A letter from Gene L. Rickaby on Oct. 15, "Charges judge's rulings are not in children's interests," hit me between the eyes when I realized he was writing about Judge Lyn Allgood. Very close friends of mine have had problems brought before this judge, and the things they complained about sounded a lot like the things in Mr. Rickaby's letter.
On one court date, they said the judge even made a comment to the young mother, letting her know she had nothing to worry about. How can a judge say that to one side of the case before he even hears from the other side?
They came away from the hearing feeling that, for some reason, the judge was against them from the beginning. They have talked to other people, who have been before Judge Allgood, and have always heard that the judge automatically takes the side of the young mother - no matter how she lives or misbehaves.
Why would a judge who is supposed to be deciding things for the welfare of the children involved always side with the mother? Why would he be stingy with granting visits to the children from other relatives who love the child? It looks to a lot of people as if this judge makes his decisions for the young mothers - no matter what bad elements the children must grow up in.
Shouldn't these custody and visitation cases be heard by experienced juvenile court judges whose only interest is the welfare and future of the children involved? The children's whole futures depend on the judges' doing the right thing; the young mothers' wishes shouldn't be a judge's guideline.
Frank Wallace, Augusta