|
|
401-331-8900 |
|
|
|
|
|
Profiteering at the R.I.
Family Court
Friday, March 9, 2007
Tell this to families devastated from decades of looting
by Family Court
lawyers, guardians ad litem, and
mental-health professionals who drag out domestic cases that promise
them a
stream of income through frivolous litigation and strategic delays.
While the
majority of those in Family Court may not be looters, few would deny
that some
of their colleagues unethically exploit human crises to enrich
themselves. Among the many children I’ve followed are three whose
18th birthdays are
finally emancipating them. Family Court had removed all three from
protective
mothers who were victims of domestic violence or rape. These children
endured
years of abuse by fathers intent on punishing women who had rejected
them. One youth was abandoned by the abusive parent; the other
two rebelled.
Feelings of rage overwhelm them like a riptide. Family Court subjected
them to
endless crises and false charges. Judges labeled them “manipulative”
before
returning them, damaged, to their mothers. The first time I asked Family Court Chief Judge Jeremiah
Jeremiah in 1993
about problems that battered mothers encountered while trying to
protect their
children in his court, he said amiably that it’s all political anyway.
He saw
no problem in the fact that psychologists favor whichever parent pays
them. Am I naïve to think this system should rely on rules
of evidence and merits
of a case rather than money? Are these children not entitled to speedy
justice? Chief Jeremiah’s direct involvement in many of these
cases along with his
former tenants and political associates suggest significant conflicts
of
interest. His assistant David Tassoni, mediating one of the cases,
determined
that the father should pay only $200 a month child support. This locked
the
man’s two teenagers in poverty while their mother worked menial jobs
day and
night. According to her affidavit, he menaced her colleagues,
too, telling her:
“When I get through with you, you won’t have a job and neither will
they, if
you live that long.” When a judge found him in contempt for failure to
pay her
child support in 1995, he had already faced abuse charges and three
years of litigation
with his second wife. The second case dragged through 11 Family Court judges by
2002, when Judge
Howard Lipsey said: “I feel [this father] is abusing the court system
for his
own purposes . . . taking advantage of his children . . . of his oldest
son . .
. of his former wife. I think he is really devious. I think he has no
desire to
really look into the best interest of the . . . children. And if anyone
is
causing pain to these children and not allowing them to re-establish a
relationship . . . it is he who is doing it.” Then Lipsey did something astonishing that revealed the
unrelenting
cat-and-mouse game at Family Court. Instead of ruling on the case, he
recused
himself and sent it to a 12th judge, where Tassoni weighed in as
mediator. Many younger children have already replaced the three who
are turning 18.
People in Little Compton packed their community center last year after
the
court removed two young sisters from their mother when the girls
complained
about things they said their father had done to them. The father paid for a psychological evaluation blaming
the mother. The court
ordered her to pay tens of thousands of dollars for mental-health
professionals
and a guardian ad litem, while she seldom sees her daughters. Elderly grandparents and friends struggled to raise a
six-digit sum for an
out-of-state lawyer, who has fought similar cases in 44 states. If he
gets to
argue this case, it could set a historic precedent for The General Assembly has dodged this problem. One-quarter
of its members are
lawyers, many of whom practice in Family Court. Lawyers dominate both
chambers’
Judiciary Committees. The The real question is not whether we should close court
for four days, but
whether we will continue to deny justice for 18 years while
professionals in
Family Court profiteer off children in crisis. Anne Grant researches Family Court cases with the Parenting
Project at http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_annegrant9_03-09-07_D04LP25.23afdae.html#
|
|
|
Return to Open Forum |
|