NY: Protest Over Custody Order Prompts Release of Files

Protest Over Custody Order Prompts Release of Files
John Caher
New York Law Journal
11-03-2005

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1130953711246

An upstate New York judge has found himself in the middle of a high-profile,
emotional custody battle, with women's groups blasting the jurist for
shifting custody from a mother to a father.

The attack on Rensselaer County Surrogate Christian F. Hummel Tuesday
prompted the Office of Court Administration to take the unusual step of
releasing documents in the case, which is the only way the judge can be
defended. Those documents, made available with Judge Hummel's approval,
serve to counter the allegations of critics who claimed in a demonstration
Tuesday that there was no basis for the judge's decision.

Chase v. Chase, observers say, is illustrative of an increasingly common
tactic by advocacy groups to gain attention for their cause by attacking a
judge who, because of the rules of judicial conduct and the fact that many
records in Family Court are sealed for privacy reasons, usually has no way
of defending himself.

But Tuesday, with the help of the OCA, Hummel indirectly went on the
offensive, providing the media and public with at least some means of
understanding his rationale.

The case is a particularly bitter custody battle involving John and Kristin
Chase.

Court records show that Ms. Chase was initially awarded full custody of
their 5-year-old son and retained that custody even after a two-week trial
in which 41 witnesses testified and Hummel concluded that Ms. Chase's
allegations of abuse were unsubstantiated.

It was only after Ms. Chase skipped a court proceeding to address Mr.
Chase's visitation rights and apparently orchestrated new sex abuse charges
that Hummel signed an ex parte emergency change-of-custody order awarding
custody to Mr. Chase. Ms. Chase then absconded with the boy for about two
weeks, informing the media of her situation and discussing the sex abuse
allegations publicly.

After Appellate Division, 3rd Department, Justice Karen K. Peters refused to
disturb Hummel's emergency custody order, various groups publicly attacked
the judge who, under the rules of judicial conduct, cannot respond.

On Tuesday, Chase's supporters staged a protest in downtown Troy, N.Y., in
which they denounced Hummel's decision and carried signs claiming that the
judge had turned a child over to an abuser.

That tactic, attacking a largely defenseless judge, is increasingly common
in the emotion-laden arena of Family Court litigation, observers say. And it
is one used by activists for both mothers and fathers.

"The idea is to put pressure on the judge," said George Courtney, president
of the Capital District chapter of the Fathers' Rights Association, whose
organization has sponsored similar rallies. "The only thing that hurts the
judge is adverse publicity."

Mo Therese Hannah, a psychologist and chairwoman of the Battered Mothers
Custody Conference, one of the groups protesting Tuesday, said a public
demonstration against an adverse judicial opinion is also a vehicle to raise
awareness of a broad problem that might not otherwise come to light. Chase
v. Chase, she said, is prototypical of a national trend in which judges,
with no basis, are shifting custody from mothers to fathers.

"This problem is becoming so pervasive," Hannah said. "Mothers who allege
child abuse or domestic violence are being accused of fabricating, of making
false allegations, accused of these bogus syndromes like 'parental
alienation syndrome' and 'malicious mother syndrome' that have little or no
scientific evidence to support them."

Hannah acknowledged that she has repeatedly discussed the matter with Ms.
Chase, but never interviewed Mr. Chase "because that would not be my role. I
am serving as an advocate for a protective mother." She also said she has
"intimate knowledge of the court record" and would not "go around
willy-nilly advocating for a woman" without a firm conviction that the
evidence supported her position.

Others at the demonstration seemed to have little if any direct knowledge of
the case.

For instance, Susan Weber, who held a sign declaring that "Judge Hummel
gives children to abusers," said she knew nothing more of the matter than
what she read in a local newspaper.

Marcia Pappas, president of the National Organization for Women -- New York
State, said Hummel was wrong "to take a child from a mother," but said she
has not seen court documents or attempted to get the other side of the
story. Pappas, however, said she has spoken with someone who has seen the
court record, but declined to identify that individual.

Meanwhile, Mr. Chase and his attorneys suggested NOW and other groups are
attempting to exploit the case for their own agenda.

"They don't know anything about this case," said Mr. Chase, an unemployed
financial consultant in Manhattan. "And they really don't care what the
truth is. It is just outrageous, totally outrageous."

Mr. Chase is represented by Michael R. Varble of Mohegan Lake, Westchester
County, and Pamela J. Joern of Albany. Both said the attack on Hummel is
unjustified.

"I think it serves to diminish the respect that especially this judge is
entitled," Joern said. "If anybody ever thinks doing this sort of thing is
going to impress a judge, they are absolutely wrong. The judicial system has
integrity, and you need to treat it with respect."

David Bookstaver, spokesman for the Office of Court Administration, said
public attacks on Family Court judges have become fairly common, an
"unfortunate by-product" of cases that, by their nature, arouse exceptional
passion.

"A couple months ago, it was the fathers' rights groups," Bookstaver said.
"Now it is the mothers' rights groups. In any of these cases, half of the
litigants think an injustice was perpetrated on them. The judge is the
easiest target, especially when it is somewhat difficult for the public to
gather the facts. That is why what the OCA can do, in some instances, is get
the facts out."

Tuesday, Bookstaver's office disseminated more than 40 pages of documents
and transcripts from an Oct. 13 hearing.

One of the documents is a recommendation of the law guardian, Ann M. Weaver
of Red Hook, who in August recommended that Ms. Chase be awarded sole
custody, based partially on what she termed "substantiated evidence" of
domestic violence perpetrated by Mr. Chase. Another is an order by Hummel in
which he holds Mr. Chase in contempt for failure to pay the mortgage on the
marital residence, as ordered by the court, and for failure to pay about
$3,000 in child support. And the third is a 39-page exhaustive decision in
which Hummel chronicles the shortcomings of both parents and, "with great
hesitation," awards custody to Ms. Chase.

In his opinion, Hummel said the allegations of sexual abuse were "tainted"
by Ms. Chase's "repeated and leading questioning of the child," behavior,
which he said she continued to engage in "even after being specifically told
not to." Hummel also said that Ms. Chase refused to cooperate with a
forensic evaluator and would not provide tape recordings she made with the
child in which the sexual abuse allegations were discussed.

But Mr. Chase's own pattern of ill-advised conduct, which includes excessive
drinking and a threat to kill a sheriff's deputy and his family with
anthrax, led Hummel in September to grant Ms. Chase custody of the child. He
altered that arrangement only after Ms. Chase ignored a court date and
apparently refused to cooperate with the court regarding Mr. Chase's
visitation rights, with the issue to be revisited in yet another hearing on
Friday.

A transcript of the hearing at which Hummel temporarily shifted custody
shows that both the court and the law guardian were concerned with Ms.
Chase's refusal to follow court directives.

Hummel also referred to a psychological report raising "grave concerns
regarding the psychological health and well-being" of Ms. Chase, and he said
she was responsible for a family offense petition "which would generously be
termed disingenuous." The judge said at the hearing that Ms. Chase had no
intention of abiding by a court visitation order and has engaged in "forum
shopping" in an effort to find a judge who will rule her way.

Meanwhile, Hummel was picketed Tuesday outside the Rensselaer County Family
Court, although he was some 65 miles away hearing cases in Ulster County.
Demonstrators displayed signs denouncing the judge and granted media
interviews in which they criticized him and called for court reform.

New York State Bar Association President A. Vincent Buzard of Harris Beach
in Rochester said his organization recognizes that there is a First
Amendment right to comment on a judge's decision. But he also said "it is
counterproductive to the legal system to attack judges personally without
cause and to comment on decisions when they don't have all the facts."

"People need to exercise great care before they comment on a judge's
decision, and they need to do so with some restraint," Buzard said. "Any
comments that degrade a judge or the judiciary or judicial independence is
something we are very concerned about."

The facts of the Chase case notwithstanding, the matter does follow a
familiar pattern, according to sociologist Amy Neustein, author with
attorney Michael Lesher of "From Madness to Mutiny," a book published this
year that portrays a cycle in which protective mothers feel compelled to
violate court orders, often leading to a loss of custody.

Neustein said that there is the equivalent of a judicial backlash against
the relatively few cases in which false allegations of child abuse are
advanced to gain leverage in a custody matter. A review of more than 1,000
cases nationwide suggested that a woman who makes a sexual abuse claim that
cannot be verified -- even if it may be true -- is in serious jeopardy of
losing custody. Faced with a loss of custody, Neustein said, a woman
struggling to protect her child is provoked into violating the law or a
judge's order, which increases the odds that she will indeed lose custody.

"It is a vicious cycle. I would say in this case -- as a sociologist, not as
an advocate pleading the mother's case -- that what happened is you had a
mutinous reaction on the mother's behalf, which provoked a reaction on the
part of the judge by penalizing her with loss of custody because she didn't
show," Neustein said. "Why penalize the child for the rebellious, untoward
actions of the mother?"

Hummel, in his decision, said that he was acting in the best interests of
the child, as is required, and not taking vindictive action against Ms.
Chase.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberalism: that haunting fear that someone,
somewhere, can help themselves without
Government intervention.