backwardsrain said:
What is the name of your state?OHIO
Why is it that if I want a jury to decide if I am guilty of speeding I am aforded that right, but something so important as child custody is decided by one person (judge)??? Doesn't this seem crazy?
My response:
Actually, this is a good question, and no it isn't "crazy" when you understand law, and the specifics of matters concerning children.
Remember, child support, and child custody are NOT criminal matters that would justify your Sixth Amendment Constitutional right to a trial by jury.
Additionally, matters of child support and child custody tend to go on for years; that is, at any time during the child's minority (and usually many times during a child's minority), child support and child custody can go to court for a decision. The file can be quite thick, and you can't give the entire "history" between the parties to a jury to read. For example, you may be fighting over custody of your 14 year old, however if you just discussed and brought forth the facts and the issues of why you're in court THIS time, only, a jury wouldn't know what has gone on in the past - - and if you think a jury is going to be patient enough with you to read and learn about your prior 14 years of history (which by and large plays a roll in what your current issues are about) then you're sadly mistaken. If I was a juror, I would have no patience to "learn your life" for the past 14 years to determine how your past is playing in consideration of your "current" issues. No thanks. That's better handled by one person, the judge, who can read the entire file.
Also, speaking of the Sixth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial for all "serious" criminal contempts--i.e., when the contempt is punishable by more than six months' imprisonment. [International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell (1994) 512 U.S. 821, 826-827, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 2557; see In re Kreitman (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 750, 753, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 595, 597 (child and spousal support contempt)]
On the other hand, if the contempt is punishable by a sentence of six months or less, or by only a fine, it is presumptively a "petty" offense and no right to jury trial arises unless something more--e.g., a fine of sufficient magnitude--makes the contempt "serious." [See Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas (1989) 489 U.S. 538, 541-542, 109 S.Ct. 1289, 1292-1293--implicitly holding fine of $1,000 plus maximum 6-month imprisonment term does not require jury trial; Muniz v. Hoffman (1975) 422 U.S. 454, 475-477, 95 S.Ct. 2178, 2190-2191 (ad hoc approach to whether particular fine is "serious")--$10,000 contempt fine, not accompanied by imprisonment, deemed not of such magnitude to invoke right to jury trial and therefore does not trigger right to jury trial]
The right to a jury trial under most States' constitutions is broader. It extends to all criminal prosecutions above an "infraction." Thus, there is a right to jury trial in criminal contempt proceedings that carry a maximum penalty comparable to a felony or misdemeanor (six months' imprisonment plus $1,000 fine) regardless of what the Legislature has labeled the offense.
However, there is no right to jury trial where the court invokes its general summary contempt power and imposes only a maximum five-day sentence and/or $1,000 fine. That punishment is not akin to a misdemeanor penalty and thus does not trigger the constitutional jury trial provision.
IAAL
