EP 103 Sun's Out, Beers Out

EP 103: Sun's Out, Beers OutThe JudgeMental PodcastAbout the ShowThe JudgeMental Podcast is brought to you by Hugh and Christine — two lawyers determined to save the system through judicial accountability and transparency. Find us on judge-y.com | Follow us: @Judgingthejudges | Download the app: Judge-yEpisode SummaryChristine is live from sunny Florida (with a Peroni in hand) and Trey is fresh off a Miami trip. This episode is packed — from a deep dive into Judge Lauren Ogden's repeated due process violations to breaking developments in the Matt Bevin case, plus a lively community discussion about FOC Jim Murphy and what accountability in the family court system should actually look like.In This Episode🍺 What Are We Drinking?Trey: Country Boy Nacho Bait with orangeChristine: Peroni (and yes, Publix is currently running a buy-one-get-one-free on six-packs — don't miss it)⚖️ Judge-y Community Q&AThis segment is made possible by the Judge-y app — all questions are 100% anonymous. Download the app at judge-y.com or search *Judge-y in your app store.*Q: Has Judge Lauren Ogden ever faced any consequence or JCC reprimand for the multiple Court of Appeals reversals finding she violated due process?The short answer: No. None. Not a single public or private JCC complaint or reprimand that Christine has been able to find. Despite the Court of Appeals repeatedly — and emphatically — telling Judge Ogden she cannot strip litigants of their constitutionally protected due process rights without a hearing, there have been zero formal consequences. Christine and Trey explore:Whether attorneys who read those appellate opinions have an ethical obligation under the "big brother" rule to file a bar complaintWhy the Louisville Family Bar's rallying around Judge Ogden may be emboldening further violationsThe stark contrast between judges who once acknowledged and corrected appellate reversals in open court versus the attitude that prevails todayWhy the absence of media coverage is staggering — it's not Christine or Trey saying these things. It's the Court of Appeals of Kentucky.📰 Breaking: Matt Bevin Case UpdateThe Bevin divorce case — which has attracted coverage from The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Courier-Journal, Louisville Public Media, WDRB, and WLKY — continues to develop. Christine pulled the docket live during recording:May 7th: The Kentucky Supreme Court issued its orderNo motion to reconsider was filed by the deadlineSentencing scheduled: May 29th at 4:00 PMFull-day child support hearing set: July 28thThe case centers on whether a nearly-adult child (who filed for intervention at approximately age 17) can intervene in his parents' divorce and seek child support — a legal question with no clear Kentucky precedent. Christine and Trey debate:Why a full-day hearing is warranted given undisclosed financial documentation and the novel legal issues at stakeThe mechanics of imputing income when a party refuses to produce financialsWhy this case, regardless of who the parties are, has the potential to fundamentally reshape family law in Kentucky — and possibly beyondA message to the "Country Club followers": Your kids are coming for your money. Call your legislators. Let's get family court reform.📣 Judge-y Community Thread: FOC Jim MurphyThe Judge-y community — anonymous, candid, and growing — has a lot to say about Friend of the Court Jim Murphy. Highlights from the thread:Multiple accounts of Murphy stating he "can't weigh in" per Adair v. Zimberton, only to offer recommendations minutes later when prompted by the judgeConcerns about his presence at motion hours where FOCs are not permitted to testifyQuestions about billing transparency — Murphy has reportedly described himself as "terrible at issuing bills" and doesn't bill for everything he doesA community member spotted him being paged by a judge in one case while he'd already left for anotherThe Adair v. Zimberton Case (in under 45 seconds):The Court of Appeals ruled that a judge cannot allow a Friend of the Court to provide third-party hearsay testimony — without those parties being cross-examined — in a family court proceeding. The FOC must be sworn in, and opposing counsel must have the ability to cross-examine. This is not a gray area. It is settled law.Christine and Trey raise the question: when a judge encourages a violation of both statute and clear appellate precedent, who bears greater responsibility — the judge or the FOC?💡 The "Kiddo" ProblemAn observation that generated real discussion: FOCs and GALs who refer to the children in their cases as "kiddo" rather than by name. Christine and Trey break down why this matters:It signals a lack of preparation and case familiarityIt depersonalizes the very children whose lives are at stakeIt sets a tone — and younger attorneys watching motion hour absorb that tone"Words matter. The judges set this tone. And it all comes from the top." — Trey Barrow🔧 What Would Actually Fix This?Christine and Trey's practical legislative ask: require GALs and FOCs to submit itemized billing — even quarterly. No investigation required. The data speaks for itself. This is not a partisan issue. It's an accountability issue.And a standing call to action: if anyone has an itemized bill from FOC Patience Fitzpatrick on any GAL or FOC appointment, Christine wants to see it. Your identity will be protected.📲 Connect With UsWebsite: judge-y.comSocial: @JudgingthejudgesApp: Download Judge-y — submit questions anonymously, join community threads, and message Christine directly (community members only)LEGAL DISCLAIMERThe 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.