A Somewhat Vague Perspective

From LinkedIn comes an article on family court corruption. The first couple parts summarize the issue
fairly well. The rest is pretty vague notions of what to do. Until litigants are prosecuted for perjury and lawyers and all officers of the court are prosecuted for the crimes they commit nothing will change. 

The Issue

Corruption in family courts can take many forms:

1. Biased judges and court staff
2. Inadequate training for court-appointed professionals
3. Conflicts of interest among court-appointed experts
4. Lack of accountability and oversight

The Consequences

The consequences of family court corruption can be devastating:

• Children being removed from loving parents without justification
• Parents being denied custody or visitation rights unfairly
• Families being subjected to unnecessary and costly litigation
• Children's well-being and safety being compromised

Solutions

To address family court corruption, we need:

1. Increased transparency and accountability within family courts
2. Improved training for judges, court staff, and court-appointed professionals
3. Stronger laws and regulations to prevent conflicts of interest
4. Greater support for families navigating the family court system

Guardian Ad Litem Corruption

One of the more egregious areas of corruption in our court system is the area of  guardian ad litems, who are court appointed representatives of the best interests of a child in legal proceedings, such as custody or abuse cases. The system is rife with corruption. 

This video illustrates the issue pretty well:

AI And The Lazy Judge

U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate in Mississippi used AI in a court order with resulted in bizarre reasoning. 

The order, issued July 20, was factually inaccurate — naming defendants and plaintiffs that weren’t parties to the case, misquoting state law and referencing a case that doesn’t exist — which led the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office to raise concerns.

Wingate then replaced the order with a corrected version, wiped the flawed order from the docket, and denied a request from the Attorney General’s Office to restore the original order with errors to the public docket. He refused to explain the errors, calling them “clerical” mistakes.

This is just lazy but I have no doubt the laziness has nothing to do with AI. I'd wager Wingate's other rulings, rulings where he did not use AI, reflect a similar level of illogical reasoning, albeit perhaps less obviously.