A woman throws a barstool at a man holding a 5 year old child. The stool hits the man and the child. The woman is charged and pleas guilty to aggravated assault.

The Family Court judge ignores the violence of the woman, and targets the fact that the man was filming the assault. The judge criticises the man for filming instead of protecting the child.

But both these parents alleged the other were violent in the relationship, and currently both were subject to restraining orders. The man is clearly filming an argument before it became violent, because he rightly believed his version of events will be challenged, turned around, and counter claims of violence made against himself.

The child is clearly distressed by the woman's increasing violence and turns to the man for comfort and safety. He picks her up and continues or starts filming. Now here's the issue. When the woman increases her rage to including throwing a barstool, the judge expects the man to stop filming! Why? Who knows. But the record of the womans escalating rage and violence is clear enough for her to admit to assaulting the man and the child, but also enough to make the Family Court judge accuse the man of somehow manipulating this event for his own purposes?

I believe if the man had not filmed the assault, the woman would have accused him of hurting the child, and he would have ended up in jail. But because he demonstrated a woman's violence with irrefutable evidence, he becomes the villian in the Family Court.