Petitioner, a Judge of the Family Court, Fulton County, commenced thisIt appears that this judge would throw a parent he didn't like in jail, and then try him or her in absentia. The judge claimed that when someone sits in jail, he automatically waives his right to appear in court.
proceeding to review a determination of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct that sustained five charges of misconduct against him and imposed the sanction of removal from judicial office. Upon our plenary review of the record, we accept the determined sanction. ...
Plainly, even the Appellate Division precedents failed to impress the importance of these due process rights upon petitioner in any meaningful way. ...
It is apparent from the record as a whole that petitioner continues to believe that his actions were a permissible exercise of the "wide discretion" given Family Court judges "for dealing with the complexities of family life" (Family Court Act § 141). He fails to grasp that with such discretion comes grave responsibilities to the litigants before him as well as to their children. While we recognize that petitioner has well served youth in his court and through his extensive involvement in community service, part and parcel of effecting the "best interests" of a child is affording that child's parent the rights inherent in the parental bond. We acknowledge that removal from office is an "extreme sanction" that is imposed only "in the event of truly egregious circumstances" (Matter of Cunningham v Comm. on Judicial Conduct, 57 NY2d 270, 275 [1982]). We conclude that petitioner's steadfast adherence to longstanding policies that have seriously compromised the due process rights of litigants justifies removal.
These cases got the appellate court's attention when the jailed parents had to file for writs of habeas corpus to get out of jail. Maybe Cmr. Joseph will have a similar fate if the appellate court has to issue a writ of habeas corpus to get me out of jail.
No comments:
Post a Comment