Columnist Sandy Thompson: It's very simple, really: Verdicts must follow law

IT'S a familiar refrain among litigants upset by what they call unfair Family Court decisions: "Judges aren't following the law."

It's also a reality recognized by the legislative subcommittee that last week, after four hearings spanning five months, made recommendations on how to solve some of the beleaguered court's problems.

How do you force judges to follow the law? Legal eagles tell dissatisfied litigants to file a complaint with the Judicial Discipline Commission. But many throw up their hands in frustration, saying the commission is nothing but a good-ol'-boy network that protects its own.

The law isn't being followed.

The issue was raised when the subcommittee considered two recommendations by Sen. Maurice Washington, R-Sparks, regarding the use of Temporary Protective Orders as leverage in divorce cases, and incidents of ex-parte communication.

Washington said there are cases where allegations of domestic violence or abuse made to obtain a TPO prove to be false. But the damage to the accused already has been done. He suggested that local police or the district attorney's office thoroughly investigate each allegation when a TPO is requested.

However, that's not practical. Both agencies are already overwhelmed by everyday criminal activity.

Sen. Ernie Adler, D-Carson City, suggested that judges impose sanctions, such as attorneys' fees and mandatory makeup visitation, if the abuse allegations are proven false.

Sometimes, however, abuse is not a black and white issue. Some people are clever about using TPOs. Some abusers are slick talkers and cleverly use the system to keep the upper hand.

But what happens when abuse and domestic violence can be proven?

Bob Dickerson, president of the Nevada State Bar, pointed out that the 1997 Legislature passed a law stating that if one of the parents in a custody case committed spousal battery, he or she would be precluded from having joint physical custody or sole custody.

But the law clearly is not being followed.

The Sun has uncovered several cases where custody has been given to the batterer. In one high-profile case reported here, a man shot at his ex-wife while she was driving in a car with their young son. The bullet just missed the boy.

The ex-husband then chased them as they drove frantically to a police station. He later pleaded guilty to a lesser charge than the original attempted murder, yet he was given custody of the boy.

The law was not followed.

Dickerson raised another issue: "If one parent batters the other, does that mean he or she is a bad parent?"

Maybe not, but what example does that set for a child? Statistics overwhelmingly show that abusive homes breed abusers.

There are other laws that are not being followed. Take ex-parte communication. Several Family Court litigants say the other side has spoken to a judge or a court official about the case when they or their attorneys have not been present. Even a few attorneys have complained about ex-parte communication in their court motions.

Dickerson told the subcommittee last Wednesday that he didn't believe the problem is as prevalent as members were led to believe. Not once in his 22-year career has there been ex-parte communication with a judge, he said.

Ironically, it was Dickerson's own client who testified at an earlier subcommittee hearing that her ex-husband called the judge personally to talk about their child custody case, which was alleged to be ex-parte communication.

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, who's also an attorney, told Dickerson: "Some attorneys push the rule as much as they can. I think it's (ex-parte communication) a legitimate concern and it's happening."

Then she asked, "How do we make sure the rule (law) is followed?"

The answer is, they can't.

And that's why the law isn't being followed.

Until there is such a hue and cry from the public about cases where the law clearly isn't being followed, there will be no true reform. Until the legal community recognizes that problems exist and is willing to impose sanctions, there will be no true reform.

The next battle will be in the 1999 Legislature, which will consider the subcommittee's recommendations of increasing the number of Family Court judges from 8 to 13 (estimated cost is $600,000 to $700,000 per judge, staff and facilities), establishing a strong chief judge system and enacting other measures to ensure fairer and more timely decisions.

Although the subcommittee can't legislate judges' egos and demeanor or that attorneys and litigants act responsibly, it took a giant step forward by conducting the hearings and listening very patiently to the people, as well as experts, judges and court staff.

Many compelling stories were told throughout the hearings. But there were also the conspiracy nuts who used the hearings to berate the committee and accuse government officials of corruption, drugs and sexual perversion. This was not the appropriate forum and the accusations bordered on slander.

The speakers did not gain sympathy for their plight.

It was out of place, but Buckley, as subcommittee chairwoman, calmly thanked them for their testimony and moved on.

During the last hearing, another reporter wondered whether Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, D-Las Vegas, who was fighting her own battle against child neglect charges in Family Court, or Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, R-Las Vegas, who went through a divorce case in Family Court, should have been on the subcommittee.

They positively should have been on the committee. They could empathize with people because they had a personal point of reference. They knew that some of the problems being discussed were not just litigants whining. These were serious problems.

Ohrenschall and Tiffany, as well as Buckley, Washington and Sen. Jon Porter, R-Boulder City, asked many poignant questions. They, along with other subcommittee members, made good points. They were attentive. They were compassionate.

The subcommittee deserves credit -- not scorn -- for taking on this issue. But the fight has only begun. Can they convince the full Legislature, which did not hear the 27 hours of testimony, to pay attention to our human infrastructure needs?

This election season, ask every candidate who's running for the state Senate and Assembly where they stand on these issues.

We must follow the law.

archive