It could prove to be just as important as the metal detectors behind which they now work.

As a lawyer who occasionally works in family cases and as a divorced father who occasionally enters the same court as a party, I can tell you that feelings run exceptionally high in custody cases. As Lithwick points out well, there are no good solutions in that business. I sometimes say that family law is punishment for those who can't get along. My partner says that, in civil commercial law, lawyers get involved after the real war is already over, but in family law, lawyers are hired to conduct the war. It is a volatile situation to begin with. In my town, the family court was years ahead of the other divisions in getting metal detectors, and when they were first put into use, the guards confiscated dozens upon dozens of weapons from the courtroom-bound every day.

I can also tell you that there is an enormous value in feeling that the judge has heard what you had to say, and understood and appreciated it, even if he or she ultimately has to rule against you in whole or in part. It depressurizes the situation greatly.

Even in cases where I am the lawyer, not the party, and where passions do not run particularly high, it is extremely frustrating to get a one-sentence order ruling against you from a judge who has given you no indication whatsoever that he understands the complexities of the issue.

Pour over that frustration the already passionate feelings in a divorce/custody case, and you are creating an unacceptable risk that somebody is going to, literally, explode.

Violence is justified against another person on the basis of hurt feelings and adverse rulings? Really? If you really believe that, you need to seriously consider turning in your bar card.

Legal proceedings, family proceedings in particular, are zero sum. There is only one child, one house, so much money, etc. However much a judge "heard what you had to say," at the end of the day, if your client loses, that "underst[anding] and appreciat[ion]" has no value.

If your client is angry, suicidal, or depressed, send them to a doctor. Don't blame the judge.

You're missing the point, no one is suggesting the violence is justified, or that the murders mentioned are fault of the judge.

In another thread, someone compared this to blaming a rape victim for her clothes. That's a fairly apt comparison. If a woman is walking home from a bar alone at 3AM and she is raped, it is most definitely not her fault. Just the same, wouldn't you caution a wife/daughter/friend against doing so?

Likewise, what Lithwick suggests is that judges are especially careful to hear both sides when deciding these cases, knowing full well how emotional and irrational many of the reactions are going to be. In a system that obviously (and arguably correctly) favors the mother over the father in custody battles, and where the tactics of the lawyers can be downright cutthroat ("Take your children to your mother's and don't let him see them so that a year from now we can say in court he's a terrible father who never sees his children"), the LEAST judges can do is give both parties every opportunity to be heard.

Will that satisfy everyone? Absolutely not, but its the right thing and the smart thing to do.

PM:

You're missing the point, no one is suggesting the violence is justified, or that the murders mentioned are fault of the judge.

Thank you! It is so obviously not "blaming" judges but just good common sense that I should think people would be too embarassed to even attempt the accusation. I'm embarassed for them.

In the town where I practice law, back in my early days it was extremely common for a big fat dose of hubris to be a requirement for the bench. I'm glad to say that this has been substantially diluted over the years.

In my extensive experience in family law, there are certain participants who can never be satisfied in regard to "being heard". These people are so convinced of the rightness of their position, that any decision that goes against them means that they had not "been heard", because any one who heard their position fully was would surely agree with them. Being married to such a person is very difficult, and getting divorced from them is no piece of cake either. In addition, ineffective lawyering is another primary reason that parties are not "heard". But when one of the parties ends up dead, my opinion is that the surviving party would never be satisfied with any ruling that went against them, and that "being heard" was less of a problem than the judge hearing all too clearly.

Having never (thank God) been to family court, I can only comment on the most recent horror story I've heard. My niece and her husband have had temporary custody of his sons since April. The boys were taken away from their mother after a Family Services investigation found cocaine, crystal meth and guns in plain view at their apartment. The mother was granted supervised visitation, and has never attempted to see the boys. (Neither was she held accountable for the drugs and guns; a mystery.) She moved away and did not leave a forwarding address, hence, all the registered letters sent to her have been returned undeliverable. In the meantime, my niece and her husband have provided a loving, stable home for two boys who have had a rough time adjusting. So, when my niece's husband goes to court, what does the judge say? "Mothers have a special bond with their children. I can't terminate her custody without speaking with her."

Violence is never justified, but I can see how people can get to that point.