Because he's doing family law, he has the "power to look at the big picture" and ignore the law? We go into fits when the Supreme Court does this (witness Sandra Day O'Connor's comments on having to view our Constitution through the lens of international law) and yet it's OK for a family law judge to do it? Does he get a pass because it's for the children?
His job is to rule on the law, not legislate from the bench.
We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not judges. That is what most of us on this forum are fighting for.
I have no idea what custody law is like in Colorado. I'm just saying that, generally speaking, family court judges have a lot of discretion in their rulings.
This ruling is an outlier and will probably end up being reversed or scaled back on appeal.
You make an excellent point, but there is even one more excellent point to make. This isn't a famly law case because McLeod isn't part of the family. PERIOD.
Either the word "family" has meaning or it does not. Redefining it from the bench is egregious and should never be permitted.
For the moment, a family is a man and a wom who are legally married and/or any children of theirs by birth or adoption. There is no other definition.
Shalom.