Disorder in the Court

My background isn't too important but I'll give the highlights anyway.

I'm Judge Judy (no, moron, not the one on TV) Brattle. I graduated law school at 22, clerked for a Federal District Court Judge for two years, became a partner in a law firm in five years, and was appointed a state court trial judge two years ago, the youngest female trial judge in the state at 29 when I was appointed, and 31 at the start of this tale.

I got hit on lots in school and at the law firm because even if I do say so myself I have a nice ass and thighs, and a decent face. My boobs aren't anything special, but I've actually not had any complaints (not just an expression, a fact). My older brother has a black belt in Brazilian jujitsu and taught me self-defense, and I was born tough and got tougher as I matured. I don't take shit from anyone, as two of my classmates in law school and one of the partners in the law firm I worked for found out when I kneed them in the balls after they touched my ass without permission.

Like most (but not all) other states my state does not have a separate domestic relations (divorce, custody) court. I handle those cases in addition to other civil cases, and criminal matters. The domestic relations cases can sometimes be heart-breaking, but also offer the most opportunity to do some good and exercise some creativity. I make sure that all attorneys appearing before me in those cases are well-prepared; after the first two unprepared ones were severely reprimanded the word got out.

Like every state except Texas (at least to my knowledge) my state does not allow jury trials in domestic relations cases.

XXXXXXXXX

April 20, 9 a. m. Courtroom 6E; Dawson v Dawson

When I reviewed the file of the Dawson case before a preliminary hearing I noticed no counsel for Mrs. Louise Dawson. The counsel for Mr. Joseph Dawson -- James Litton -- was one of the slimiest attorneys to practice before me. After court was called to order Litton rose to speak.

"Sit down, Mr. Litton; I have a preliminary matter to take care of," I said in a no-nonsense tone.

"But your honor..." the weasel started out.

"What about 'sit down' do you not understand Mr. Litton; not another word unless I ask you to speak." He sat down.

"Mrs. Dawson, would you please come up to the lectern? I have some questions for you," I said in a gentle voice. She rose and did so. I noticed that she was wearing a very plain, inexpensive cotton dress, and had no jewelry or makeup on. This was in sharp contrast to her husband who had a suit that looked like it cost a thousand dollars, with a crisp white shirt and a silk tie.

As Louise stood at the lectern I gently inquired "Mrs. Dawson why don't you have an attorney. This is a very significant proceeding and it really is in your best interest to have one."

"I can't afford one, Your Honor."

"Why not?"

"Because my husband has kicked me out of the house, cancelled all our credit cards, transferred all of the money from our joint accounts into those with his name alone, and since I was a homemaker taking care of our three children and didn't work outside the home I have no economic means available to me."

Litton stood up and said "I can explain, Your Honor..."

I banged my gavel. "Mr. Litton you need to have your hearing checked since violating my directive to you has just cost you $100, payable to the bailiff after this proceeding is concluded. The next violation of my directive will have you removed from the courtroom."

Litton sat down.

"Have you seen your children recently Mrs. Dawson?"

"No; my husband has prevented me from seeing them for the six weeks while this case is pending."

"Where are you living now?"

"With my elderly parents, who have no means to hire an attorney for me."

"Thank you, Mrs. Dawson. Please sit down." Then I turned to Litton and Joseph Dawson. "Mr. Dawson come up to the witness stand and be sworn in -- and Mr. Litton you can object to this if you like to preserve the record, but then sit down immediately after objecting."

"I object, Your Honor, since we did not anticipate that this would be an evidentiary proceeding and I haven't talked to my client about any testimony," Litton said.

"Your objection is noted and overruled, Mr. Litton. Mr. Dawson take the stand."

Joseph Dawson was uneasy when he sat on the witness stand; as he walked up I noticed that his shoes were Gucci. I started right in with questions once he was sworn in. In rapid fire I asked him "Did you kick Louise Dawson out of your home? Did you cancel all credit cards that she had access to? Did you close all joint accounts and open new ones in your name? Have you prevented her from seeing her children for more than a month? Have you withheld all funds from her so that she has been unable to hire an attorney?"

He answered "Yes" to each question, getting more and more distressed with each answer.

"You have one minute to tell me why you took these actions?"

"Uh...because...I have information that...uh...she cheated on me," he stammered.

"That's what hearings and trials are for -- to determine the legitimacy of any 'information' that the parties have. You don't get to unilaterally essentially rule in your favor without the situation being fleshed out, and it can't be properly fleshed out if you handicap your wife so that she can't defend herself. You may return to your seat Mr. Dawson."

After he returned to his seat I said "This court is in recess for ten minutes while I make some calls; the parties are to remain in the courtroom, however, and have no contact with each other. No reason to rise when I leave or return."

I went to my chambers and called Wilson and Wilson. "Mary Wilson please, Judge Brattle calling."

Thirty seconds later Mary was on the line.

"Hi Judy; is this a social call?" she answered.

"No, sorry, business, although I do owe you a lunch. I've got a sad situation where a husband has essentially unilaterally excommunicated his wife and she has no representation. I need you to have one of your associates handle the case. Eventually I believe that there will be money to pay your fees; it shouldn't be pro bono."

Mary laughed. "Wow, you've got a lot of nerve," she laughed, "but you're such a ball buster that you'll never treat me to lunch again if I decline, so I guess I'll have to accept. What's her name?"

"Louise Dawson."

"Tell Louise to come to our office before lunch and ask for me."

"You're a gem, Mary," I chuckled as I signed off.

"Whatever," was her chortled reply.

I returned to the courtroom and took the bench.

"Mrs. Dawson I want you to go to the offices of Wilson and Wilson, 1220 Cedar St., just two blocks from here, 8th floor, once this hearing is concluded, and ask for Mary Wilson. Someone from Mrs. Wilson's firm will make an appearance on your behalf and we will reschedule this hearing for April 30. In the meantime, within 48 hours you, Mr. Dawson, will give Mrs. Dawson $2500. After all of the proceedings are concluded this payment will be taken into account in determining the ultimate economic payout. In the meantime you will deliver your three children to Mrs. Dawson's parents' house at 9:00 a. m. this Saturday for visitation until Sunday at 9:00 p. m. Also, Mr. Dawson you will deliver any ten items of clothing that Mrs. Dawson asks you to by the same time Saturday." I then asked Litton and Joseph Dawson "Is April 30 convenient to you for rescheduling of this proceeding?"

They whispered to each other then Litton said "Only if it could start at 2:00 p. m. or later."

"Is that convenient to you Mrs. Dawson?"

"Yes," she replied with tears in her eyes.

"This proceeding is concluded and rescheduled for 2:30 p. m. on April 30. Court is in recess until 10 a. m."

April 20, 10 a. m. Courtroom 6E; Simpson v Simpson

My next case that day was a trial in the divorce of Mrs. Charlene Simpson v Mr. Jordan Simpson. Harold Skinner, the attorney representing Charlene, is slick, but not slimy, and high priced. Loretta Fields, the attorney representing Jordan, is inexperienced, but has potential. I often wonder why parties usually hire someone of the opposite sex as their attorney in domestic relations cases. If there were jury trials maybe it would make a difference, but the relative genders of the attorneys and parties has absolutely no influence on me or any other judge that I know of in my state.

The petitioner (what a plaintiff is called in domestic relations cases) was Charlene, the respondent Jordan. It was easy to see that the parties in this case were almost the opposite of those in the last case; Charlene is well put together with a perfect businesswoman's suit whereas Jordan's suit seems rumpled; at least he had competent counsel. While I would not call Charlene beautiful, she obviously spent a great deal of effort on her appearance including not a hair out of place and so was attractive. Jordan probably would have been just as attractive as she is except that it didn't seem that he put in the same amount of effort on his appearance.

"Are you ready to proceed with your opening statement Mr. Skinner?"

"I am, your honor," Harold said as he went to the lectern. I give the parties only ten minutes each for opening statements in domestic relations cases because I always carefully read all of the pretrial papers. Skinner's opening was too flamboyant for a judge trial, making me think that he had one or more significant weaknesses. Fields' opening statement was delivered poorly but she did touch much more on the facts that I was interested in.

"Call your first witness Mr. Skinner." He called Charlene to the stand.

The testimony went pretty much the way that I expected given the parties' pretrial briefs and deposition testimony. Charlene was sophisticated and well prepared. One particular part of the testimony was significant to me:

Skinner: "Why should you be awarded sole custody of your two minor children Mrs. Simpson?"

Charlene: "Jordan is a bad influence on the children. He has no ambition, is lazy, does not practice proper hygiene, and is unwilling to take charge in situations where affirmative action is required. He also sometimes doesn't use proper grammar when talking to the children and is not an effective disciplinarian which I think is important. I would say that in general he is a poor role model for the children and I would not want them to be influenced by his bad habits and actions."

Charlene's direct testimony was most animated when she was talking about money -- namely the amount she needed to maintain her lifestyle (apparently even though Jordan was "lazy" and "lacked ambition" he made lots of money). I wondered why she hadn't been as animated when talking about her children, especially since they were both girls, seven and nine years old. Charlene's total direct examination lasted about 50 minutes.

Loretta Fields' cross-examination was sufficient when it came to the monetary parts, but I was very disappointed in it as it related to custody. She made attempts but missed what to me were the most obvious questions. I got a real sense of what should be asked by viewing Charlene's demeanor and one particular spectator in the gallery.

After Charlene's cross Skinner said "No re-direct" and Charlene was about to leave the stand when I said "Please sit down, Mrs. Simpson; I have a few questions of my own.

Neither she nor Skinner seemed to like that, but my job is to be sure that the best interests of the children are taken into account so I don't give a rat's ass about whether or not the parties or attorneys like it. I allow them to present whatever they want (within the rules of evidence) and never cut them off, but when they're done if things haven't been fleshed out I make sure that they are.

"Mrs. Simpson you testified on direct that your husband is a poor role model. Do you consider being a good role model important in custody determinations?"

Although Charlene had a deer-in-the-headlights look, she composed herself and said "Yes."

"You mentioned a number of bad habits and actions of your husband. What standard of comparison do you use in evaluating those habits and actions?"

In responding to that and all other questions from me the deer-in-the-headlights look remained.

"Uh...well...compared to other...men that I know."

"What men in particular?"

"Uh...well...some men in my family."

"Anyone else?"

"Uh...well...to Arnold Robbins?"

"Who's he?"

"A friend of mine."

"Did you have sexual relations with Mr. Robbins before the petition for divorce was filed?"

"Your honor," Skinner said standing up, "adultery is not an element to consider in domestic relations in courts in our state, therefore I object on the ground of relevancy."

"Mr. Skinner there is no prohibition in taking adultery into account -- read the statute. In this particular case because of your client's direct testimony that she considers a good role model is important in determining custody as well as the parties' bad habits and actions I find that it is highly relevant. She flat out told me I needed to take role model and bad habits and actions into account therefore I am."

"Uh...then Your Honor," Skinner continued, obviously flustered, "I will advise my client to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination since the statute still says that adultery is a crime."

"As you know Mr. Skinner no one in this state has been prosecuted for adultery in at least two generations, and it is only because of the laziness of the legislature that the adultery prohibition it is still on the books. However, I am specifically granting Mrs. Simpson and Mr. Robbins immunity from prosecution for violating §18.403(b) of the state code. Since I have every right to grant immunity in the interests of justice Mrs. Simpson WILL answer my questions."

Skinner slumped into his seat. I had the court reporter read back the question. A very nervous Charlene gulped and stammered "I...I'm...not sure...uh...exactly the first time...uh...we had sex."

"Sorry Mrs. Skinner, I don't accept that answer. Think hard -- take your time -- and then answer again. In the meantime bailiff please make sure that the gentlemen in the blue suit with pink shirt sitting in the gallery -- who I presume is Mr. Robbins -- does not leave the courtroom. If your answer is still that you don't remember, Mrs. Simpson, I'll bring Mr. Robbins up to the witness stand and swear him in, and his memory might be better; it also might lead me to believe that a perjury referral is necessary."

Robbins looked like he wanted to shit his pants; Charlene was almost apoplectic. After a delay of a good ninety seconds, during which I just stared at her, Charlene cleared her throat and testified "Yes, I had sexual relations with Mr. Robbins before the petition for divorce was filed."

"How many times?"

More gulping, another delay, then "I'm not sure."

"More than five?"

Another delay and gulp, then "Yes."

"You may step down Mrs. Simpson; Mr. Skinner call your next witness."

The trial proceeded as expected the rest of the day. I told the parties to have the two minor children in the courtroom at 9 a. m. the next day for a discussion with me in chambers, with only attorneys present. Skinner vigorously objected but it did him no good because the statute specifically gives the trial judge the right to interview (not to call to testify except in rare cases) minor children in chambers. I also cautioned the parties NOT to in any way influence what the children were to say.

The interviews of the children were significant only in the sense that neither had anything bad to say about either parent, at least not anything that was important. The closing arguments were delivered between three and four p. m. on the 21st. I told the parties to come back at 9 a. m. on the 22nd and I'd deliver my opinion.

I knew after interviewing the children how I would deal with the custody issue, however I needed to cogitate some more about exactly how to deal with the financial issues. The parties were anxious when I delivered my opinion the next day. The salient points (the entire decision was much more complex) were:

--The parties were awarded joint custody of the seven and nine year old children. There would be no child support either way unless some big ticket item came up. I expected the parties to split expenses the best way possible.

--The house where the children presently resided -- which was clear of a mortgage -- was where the children were to stay. One week Mrs. Simpson was to stay with the children, the next Mr. Simpson. For one two week period when the children were out of school Mrs. Simpson would have full custody, and for another two week period Mr. Simpson would. Custody would alternate for the major holidays of July Fourth, Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's Day, switching from one year to the next. "In making this determination I have considered all activities and proclivities of the parties relating to being a good role model, and bad habits or actions," was my most definitive statement.

--Neither party could allow a romantic partner that they were not married to to stay in the house between 10 p. m. of one day and 7 a. m. of the next.

--The liquid assets would be split 50-50.

--Since Mrs. Simpson did not work full time outside the home, but since she had a college degree in marketing, she would be provided maintenance for one year at the amount of $2,500 a month, which would terminate after one year or after she got a job making more than $60,000 a year, whichever was first.

I could see shock on faces of everyone in the courtroom; Mr. Simpson's shock was a happy one; Mrs. Simpson's not so much. I could make the ruling that I did because there was enough money to be split so that both parties could get their own apartment.

My final conclusion was "The parties are free to come to any agreement that meets their needs in the future and if reasonable the court will substitute that agreement for this determination. The Clerk should enter this order into the record forthwith."

XXXXXXXX

April 30, 9 a. m. Courtroom 6E; Dawson v Dawson

This time the reason for the preliminary hearing was much different than for the previous one. Previously it had been to set up scheduling and to ask for default judgment since Mrs. Dawson had not properly answered the petition for divorce [because she had no attorney].

This time around Julian Groves, the associate from Wilson and Wilson who Mary Wilson had assigned the case to, was asking for entry of a revised answer to the petition, for spousal support as the proceedings continued, and for joint custody during the proceedings.

I let Litton, representing Joseph Dawson, talk first. He blabbered on about how the proper administration of justice required that the parties follow the rules and that there should be no excuse for Louise Dawson to not follow the rules -- she could have tried to get a public interest attorney.

After Litton was done I let Groves speak just because I wasn't familiar with him and wanted to see if he would represent Louise properly. I had already decided what to do. Groves was actually pretty good. He not only opposed Litton's motion eloquently but made really good points with regard to his motion. I let Litton reply to Groves' argument regarding his motion (only, no further discussion of Litton's motion) and then told the parties I was ready to rule.

"The failure of Mrs. Dawson to completely respond to the petition for divorce is entirely excusable in no small part due to Mr. Dawson's inequitable actions in denying her access to any form of support. Therefore Mr. Dawson's motion is denied with prejudice, and the revised answer will be incorporated into the record.

As to Mrs. Dawson's motion for support and custody during the proceedings petitioner has given no good reason why it should be denied. As I held on April 20, a party does not get to decide the ultimate holding of a case unilaterally -- that is what the court is for. The only non-trivial reason given by petitioner for retaining the status quo is an allegation of adultery, which Mrs. Dawson's amended response to the petition denies. Since even if proven -- which cannot be assumed at this juncture -- that there was adultery without special circumstances, such as existed in my recent decision of Simpson v Simpson, that is not a major factor in determining any ultimate issues. Therefore Mr. Simpson will pay Mrs. Simpson $3500 per month maintenance until this matter is concluded by trial or settlement.