Outside of New York City, the number of Family Court judgeships has increased by four over the past decade to 102.
The Legislature and governor have repeatedly rebuffed attempts, backed by the Office of Court Administration, to create new judgeships for Family and other courts. Opponents usually cite the costs of creating new judgeships.
Lindenauer said the taskforce felt that new Family Court judges could be made available through the "circuitous" route of designating Court of Claims judges.
There was no immediate comment from legislative chairs who have oversight over judicial matters on creation of more Court of Claims' judgeships.
There are 80 Court of Claims judges, about two-thirds of whom are designated acting Supreme Court justices to serve as needed on busy benches, according to court administrators. The rest hear monetary claims against the state.
In the meantime, the taskforce said that where possible, the courts should fund judicial hearing officers, court referees and support magistrates. While the "quasi-judicial decision-makers are not a substitute for Family Court judges," the state bar committee said they can play a valuable role in helping judges move caseloads forward.
Another recommendation was to expand court days and to make legal services more readily available to litigants in Family Court.
Lindenauer acknowledged in an interview that while funds are tight everywhere in the judicial system, the lower economic status of many Family Court litigants demands they receive legal help where possible.
"If you believe that there should be access to justice, then the poor people's court is deserving of the resources that they need and this is certainly a poor people's court, on the whole," she said.
Solitary Confinement
The resolution on solitary confinement stemmed from a report by the Committee on Civil Rights focusing on the psychological and physical dangers to prisoners subjected to solitary confinement too often and for too long.
According to the report, about 4,500 of the some 56,000 state prison inmates are assigned to solitary confinement at any one time. The average stay in solitary is about five months and about 2,700 of the prisoners have been in for one year or more, according to the chief author of the report, Karen Murtagh, executive director of Prisoners' Legal Services of New York.
There are no limits on how long inmates can be assigned to solitary confinement, Murtagh said.
The resolution calls on the state to limit solitary confinement to no more than 15 days. And the Committee on Civil Rights called on the bar group to urge for a law spelling out limits on solitary confinement.
Subscribe to New York Law Journal
-
Ike Aruti, Esq.
This sounds very good. The numbers are as follows:
According to OCFS website statistics, there have been 784,398 hotline reports of child mistreatment (not including mandated reporters,) for the State of New York, for the last 5 years of record, ending 2009. 283,750 were for NYC.
Each of these results in an investigation by ACS or equivalent agency into a family relationship (which is ostensibly protected from unwarranted governmental intrusion as a fundamental constitutional right.) ACS routinely refers family members, overwhelmingly women, to the Family Courts, sometimes by way of the Volunteer Lawyer's Project, or the like. It has been presented to potential volunteers as a "one stop shop" where housing, welfare, food stamps and VAWA immigration benefits are made available to petitioners. Petitioners are routinely granted Orders of Protection and Custody in ex-parte proceedings without any requirement for objective evidence. ACS also routinely provides Court Ordered Investigations for the Family Court. It would be unreasonable to deny that ACS is an arm of the Family Court, nor that they should be held to some lesser standard of integrity or responsibility.
OCFS is charged with oversight of ACS. Does this mean they are to help remedy harm caused by ACS agents and procedures, or avoid responsibility for harm they may have caused in the "imperfect" execution of their duties? Would it be improper for Commissioner Carrion to ignore this question? Why would OCFS Counsel identify the content of an investigation of an ACS agent's actions as "protected by Attorney-Client Privilege?"
OCFS website states: " The New York State Office of Children and Family Services takes false reports of child abuse and maltreatment very seriously. Both the taking of the false report and the ensuing investigation are a misuse of valuable resources intended for the care and protection of New York State's vulnerable or at-risk children.
According to Section 240.50 of the New York State Penal Law, falsely reporting an incident to the State Central Register is a Class A misdemeanor. If you are the victim of a false report, you should contact your local District Attorney's office to discuss what options are available."
According to Queens District Attorney Brown's office, there has *NEVER* been an arrest or prosecution in Queens, (or the entire state for that matter,) for violation of 240.50(4). Are we to believe these numbers indicate our child welfare system and Family Court are perfect?
Should we refuse to consider that the lion's share of these salaries and expenses will be covered by federal dollars? More government at less cost to the state?
It would be irrational to describe the current child welfare system as anything less than "broken." Such was likewise the conclusion of a study by Sen. John Sampson, where due process of law seems to be described as an administrative inconvenience in the Family Court.
What I have observed in Family Court is what makes me most ashamed of being an attorney. I have reported my observations and experiences to the proper authorities and government leaders, virtually all of whom refuse to respond in good faith. Does their refusal to act in good faith confer the benefit of plausible deniability? What does the lack of good faith indicate in terms of our government's integrity and ability to responsibly implement so lofty a virtue? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Personally, I find the facts and figures to be persuasive. I think it is nothing short of pernicious to suggest expansion of this broken system as it is.
But then again, I could be wrong.
Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.
Reader Comments