Posted on 10/13/2026 4:00:15 PM PDT by CFW
A Missouri judge who ordered two children locked inside juvenile detention cells because they refused to leave a courthouse with their mother has been dealt a humiliating defeat in federal court.
On Tuesday, October 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled against Missouri Circuit Judge Eric Eighmy, concluding that his outrageous handling of a family custody dispute violated the children’s clearly established constitutional rights.
The decision, written by Circuit Judge David Stras, upheld a jury’s $10,000 damages award to the children, along with a staggering $326,637.22 in attorney fees and costs.
And the reason for the children’s detention? They simply refused to leave with their mother following a custody hearing.
The parents and their attorneys reached a temporary agreement allowing the children to stay with their mother. However, Kadan and Brooklyn Rockett, who advanced to the semifinals of America’s Got Talent in 2016 with their jaw-dropping magic act and have appeared in Hollywood films, wanted to remain with their father to avoid disrupting their budding entertainment careers.
They were never parties to the case and never entered the courtroom. After the hearing, they argued with their mother in the courthouse hallway.
Judge Eighmy, according to the lawsuit and later findings, removed his robe, intervened, lectured the children on the “evils of Hollywood,” and grew frustrated when they stood firm.
He then personally escorted them to the juvenile detention division, stood by while they removed clothing and belongings, and had them locked in separate cells for roughly an hour.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Here, Judge Stras says that “every reasonable official” would have known locking up kids in this situation was a clearly established violation.
You can read the 12 page ruling here:
https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/10/251664P.pdf
The decision, written by Circuit Judge David Stras, upheld a jury’s $10,000 damages award to the children, along with a staggering $326,637.22 in attorney fees and costs.
Sounds like that Brazilian psycho judge.
The lawyers.
He may be the last word in his court room. But he learned a lesson: there are other court rooms.
and that begs the question of who will pay it?
The district court
the individual
Professional insurance?
Wow. The opinion focuses on the Fourth amendment, but on p 9 there’s a passing mention to what jumped out at me. In the simplest sense “jurisdiction over the person” refers to the power of the court to tell people to do or not to do things. CA law is the same as the p 9 reference: They are not parties to the custody case, and the court lacks jurisdiction over their persons. The court controls the children because it has jurisdiction over their persons of the parents. Example: The court has authority to order dad to take the kid to soccer practice, but cannot order the kid to actually participate in soccer. The court could order the opposite parent to encourage the kids to go with mom, but had no power to order the kids to go with her
It’s pretty basic .this judge lost his mind
>> This is a judge that shouldn’t be on the bench at all. I’m glad he was denied judicial immunity in this case.
Yup, he screwed the pooch big time and deserves his smackdown.
(He IS right about Hollyweird though! LOL)
The way I read the headline is he lost his immunity, so the judge pays.
Wonderful precedent to strip judges of immunity; Boasberg co-defendant with Comey for civil suit bt Carter Page and criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States.
“who won?”
The attorneys! As usual.
Why would he put them in jail instead of calling CPS? Not that CPS is much better but the kids are not criminals - sound like they don’t like their mom very much. He should order the county to investigate why and whether their reasoning has merit.
True.
Touché.
My other question is why did he not interview the children before awarding custody?
Maybe the mother threatened to make life miserable for the father so he agreed to the deal. Maybe the judge made it clear he would not award custody to the father.
The judge will pay unless he has insurance. It’s also possible that his court will reimburse him. A third possibility is suing his attorney or attorneys for legal malpractice. I’ve read the appellate opinion and there are indications of malpractice.
“ Why would he put them in jail instead of calling CPS? ”
Yes. Fifty or sixty years ago, the judge might have gotten away with teaching the brats a lesson, or even lauded for it, nowadays the best action would have been to call CPS and wash his hands of it.
I’m guessing malpractice insurance would normally be called upon to cover the costs. But that depends on the contract.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.