Ah, the mantra of the inexperienced, immature and ignorant! This statement in Worley's courtroom is indicative of two things: first, Worley has no apparent experience effectively handling a parent who has a personality disorders and second, Worley has no apparent experience effectively taking charge of a custody case in such a way that the misbehaving party gets the message that not stopping his misbehavior will lead to consequences.
Worley doesn't seem to get personality disorders. She doesn't seem to understand the special challenges of attempting communication with a parent who actually desires the conflict more than he desires a solution. For example, my children's father desires conflict with me because that conflict enables him to maintain a relationship with me, which relationship he lost due to his addiction issues. His only avenue to me is through our children, an avenue he cruises down as often as possible. Worley looks out into the courtroom and, apparently unwilling to adequately cope with all the contentiousness, says, like an unthinking parent, "You two need to stop fighting!" It's like telling the beach to stop interfering with the ocean's waves.
I have never seen Worley actually solve a custodial conflict; however, I have seen her make many conflicts a hell of a lot worse. Her lack of organization and administrative skills creates problems in itself because orders are late (or not entered at all), hearings are begun even though she can't remember important details of a case, she imagines meeting children when, in fact, she hasn't met them at all.
My first experience with Worley occurred in 2009 while I watched a case between a mother of a six month old breastfeeding baby and the dad who had visited the child two times since birth. All was fine until Mom filed for child support. Then Dad suddenly decided that baby needs her Daddy, filed for custody, and Worley gets their case. Now, in this hearing, Dad testifies that, yes, he has smoked pot most of his life, but he's 5 months clean now. And no, he hasn't seen the baby much, but that's because his other Baby Mama just had another of his kids that's now two months old. So, Dad says, Won't this be great - my six month old can come visit me and my new Baby Mama (who's taking care of 2 month old) can help me take care of Baby Mama #1's 6 month old!
And Worley said, yes that's a good idea. She ordered visitation to begin three days from the day of the hearing. That Mom had to hand her precious baby over to a drug addict Dad living with Baby Mama #2 who surely had all warm and fuzzy feelings for Baby Mama #1's brood.
Worley appears to have little or no experience with or understanding of addiction issues, personality disorders or possible hidden, underlying causes of conflict in custody cases. As a voter, I demand that judges sitting on the bench educate themselves adequately about these issues. Divorce rarely happens between two healthy, spiritually-minded folks. It happens because at least one person involved is practicing some sort of marital misconduct (in my own case, my ex is a debtor, an addict and appears to have a personality disorder). That misconduct does not end when the marriage ends; in fact, that misconduct usually intensifies.
Worley does not seem willing to take charge and implement consequences for custody order violations. In so apparently failing, the bad-behaving parent becomes empowered and the children suffer mightily. My son asked me in earnest to allow him to go to Worley's courtroom and tell her what he wants. I told him no. I told him this: that woman will never get her eyes on you because she doesn't deserve even a moment's conversation with you. Everything you are is beautiful and sacred and loving. She doesn't deserve to even be in the presence of that.
Folks who violate custody orders repeatedly must have consequences. Repeat violations of legal decrees is an indication that the violator has no respect for authority. Folks who have no respect for authority will not actively alter their behavior until they themselves experience discomfort, pain or deprivation from their actions. As long as others (children and ex-spouses) experience disomfort, pain and deprivation from the violator's actions, the violator is totally, completely unmotivated to change his behavior. His own pain is his only motivator because he lacks empathy. Empathy for the suffering of others motivates most people to adhere to social constructs. But those who lack empathy will NEVER adhere to social rules until they experience direct discomfort from their lack of empathy (i.e. no child support equals jail time).
And so, in the end, maybe Worley is right - maybe we two really don't know how to get along. And it will stay that way because I will never lie down and let that man hurt my children. He is more than welcome to a close and loving relationship with them, but if he wants to neglect or harm them or refuse to protect them, he's got Mama Bear to face. Once upon a time, she was a wimp. But she ain't no more.
What we're all about...
Wake County District Court Judge Anna E. Worley, elected in 2008 and up for re-election in 2012, has been a controversial figure in Wake County family courtrooms. Parents' stories range from curious to downright shocking. As a custodial parent required to endure Worley's apparent lack of wisdom and seemingly arbitrary decisions, I am fighting back against a system whose very slowness and apathy has caused great suffering for my children. After nearly 3 years in Judge Worley's "family" court room, I have emerged with sole legal and primary physical custody of my three children. As thankful as I am for my own personal custody hell to be over, the years spent in Judge Worley's courtroom, the months spent awaiting orders rendered to be entered, the letters written to staff and the Chief Justice to force entry of a final order were nothing short of excruciating for my three children and myself. I will work tirelessly to ensure that I make the public aware of Worley's philosophy, rulings, and courtroom demeanor. Citizens must vote from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance.