Judge who called parents 'knuckleheads' and their dispute 'retarded' is chided by top state court
Indiana courts will tolerate a judge’s “crusty” demeanor toward litigants, if evenly applied, but a juvenile court judge in Marion County went too far, the Indiana Supreme Court has found.
In a case to determine whether a teen should be placed in state custody, the state supreme court said the cumulative effect of remarks by Judge Marilyn Moores was a breach of the duty to remain impartial. Though the teen had turned 18 and the case was moot, the court overturned the judge’s determination. The Indianapolis Star has a story on the opinion (PDF).
The judge had called the parents of the 17-year-old girl, “J.K.,” “knuckleheads,” deemed their dispute “retarded,” and complained that handling their “drama” was not the purpose of her court.
The state had initiated “child in need of services” proceedings in May 2013 after J.K. was locked out of her home, where she lived with her mother and grandmother. J.K.’s work shift had ended at 9 p.m., and the grandmother locked the girl out because she thought it was too late. J.K.’s mother told child custody officials that she was tired of J.K. and “I will sign the b—- over to you.”
When the parents appeared before Moores, the father proposed placement of J.K. in his home and said custody was a dispute in his pending divorce. Expressing impatience with the overlap between the cases, Moores said “my hair hurts,” and asked whether they were trying the child-services case. “Call your first witness,” she instructed the father, though she did not try the case as threatened.
Moores proceeded to call the dispute “ridiculous and retarded,” faulted the parties for their stupidity, and ordered them into mediation.
“Guys this is not what the court is for,” Moores said. “This is not what taxpayers’ services are for. We have people who are writing their names on children with lit cigarettes. That is what the resources of this court are for and not because you’re living with people that have too much drama.”
The mediation was unsuccessful. During the next court hearing, Moores told the parties they were “knuckleheads.”
The father told Moores he was willing have J.K. live with him, but he needed to find out if she could be bused to her current high school in a neighboring school district because his work prevented him from driving her. At that point, Moores said she was adjudicating J.K. as a child in need of state services. The father objected, and a “heated colloquy” followed.
“If I were you,” Moores said, “I’d waive fact-finding. Otherwise you’re going to find your butt finding a new job. I’ll be happy to give you what you want sir and I will order custody to you and then you will be responsible for ensuring that she gets to school every day. Do you want to do that? We can play that game.”
At that point, the father agreed his daughter was a child in need of state services.
Moores showed a “repeated implication of being unreceptive and hostile” to the parents, the state supreme court said.
In a footnote, the court said it recognized that judges are not immune from the emotional effects of the cases they hear. Noting Moores’ observation that she deals with cases involving people who write on children with lit cigarettes, the court said it’s just one example of the type of harm juvenile judges routinely confront.
“Recognizing that burden, we will not race to judgment over isolated inappropriate or impatient comments that do not cause prejudice to the parties,” the supreme court said. “But that leeway ends where the parties’ due process rights begin—and given the cumulative effect of these remarks, we must protect father’s due process rights” by reversing the determination that the teen was in need of state supervision.
