an ironic reference to the PC report but could be construed as an insult in itself.

      • Anon says:

        I think some of you have evidently not read the full judgment ofthe privy council, and I think Levers is cherry-picking words from the judgment to try and paint a better picture than the one that we all see.

        So I am pasting in extracts from the judgment so you can judge for yourselves:

        "83. The Tribunal held that Levers J behaved in an inappropriate manner and that she showed bias in favour of the father on account of his gender. She made a series of derogatory remarks towards Ms. C, referring to her status as a woman who was a foreigner, her impecuniosity, and as part of the pattern of foreign women having

        sexual relations with Cayman men and then seeking to leave the jurisdiction with their offspring. The Tribunal considered that the use of the phrase “you people” in its context was aimed at Ms. C as a Canadian and was particularly offensive.
         
        84. The Board is not persuaded that Levers J’s comments suggested gender discrimination as such. Furthermore, Levers J could properly have wished to explore whether Ms. C had deliberately had a child whom she intended to bring up without involvement of the father. The way she did this, however, was highly offensive and racist. This was a wholly inappropriate way of treating a litigant, or indeed anyone, in Levers J’s court. The Board is satisfied that the comments amounted to serious misconduct…"
         
                                                   – – – – – – –
         

        Ms S E is a Costa Rican national who married a black Caymanian. They had been married for 15 years, had three children and had acquired a family home, but the marriage failed and she was a petitioner in divorce proceedings before Levers J on 27 August 2007. On 11 October she wrote a letter of complaint to the Chief Justice about comments made by Levers J in the course of the hearing. The Tribunal found that she was an honest witness, but determined only to accept that part of her evidence which was fully corroborated by Ms Merren, her counsel. This was an exchange at the end of the hearing. When Levers J ruled that the children would live with their father, Ms E
        asked how she could give custody of the children to their father when he basically spent his time in a bar drinking and playing darts and dominoes while they were young while she dedicated her life to them. To this, Levers J replied:
         
        “That’s what you get for being married to a black man. If you had
        married an Englishman or a white man that would not have happened to
        you.”
         
        Levers J accepted that she made this comment, save that she said that in place of “black” she said “Caribbean”.
         
        94. The Tribunal commented that this was a gratuitous insult to Ms E regarding her choice of husband from a particular ethnic group and that it was also a racist remark.  The Tribunal decided, however, that this comment fell short of serious misconduct.  The Board does not agree. The judge’s comment was outrageously racist. The Board understands that what may be totally unacceptable in some places may be common currency in others. Nor does it suggest that Levers J, who is after all married to a Jamaican, is herself racist. But a comment such as that will inevitably be perceived as racist by those who hear it and is totally unacceptable from the bench anywhere in the world. The Board considers that it constituted serious misconduct.
         

         
        FINAL PARAGRAPH OF JUDGMENT
         
        134. The Board has been most concerned with those occasions when Levers J has been guilty in court of completely inexcusable conduct that have given the appearance of racism, bias against foreigners and bias in favour of the defence in criminal cases.  They have been fatal flaws in a judicial career that has had many admirable features.  The Board does not endorse the unqualified terms in which the Tribunal saw fit to condemn Levers J, as quoted at paragraph 38 above. The Board is, however, satisfied that by her misconduct Levers J showed that she was not fit to continue to serve as a judge of the Grand Court and humbly advises Her Majesty that she should be removed from that office on the ground of her misbehaviour.

        You can make excuses and dress it up as much as you want – but there’s a very strong smell of racism both in these extracts and plenty of other parts of the judgment – particularly aimed at the ex pat community if you ask me .

        • Anonymous says:

          i wonder what your agenda is for you to have gone to such lengths to do this…

        • Anonymous says:

          Talk about cherry picking parts of the Judgment. Below is the same extracts that you used, with different emphases:

           

           

          "83. The Tribunal held that Levers J behaved in an inappropriate manner and that she showed bias in favour of the father on account of his gender. She made a series of derogatory remarks towards Ms. C, referring to her status as a woman who was a foreigner, her impecuniosity, and as part of the pattern of foreign women having sexual relations with Cayman men and then seeking to leave the jurisdiction with their offspring. The Tribunal considered that the use of the phrase “you people” in its context was aimed at Ms. C as a Canadian and was particularly offensive.
           
          84. The Board is not persuaded that Levers J’s comments suggested gender discrimination as such. Furthermore,Levers J could properly have wished to explore whether Ms. C had deliberately had a child whom she intended to bring up without involvement of the father. The way she did this, however, was highly offensive and racist. This was a wholly inappropriate way of treating a litigant, or indeed anyone, in Levers J’s court. The Board is satisfied that the comments amounted to serious misconduct…"
           
                                                     – – – – – – –
           
          Ms S E is a Costa Rican national who married a black Caymanian. They had been married for 15 years, had three children and had acquired a family home, but the marriage failed and she was a petitioner in divorce proceedings before Levers J on 27 August 2007. On 11 October she wrote a letter of complaint to the Chief Justice about comments made by Levers J in the course of the hearing. The Tribunal found that she was an honest witness, but determined only to accept that part of her evidence which was fully corroborated by Ms Merren, her counsel. This was an exchange at the end of the hearing. When Levers J ruled that the children would live with their father, Ms E asked how she could give custody of the children to their father when he basically spent his time in a bar drinking and playing darts and dominoes while they were young while she dedicated her life to them. To this, Levers J replied:
           
          “That’s what you get for being married to a black man. If you had married an Englishman or a white man that would not have happened to you.”
           
          Levers J accepted that she made this comment, save that she said that in place of “black” she said “Caribbean”.
           
          94. The Tribunal commented that this was a gratuitous insult to Ms E regarding her choice of husband from a particular ethnic group and that it was also a racist remark.  The Tribunal decided, however, that this comment fell short of serious misconduct.  The Board does not agree. The judge’s comment was outrageously racist. The Board understands that what may be totally unacceptable in some places may be common currency in others. Nor does it suggest that Levers J, who is after all married to a Jamaican, is herself racist. But a comment such as that will inevitably be perceived as racist by those who hear it and is totally unacceptable from the bench anywhere in the world. The Board considers that it constituted serious misconduct.
           
           
          FINAL PARAGRAPH OF JUDGMENT
           
          134. The Board has been most concerned with those occasions when Levers J has been guilty in court of completely inexcusable conduct that have given the appearance of racism, bias against foreigners and bias in favour of the defence in criminal cases.  They have been fatal flaws in a judicial career that has had many admirable features.  The Board does not endorse the unqualified terms in which the Tribunal saw fit to condemn Levers J, as quoted at paragraph 38 above. The Board is, however, satisfied that by her misconduct Levers J showed that she was not fit to continue to serve as a judge of the Grand Court and humbly advises Her Majesty that she should be removed from that office on the ground of her misbehaviour.

          I’m fairly certain that things can be percevied in many ways. Its important to note that perception is sometimes far from reality. This is not to say that Judge Levers should have said anything of those things, but the test for Judges is avoidance of perception, regardless of the truth of those perceptions. We can say that she was wrong to have said those things, but who are we to call her racist when the Privy Council, who read the transcripts and are far smarter than we, refuse to do so.

          • Anonymous says:

            Um, when picking cherries you select the ones you want, and leave the rest on the tree.

            Had the statements in bold been in isolation (without the full text) you would have had a point, but I considered it only fair that the whole transcript was included, i.e. all the cherries were there so readers could pick their own.  There’s a huge difference.  

            However, my cherries are in bold text to reflect my views, and I guess the thumbs up/thumbs down feature reflects the views of the readers.

            • For the avoidance of doubt... says:

              For the avoidance of doubt… I made the post on Mon, 08/02/2010 @ 14:34.
               
              The above post (Mon, 08/02/2010 – 20:33) is in reply to Mon, 08/02/2010 @ 17.15. and not in response to anyone else.  Apologies if I did not make that clear when originally posting last night.
               

          • @ Mon, 08/02/2010 - 17:15. says:

            The [UK Privy Council] Board does not agree. The judge’s comment was outrageously racist."

            Whilst they go on to qualify that statement in para. 94, those words up there ^ say enough for me…. and that’s cherry picking!

          • noname says:

            Does anyone else see the logical inconsistency in saying that someone who is married to a black Jamaican man, who has black Jamaican children and who lived and worked in Jamaica for so long is racist against blacks and/or Jamaicans?

            Moreover, if she was biased towards defendants instead of the prosecution, wouldn’t that mean that many she was biased in favour of were themselves of colour?

            This lady must either hate everyone under the sun or this goes to show that sometimes perception is not reality. She shouldn’t sit on the bench because there perception is probably most important, but for many here to call her a racist…that can’t be right, can it?

          • Anonymous9 says:

            Hmmmm Still looks pretty black and white to me. She made racist remarks and it is BESIDES the fact of whether or not she was racist. She made them and they were downright MEAN.

             

            And by the way, you can be black and STILL be racist against blacks. You can be Caymanian and still be racist against Caymanians…(as we ALL know) And that goes for Jamaicans too.

            That is the SILLIEST argument I have ever heard.

      • Anonymous says:

        Thanks CNS. I’m glad you recognized my tongue in cheek "Talk of her being racist…" as her own words taken from the Privy Council’s report.

        Unfortunately, not even the LOL at the end was able to help those who fail to recognize either humour or sarcasm in written form. Some type of font is needed to assist those people.

        For those who have read the report and are still willing to offer support to Judge Levers, I can only shake my head in disbelief. I would assume that for themracism must be very personal and irrelevant if it is not directed at them. It says a lot about how we care for the least amongst us, and reminds me of Niemollers words "First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist……."

         

    • Anonymous says:

      Perception is what is important here. a person might not be racist genuinely ,but if you make statements that a reasonable man listening to the comments or observing the actions would conclude that it has racial overtones then a tribunal would be correct in concluding that you are a racist.

      Its something akin to dishonesty. If reasonable members of the society observing your actions, conclude that they were corrupt, although they are not, you will have to rebut that by evidence to the contrary.

      It is all easy for her to say she is not racist, but tell that to the person on the receiving of her statement/action

  8. Anonymous says:

    Now we can go back to the old days of men not standing a chance in visitation and custody cases.

    • Anonymous says:

      AMEN!

      Hopefully we no longer have to convince a judge that just because the father shows up once in a while does not make him fit to be a father, allowing him overnight visits and shared custody.  Ugh! My despicable husband is trying to teach my child life in the streets.  Street language, street gestures, street attire.  Allowing shared custody of my child will teach my child how to be a criminal.  How do I prevent custody being granted?

       

      As a side note, prior to marrying he gave the appearance of being a respectable university educated man, with a decent paying job.  Coached children in soccer and basketball and attended church.  To top it off, he came from a prestigious Caymanian family which both parents were present.  Subsequent to marriage, he quit his job, drank, smoked all day long and hung out with his fellow unemployed friends to my detriment.