The most obvious concern about Judge Terry's judgement (and others before and after) is the context of the judicial officers reasoning in his/her decision.
THIS is where the core of the problem lies within the family law jurisdiction.
Every act of human behavior brought to light in a trial or hearing tends to focus on negative aspects of human behavior with a strong emphasis on negative feeling and emotion while not EVER give any merit or acknowledgement to positive consequences or outcomes of that kind of behavior.
For example, cameras in the house may have been for the protection of the husband or children, but here you have a judicial officer grossly insinuating the act in favor of the applicant ex wife. Raises so many questions. For one, his wife claims he raped her. The context of these claims, having cameras installed in the house for each parties protection doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
The judicial officer must have the capacity to make a judgement call on the circumstances and not be influenced by emotion, feeling or prejudice.
NOW, i'll stick my neck out and say this bluntly, if a judicial officer cannot disconnect from these 3 aspects (Emotion, Feeling, Prejudice) regardless of the claim behavior or social acceptances, that person should not be in the position to make detrimental judgement calls.
The adversarial approach has to be junked or at the very least the judicial officers must focus on positives more than determining outcomes on negatives or prejudice traits.