This is a follow-up to an October 22, 2015, “Len’s in Focus” blog, entitled, “Crisis in Family Court: What Should be Done When Judges Break the Rules.” At that time, we were awaiting responses from three investigatory bodies, as well as from other officials of the Family Courts, and Law Guardian Programs in Brooklyn, Queens, and Nassau Counties of New York State. A host of issues were in need of addressing as a result of the very questionable actions and inactions committed by a Nassau County Family Court Judge, the Honorable Conrad Singer and his Counsel, Judge Tammy Robbins.
Over the past 5 months, much has transpired, but in reality, very little has been accomplished with respect to answering the question inherent in the sub-title of the 10/22/15 blog. Consequently, the overall situation is substantially worse than it seemed to be. Instead of this simply being a narrative of how two officials of Family Court strayed from following an ethical course of conduct, the existence of systemic inertia, disinterest, and/or malfeasance, as well as structural dysfunction, has become apparent. Here is what transpired since October.
1. On Election Day, November 3, 2016, Judge Robbins failed in her bid to return to the Bench. As far as is known, she retains her position as Counsel for Judge Singer.
2. In October, 2015, Judge Singer decided to sign the 18b voucher that was returned to him by Dr. James Gries, thereby paving the way for payment in full for evaluation. Prior to this, the Nassau County Assigned Counsel Plan coordinator, assisted Dr. Gries in gaining partial payment. In approving the voucher, Judge Singer sent a letter to Dr. Gries in which he made no mention or acknowledgement of any error of omission or commission that he or his Counsel made throughout the entire matter. It may only be speculated as to what prompted Judge Singer to finally approve payment for a report that had been submitted to him 4 months earlier, and that had been rejected by his Counsel. In an October 5, 2015 letter, Dr. James Gries asked Judge Singer to provide him with “a letter of comfort attesting to my compliance with the Court Order (appointing him to do the forensic evaluation), and adherence to the standards expected of a forensic evaluator.” Rather than comply with this request, Judge Singer, in his reply, instead seemed to fully stand behind the actions of his staff while tacitly denying any knowledge about Judge Robbin’s apparent unethical actions. He wrote that, generally, he permits staff to preview reports in order to “…to ensure the procedural requirements of the court order are adhered to…” He ended his letter by writing: “I am sure you can appreciate the court’s protocol with regard to forensic reports.” Absolutely no acknowledgment of error was made.
3. In late January, 2016, Dr. Leonard Gries received a letter of apology from Judge Robbins, dated January 12, 2016. In her letter, she expressed that she had been “alarmed and disturbed” to discover that her “vulgar and inappropriate” email, dated July 24, 2015, had been “sent to you in error as it was meant for my secretary.” She assured, “had I known that I had made this mistake, I would have immediately reached out to you to apologize.” Yet, despite the fact that she learned of this mistaken email communication when she was contacted by the New York State Inspector General on October 14, 2015, it took another three full months before she decided to send the letter of apology. Perhaps her decision to send it was influenced by the urging of a third party, such as the Honorable Thomas Adams, Administrative Judge of the 10th Judicial District, Nassau County. In his position, it is Judge Adams who would presumably be charged with carrying out the corrective actions suggested by the office of the Inspector General. Aside from sending a vulgar email, no other acknowledgment of error was made.
4. On February 2, 2016, Dr. Leonard Gries sent a letter to Judge Adams, asking for his “administrative guidance concerning the rules and required professional practices that pertain to ... each of three questions:”
5. In February 22, 2016, Dr. Leonard Gries and Dr. James Gries sent a 3 page letter to the Office of Attorneys for Children in Brooklyn, N.Y. with copies to its Director, to the Presiding Justice, Supreme court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, and to the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, Courts Outside New York City, State of New York Unified Court System. In the letter, the facts and events of the entire matter were summarized. The central point raised asked, “if errors of judgment were made, shouldn’t there be some declaration of what they were?...If no errors were made, then this should be announced as well …” Specifically, “we are asking that you clarify the rules pertaining to ex-parte communication, judicial involvement in requiring changes in report content, judicial suppression without a hearing, of duly submitted reports, and arbitrary judicial delay or denial of payment for services rendered by court appointed evaluators. Guidelines and clarifying statements are urgently needed to restore credibility regarding the Family Court’s adherence to the highest ethical standards, as well as the rule of law.” Of all the recipients of the 2/22/2016 letter, only one cared to reply.
6. On March 3, 2016, a reply was received from the Mental Health Professionals Certification Committee, State of New York, Appellate Division, Supreme Court /First and Second Judicial Departments, stating that “it would not be appropriate for me or this office to provide any guidance as judicial conduct is not within our jurisdiction.” No other responses have been received. Neither the New York State Commission on ct, nor the Inspector General of the New York State Unified Court System, nor the State of new York Grievance Committee For the 10th, Judicial District, nor the Administrative Judge for the 10th Judicial District, Nassau County, nor the Administrators of the Assigned Counsel Plan/Law Guardian Programs for Brooklyn, Queens or Nassau Counties of New York State felt any obligation to clarify the issues raised. Answering such questions was implicitly deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of each official or entity. In almost comical fashion, one respondent recently suggested that the matter be again taken up by two of the other entities that already declined to make any comment or take any action.
What may we conclude from this eight month long exercise in futility? Payment for services rendered was ultimately made, and a letter of apology regarding a vulgar email was ultimately sent, ostensibly as a consequence of the investigation conducted by the Inspector General of the New Your State Unified Court System. But none of the very important questions regarding ethical and legal conduct was answered or even addressed. May we conclude that the various legal and administrative components of the Family Court system are powerless to oversee or even comment on the actions of Family Court Judges and their Counsel? If so, then the rule of law and ethics are fully subject to the whims of the Judge. This is not only unfair, it is dangerous! It removes accountability, while paving the way for the arbitrary and potentially harmful handling of highly sensitive, emotionally wrenching family disputes, with unpredictable long term impact on the subject children. When arbitrary judicial actions are not even subject to transparent, independent review, the credibility of the Family Court system is grossly damaged. In the absence of a public and professional outcry concerning this problem, matters are likely to worsen.
Remedies are easier said than done, but a plan of action needs to start somewhere. In our next blog we will discuss such remedies. We welcome your feedback. Stay tuned.
Leonard T. Gries, Ph.D., DABPS James R. Gries, Psy.D.
March 14, 2016
Over the past 5 months, much has transpired, but in reality, very little has been accomplished with respect to answering the question inherent in the sub-title of the 10/22/15 blog. Consequently, the overall situation is substantially worse than it seemed to be. Instead of this simply being a narrative of how two officials of Family Court strayed from following an ethical course of conduct, the existence of systemic inertia, disinterest, and/or malfeasance, as well as structural dysfunction, has become apparent. Here is what transpired since October.
1. On Election Day, November 3, 2016, Judge Robbins failed in her bid to return to the Bench. As far as is known, she retains her position as Counsel for Judge Singer.
2. In October, 2015, Judge Singer decided to sign the 18b voucher that was returned to him by Dr. James Gries, thereby paving the way for payment in full for evaluation. Prior to this, the Nassau County Assigned Counsel Plan coordinator, assisted Dr. Gries in gaining partial payment. In approving the voucher, Judge Singer sent a letter to Dr. Gries in which he made no mention or acknowledgement of any error of omission or commission that he or his Counsel made throughout the entire matter. It may only be speculated as to what prompted Judge Singer to finally approve payment for a report that had been submitted to him 4 months earlier, and that had been rejected by his Counsel. In an October 5, 2015 letter, Dr. James Gries asked Judge Singer to provide him with “a letter of comfort attesting to my compliance with the Court Order (appointing him to do the forensic evaluation), and adherence to the standards expected of a forensic evaluator.” Rather than comply with this request, Judge Singer, in his reply, instead seemed to fully stand behind the actions of his staff while tacitly denying any knowledge about Judge Robbin’s apparent unethical actions. He wrote that, generally, he permits staff to preview reports in order to “…to ensure the procedural requirements of the court order are adhered to…” He ended his letter by writing: “I am sure you can appreciate the court’s protocol with regard to forensic reports.” Absolutely no acknowledgment of error was made.
3. In late January, 2016, Dr. Leonard Gries received a letter of apology from Judge Robbins, dated January 12, 2016. In her letter, she expressed that she had been “alarmed and disturbed” to discover that her “vulgar and inappropriate” email, dated July 24, 2015, had been “sent to you in error as it was meant for my secretary.” She assured, “had I known that I had made this mistake, I would have immediately reached out to you to apologize.” Yet, despite the fact that she learned of this mistaken email communication when she was contacted by the New York State Inspector General on October 14, 2015, it took another three full months before she decided to send the letter of apology. Perhaps her decision to send it was influenced by the urging of a third party, such as the Honorable Thomas Adams, Administrative Judge of the 10th Judicial District, Nassau County. In his position, it is Judge Adams who would presumably be charged with carrying out the corrective actions suggested by the office of the Inspector General. Aside from sending a vulgar email, no other acknowledgment of error was made.
4. On February 2, 2016, Dr. Leonard Gries sent a letter to Judge Adams, asking for his “administrative guidance concerning the rules and required professional practices that pertain to ... each of three questions:”
- “When, if ever, is it appropriate for a Family Court Judge or his Counsel, to insert him or herself into determining the actual content of a Forensic Child Custody Evaluation conducted by an impartial, court-appointed Forensic Evaluator?”
- “When, if ever, is it appropriate for a duly conducted Forensic Evaluation to be suppressed, and removed from case files, before any of the involved attorneys for the parties or subject child receive the opportunity to review it and/or ask that it be submitted into evidence?”
- “When, if ever, is it appropriate for a Family Court Judge or his Counsel, to deny payment to a duly appointed Forensic Evaluator, following the submission of a report that was completed according to the provisions of the Court Order of Appointment?”
5. In February 22, 2016, Dr. Leonard Gries and Dr. James Gries sent a 3 page letter to the Office of Attorneys for Children in Brooklyn, N.Y. with copies to its Director, to the Presiding Justice, Supreme court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, and to the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, Courts Outside New York City, State of New York Unified Court System. In the letter, the facts and events of the entire matter were summarized. The central point raised asked, “if errors of judgment were made, shouldn’t there be some declaration of what they were?...If no errors were made, then this should be announced as well …” Specifically, “we are asking that you clarify the rules pertaining to ex-parte communication, judicial involvement in requiring changes in report content, judicial suppression without a hearing, of duly submitted reports, and arbitrary judicial delay or denial of payment for services rendered by court appointed evaluators. Guidelines and clarifying statements are urgently needed to restore credibility regarding the Family Court’s adherence to the highest ethical standards, as well as the rule of law.” Of all the recipients of the 2/22/2016 letter, only one cared to reply.
6. On March 3, 2016, a reply was received from the Mental Health Professionals Certification Committee, State of New York, Appellate Division, Supreme Court /First and Second Judicial Departments, stating that “it would not be appropriate for me or this office to provide any guidance as judicial conduct is not within our jurisdiction.” No other responses have been received. Neither the New York State Commission on ct, nor the Inspector General of the New York State Unified Court System, nor the State of new York Grievance Committee For the 10th, Judicial District, nor the Administrative Judge for the 10th Judicial District, Nassau County, nor the Administrators of the Assigned Counsel Plan/Law Guardian Programs for Brooklyn, Queens or Nassau Counties of New York State felt any obligation to clarify the issues raised. Answering such questions was implicitly deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of each official or entity. In almost comical fashion, one respondent recently suggested that the matter be again taken up by two of the other entities that already declined to make any comment or take any action.
What may we conclude from this eight month long exercise in futility? Payment for services rendered was ultimately made, and a letter of apology regarding a vulgar email was ultimately sent, ostensibly as a consequence of the investigation conducted by the Inspector General of the New Your State Unified Court System. But none of the very important questions regarding ethical and legal conduct was answered or even addressed. May we conclude that the various legal and administrative components of the Family Court system are powerless to oversee or even comment on the actions of Family Court Judges and their Counsel? If so, then the rule of law and ethics are fully subject to the whims of the Judge. This is not only unfair, it is dangerous! It removes accountability, while paving the way for the arbitrary and potentially harmful handling of highly sensitive, emotionally wrenching family disputes, with unpredictable long term impact on the subject children. When arbitrary judicial actions are not even subject to transparent, independent review, the credibility of the Family Court system is grossly damaged. In the absence of a public and professional outcry concerning this problem, matters are likely to worsen.
Remedies are easier said than done, but a plan of action needs to start somewhere. In our next blog we will discuss such remedies. We welcome your feedback. Stay tuned.
Leonard T. Gries, Ph.D., DABPS James R. Gries, Psy.D.
March 14, 2016
RSS Feed