community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
No on Mulligan, No on Baer this Tuesday
by John Cihon
Monday, May. 19, 2003 at 2:57 PM
johncihon@yahoo.com 412-232-0938
Judicial election coverage in Pittsburgh
It is and remains a fact that Pennsylvania has the lowest number of fathers who have primary custody of children in all fifty states. It is and remains a fact that less than 10% of fathers in Pennsylvania who petition for more than every other weekend with their children get it. It is a fact that Pennsylvania's custody laws call for far more liberal visitation than courts normally award.
The family court is currently excusing judges who are running for election from having to hear cases involving minors requesting abortions. The judges are excused from this because this is a highly politically charged issue, and an unpopular stance might affect their reelection chances. One result of this is we have no way to know any particular family division judge's feelings on abortion, and Pennsylvania is a state that is fairly restrictive towards the procedure already. This practice exists because the judges currently in office consent to it and adjusts their schedules and caseloads to make this possible. Any of the seven family division judges in Allegheny county right now has the choice to refuse to participate in this system, and it would fall apart. This is another reason to shake up the family court system.
If you believe that this is justice, then by all means, support Kathleen Mulligan for retention. If you believe that over 90% of seperated fathers in this state don't deserve to see their children more than four days a month, then vote to retain Kathleen Mulligan. If you believe that judicially sanctioned sexism is wrong, no matter what the circumstances, then please vote 'No' on retention of Kathleen Mulligan this Tuesday.
Allegheny County Family Division and Juvenile Court Administrative Judge Max Baer was removed of his position by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court effective April 16, 1999. The last straw for Judge Baer came from an appeal to the Superior Court of one of his decisions. In this case, Judge Baer awarded custody of a six year old girl to her foster father. This same foster father had served time in prison for incest when he had gotten his own daughter pregnant. Judge Baer, apparently, ignored the record and gave custody of this little girl to this convicted child molester. The rest is now history. Please vote against Max Baer this Tuesday.
For questions, please contact John Cihon at 412-232-0938, or e-mail johncihon@yahoo.com
No on Baer, yes on Allen
by Mary Hart
Monday, May. 19, 2003 at 3:45 PM
mh5r@andrew.cmu.edu 412-241-1855
Cheryl Allen, who is running against Baer, has, by all accounts I've heard, worked hard and with integrity during her time in Juvenile Division to make a positive impact on the lives of those who came through her courtroom. Prior to working in Juvenile Divsion, she worked for Neighbohood Legal Services and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, as well as teaching elementary school.
I think to some extent Judge Allen's work has gone unrecognized, in much the same way that another hard-working, capable, and experienced judge, Cynthia Baldwin, was passed over in favor of the Kathleen Mulligan, who had much less experience as a judge, when a replacement was sought for Baer in family division.
My experience with as a litigant in Judge Baer's courtroom when he was in Family Division was that it was indeed the case that rules of law went out the window (in the child molester case, he was quoted as saying something to the effect that he didn't care what the law was, he *felt* the man was a good dad.) Likewise, he was prone to ignoring information that was available to help him in decision-making, such as psychological evaluations.
Perhaps the worst thing was that he took the attitude that if you ended up in court, you deserved whatever happened to you. Ending up in court is a pretty awful thing to have happen. It seems like a judge is in a position to make an enormous positive difference in the lives of people at a very difficult time. I'd like to vote for someone who sees the position that way- and I will be voting for Allen, rather than Baer.
BTW, there are lots of men walking around thinking that Baer is biased against men because of their bad experiences with him. There are likewise lots of women who have lost custody of children who have a similar sense that the issue is one of gender. My feeling is that the main problem is that there is a complete lack of accountability for judges' actions in the courtroom. When you couple this with disregard of the law, you get a pretty awful situation. The "judical retention" issue- which pretty much ensures that judges keep their positions until retirement- makes things worse. In the case of Judge Baer specifically, he seemed almost to be the anti-family Family Division judge, doing a lot of damage to parent-child relationships.
I hope everyone will think hard about who they vote for- it really does make a difference.
As with the original poster, I'd be happy to discuss my FD experiences/observations.
No on Mulligan, Fall 2003
by Mary Mabon
Tuesday, May. 20, 2003 at 1:41 PM
mmabon5@aol.com 412--421-9459
Not only does Judge Mulligan seem to rule against Fathers as the Mr. Cichon pointed out, but she is not knowledgeable about the law. She has been a family judge for almost 10 years, and by the way, she is not on the ballot today, and has learned nothing. She rules with her heart, which may be the cause of ruling against Fathers, especially when young children are involved, we can talk about that later, however, she stupidly rules with her heart on matters of law. I have been in court with Ms. Mulligan for over 7 years. She has consistently caused me to have to appeal her decisions, which has run into the tens of thousands of dollars. She gets overturned more often than not because she simply does not understand Pennsylvania law. Her mistakes have been ridiculously costly for me and my children and forced me into bankruptcy. I will not elaborate unless someone is interested, but I think she is so incompetent that she shoud not be retained.
If I could find some people to begin an anti-camplaign on this judge, I would be happy to help. Anyone interested?
Family Division
by Denise
Sunday, May. 25, 2003 at 8:45 PM
coparenting@yahoo.com
Hey John,
Great article, you are such the man. Hey John as you no and from this past election people that follow the elections of judges are the judges, court personnel, the pocket strings and those who care. A lot of people are not aware of the judges and their practices. Hell I no lawyers that cannot even name all the judges? You should send your comments to the editor of the Pittsburgh Press betters yet the Tribune Review they are non bias. I may even be able to get you a reported there. PCN, The Pittsburgh Cable channel hosted questions and answer session with the judges and never did any of these issues come up wonder why Hummmmmmmmmmm!
John keep working for the people .
Judge Mulligan
by Mary Hart
Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2003 at 6:24 PM
mh5r@andrew.cmu.edu
Kathleen Mulligan is up for "retention" for Allegheny County Common Pleas court on Tuesday. "Retention" is an odd system under which judges, once elected or appointed for the first time, run for "retention"- and not against opponents- every ten years. The retention system effectively creates lifetime judgeships with no accountability.
Your failure to vote against retaining a judge is effectively a vote for the judge.
Mulligan's next ten years will cost approximately 1.3 million dollars in salary money (probably about 1.8 million including benefits). Please consider whatever you've heard or read about Mulligan and think about whether you got your money's worth with her first ten years before voting on Tuesday.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)