Faux Process

In 2019, I represented a mother in Muscogee County in a custody battle for her 5-year-old son. The mother had primary custody at the time and an intermittent hearing was held to potentially appoint a Guardian Ad Litem to the case. The judge asked the father’s attorney to draft an order appointing the Guardian Ad Litem. The opposing counsel drafted the “proposed” order for the judge to review. In the proposed order, however, the opposing attorney inserted a clause that changed full custody from the mother to the father. The judge carelessly signed the order and the mother lost primary custody of her son without notice or a hearing on the matter. It took over a year for the mother to get primary custody of her son back.

 So what happened here? How could a judge simply sign parental rights away at the drop of a hat, without notice or a hearing? This is what I call “faux process” (contra to “due process”) and what many attorneys refer to as a “rubber-stamped” order. The formula for this injustice is as follows: 

1. A judge sets a hearing on a specific matter.
2. The judge picks a prevailing party and tells the attorney for the "prevailing party" to draft a proposed order for the judge to sign.
3. The prevailing party's attorney drafts the order and inserts wording awarding additional remedies that were not within the scope of the judge's oral ruling.
4. The judge then signs the order without scrutiny, thus awarding the drafting party the remedies improperly inserted into the proposed order by the prevailing party's attorney. 

The case in Muscogee County was not the first time I witnessed a person denied due process by a rubber-stamped order, nor was it the last. In fact, my first recollection of such injustice occurred at the hands of a Cobb County State Court judge, the Honorable Carl W. Bowers, and my most recent experience was at the hands of a Cobb County Superior Court senior judge, the Honorable G. Grant Brantley. 

Rubber-stamped orders are perhaps the biggest threat to due process in civil cases. I have witnessed this in multiple courts and by different judges across the State of Georgia; it is Judge Brantley's modus operandi and "if you don't like it, you can appeal," as Brantley would say.[1] Unfortunately, appeals are expensive, not everyone can afford an appeal and the appellate court presents its own unique barriers to equitable case resolution. Brantley’s way of "passing the buck" onto the Georgia Court of Appeals is an irresponsible use of resources and acts contrary to justice.

In 2022, Judge Bowers publicly stated that "Brantley’s given [Bowers] great advice many, many times over the years when [Bowers] worked with him," and "[Bowers] learned so much from him that [Bowers] use today in the courtroom in state court."[2] While Judge Bowers did not specify exactly what “advice” Judge Brantley has given Bowers that he uses in the courtroom, my personal experience shows that, like Brantley, Judge Bowers executes the "rubber-stamp" process systematically. In 2018, Judge Bowers presided over a hearing regarding a very specific issue—I represented the defendant in the case. At the end of the hearing, Judge Bowers made an oral ruling in favor of the plaintiff and told the plaintiff’s attorney to draft an order for Bowers to sign. In his proposed order, the plaintiff's attorney inserted a clause that resolved a material issue to the case that was not within the scope of the hearing and cited inapplicable law to justify the bogus ruling. Judge Bowers signed (or “rubber-stamped”) the proposed order, which created additional unnecessary litigation.

In 2022, I was hired to defend a civil matter in Fulton County that should have been dismissed with just one hearing by a competent judge. However, the Fulton judge presiding over the matter was not interested in making decisions based on the facts and the law. After multiple unsuccessful motions to recuse the presiding judge, the Fulton County judiciary recruited Judge Grant Brantley from Cobb County to take over the case.[3] With Judge Brantley now assigned to the case, I had high hopes that my client would finally get a fair shake and the case would be dismissed as it should have been over two years ago. That was not the case. Rather, Judge Brantley simply reaffirmed the bogus rulings of the assigned judge with his “rubber-stamp” MO. It would appear to a competent lawyer or judge that Judge Brantley knew absolutely nothing about the applicable law in the case. That case is still pending—though, again, it should have been dismissed and closed over two years ago.