by Jon Reisfeld
Reporters from every local newspaper, television channel, radio station and online news outlet crammed into a public hearing room on the second floor of the district courthouse, waiting for Judge Farnsworth to make his appearance. Most of the print and online reporters were still milling around the tables set up in the back, engaging in small talk as they helped themselves to free coffee, orange juice, and trays of donuts. They were dressed modestly, and informally, while the much better dressed and immaculately groomed TV reporters stood toward the front of the room. Between them, camera men and women stood at the ready behind their hand-held cameras and tripods. The dais, at the front, was top heavy with a Gordian knot of logoed microphones, representing various news outlets.
A small, frail, gray-haired woman, dressed in a drab, gray silk blouse, silver-and-turquoise necklace and blue skirt, stepped toward the dais and slipped on a pair of black reading glasses that hung from a band around her neck. She tapped lightly on the nondescript microphone at the center of the knot and the sound reverberated through the room. She appeared to be in her early sixties and looked like a small-town librarian. When everyone quieted down, she continued.
“May I have your attention, please?” she said in a soft, grandmotherly voice. “I’m Gertie Styles, the judge’s administrative aid. Thank you for coming today. If you didn’t find a copy of the press release lying on your seat, please raise your hand now, and we will get you one. And now,” she added, gesturing toward the door at her left, “it is my pleasure to give you, his honor, Judge Michael J. Farnsworth, chief administrative judge of The Maryland District Court.”
Gertie stepped aside as Judge Farnsworth walked into the room, caught in the sudden glare of dozens of video camera lights. The judge was dressed in a charcoal-gray business suit, a blue power tie and crisp white shirt and he sported a recent tan. He looked around the room, into the glaring lights, smiled and squinted.
Behind him, Gertie turned over a white sign that was perched on an easel. Large, dark-green print announced the “Respondent Advocate Program” and then, a much smaller line of black text under it read, “A Maryland District Court Initiative.” This was followed by an image of the Maryland District Court seal.
Judge Farnsworth slipped on a pair of reading glasses and took several folded sheets of paper from his vest pocket. “Ladies and gentlemen of the press,” he began. “Thank you for coming. We don’t hold press conferences here all that often, so I didn’t know if I was going to feel like the proverbial high school nerd—I was one once—who threw a party to which no one came!” (Laughter.)
“Fortunately, Gertie knows a thing or two about filling a room, and she insisted that we invest in a generous assortment of donuts. From the look of things, it appears that did the trick!
“I’m going to read from a prepared statement and then, I’ll take your questions. When I finish, I will introduce you to a few people who will be playing key roles in helping us roll out and expand this new initiative.”
The judge paused, fidgeted with his papers and then cleared his throat. “It has been said that ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions.’ I have had ample proof, recently, of the accuracy of that observation.
“The ‘good intentions’ paving our latest ‘road to ruin’ are among the noblest and purest imaginable: our collective desire to protect women and children, some of the most vulnerable among us, from the dangers of domestic violence and abuse….
“Unfortunately, when emotion and ‘righteous indignation’ fuel reform efforts, those in charge often seem to take temporary leave of their senses and completely ignore the possibility that anyone would ever attempt to ‘game’ their newly reformed system. But, of course, people do try to game it. And when they do, the cure for one social ill—in this case, domestic violence—creates a whole new group of victims: innocent spouses (men, for the most part), who find themselves falsely accused of what only can be described as despicable acts: domestic violence and child abuse.
“Such charges can be personally devastating to the accused. No decent, upstanding person would ever want to be associated with them.
“Merely raising these allegations, whether true or not, can give the accuser a huge advantage in a pending divorce case. The protective orders sought in district court often come with requests for temporary awards of child custody and child support, use of the family home, the family car, and much more. And these temporary awards can quickly become permanent in divorce court.
“How does this happen and, more importantly, what’s the ‘big deal’ that has led me to propose changes to the way we currently do business?
“My own experience on the bench has convinced me that some attorneys are now routinely using domestic violence charges as a strategy to help their clients gain the upper hand in divorce proceedings.
“Studies that I’ve read suggest that, nationally, men who have been falsely accused of domestic violence now number, not in the thousands or even the tens of thousands, but in the millions. That’s millions of people, tried each year, in absentia, on trumped up charges and exposed to public ridicule. And it’s happening, here, in America, not in some faraway country that doesn’t claim to operate under the rule of law.
“As a judge, I find injustice, on such a scale, to be intolerable and personally repugnant. I cannot, in good conscience, continue to be associated with it. So, I felt compelled to find a way to make the current system and its practices work better.
“Spouses, who legitimately fear for their safety and the safety of their children, must always be able to come forward and seek protection from the court, but we also need safeguards on the courts to protect the integrity of our judicial system and the innocent.
“My solution,” the judge said, pointing toward the sign behind him and to his right, “is to make sure those accused, in absentia, of domestic violence, (those we call ‘respondents’) have someone present in the courtroom, during those ex-parte hearings, to represent their interests.
“The district court will randomly select and assign family law attorneys, from local bar association lists, to serve as pro-bono respondent advocates on a rotating basis. The Advocates will serve for one day at a time and must be present for all ex-parte hearings held on those days. They will listen to each petitioner’s testimony and then cross-examine the petitioner in order to make sure their allegations hold up under questioning. If the charges don’t hold up, then, hopefully, the court will not grant the requested protective order, and a record of sworn testimony, including the cross examination of the petitioner, will be available for the respondent’s counsel to review and for prosecutors to use in future perjury cases. Perjury, as you may know, is the only penalty that petitioners currently face if they make false accusations in these ex-parte proceedings.”
“We will launch the RAP program here, in Montgomery County, immediately, for an initial sixty-day trial period. Then, we will expand the program to include all Maryland District Courts.
The judge folded up his papers and returned them to his vest pocket. “That concludes my prepared statement,” he said. “Now, let me introduce you to two, prominent family law attorneys who have agreed to help advance this program.”
He looked at the doorway located on his left. “Beverly, Chester, will you please join me?”
Beverly West, who was wearing one of her signature herring-bone dress suits, stepped forward, followed closely behind by a tall, tan Chester Swindell.
Judge Farnsworth stepped to his right to make room, behind the rostrum, for his two colleagues. “During the sixty-day trial period for this program, Beverly West has generously agreed to serve as First Advocate,” Judge Farnsworth said. “She will personally be on hand for the first two weeks, representing respondents in all ex-parte cases brought before district court judges and commissioners. Bev will administer the launch of the program here, in Montgomery County. She will establish procedures, standards, and guidelines, which she will then teach to her successor advocates.
“She has donated $50,000 in seed money to cover any administrative costs required to get this program up and running. Isn’t that right, counselor?” he asked, looking at West. She smiled and seemed to blanch, slightly, under her already copious, pale makeup.
“I’d also like to introduce you to Chester Swindell, who is standing to Beverly’s left. Chester has, at my request, accepted the post of community liaison for the RAP program. As such, he will be receiving a small stipend to underwrite the costs for him to travel the state, speaking to men’s groups about the program, answering their questions and making them aware of their rights and responsibilities under it.
“Now,” Judge Farnsworth said, “I will briefly open the floor to questions. Please wait to be recognized.”
Hands immediately flew up and the judge quickly pointed to a reporter standing in the front row.
“Hi, Your Honor. Tom Purdy, the Maryland Independent. It sounds like this program will hinge on your ability to get buy-in and support from family law trial lawyers. As someone who covered the courts for a number of years, I’ve seen pro bono work become rarer and rarer. In fact, most attorneys can now avoid it entirely just by making a small annual donation to Legal Aid. How do you expect to gain their support for this new initiative under the circumstances?”
“Excellent question, Tom,” Judge Farnsworth said. “I think I’ll let our First Advocate answer that one for me. Bev?”
West smiled. “You’ve raised an interesting point, Tom. In recent years, many of us have been paying the legal equivalent of ‘indulgences’ to sidestep the time-honored tradition of providing free assistance to the needy. But this is not a voluntary program. Judge Farnsworth, as chief administrative judge for the state’s district court system, is making participation in the RAP program mandatory for all lawyers who wish to practice family law in The State of Maryland. I guess you could say that, going forward, it will be a cost of doing business.”
“Explain the enforcement aspect, would you, Bev?” Judge Farnsworth said.
“Sure. Judge Farnsworth initially suggested that each attorney should pay a $2,500 fine for each instance of failing to show up for their RAP assignments. I felt that might still threaten the program’s integrity. I think the court needs to set a standard that will ensure zero tolerance for noncompliance. So, at my recommendation, Judge Farnsworth changed the penalty for failing to appear to a sixty-day license suspension.”
A gasp went through the crowd.
A thin, tall African American man, in the second row, quickly raised his hand. He wore a natty, olive summer-weight suit, a crisp blue button-down oxford shirt and a matching blue, black olive and gold patterned tie.
“You, sir,” the judge said. He pointed at the reporter and nodded.
“Reggie Fox, of the Baltimore Sun,” the reporter said. “Judge, in your prepared statement, you said, and I quote: ‘“My own experience on the bench has convinced me that some attorneys are now routinely using domestic violence charges as a strategy to help their clients gain the upper hand in divorce proceedings.’
“Your Honor, would you care to elaborate on that statement and, in particular, tell the public the specific incidents, in your experience, that convinced you this problem is now getting out of hand?”
Judge Farnsworth drew in his chin and stiffened his neck. “I do not care to,” he said. “The people are just going to have to trust me on this one. Those involved in the specific incidents have been disciplined, and all of the state’s family law attorneys have been put on notice.”
The judge recognized a female reporter. “Cindy Kimball, WTTZ News,” she said. “Judge Farnsworth, women’s groups and, in particular, the leadership of NOW, say that your RAP program will set women’s rights back fifty years. They say they will do everything in their power to unseat you in the next judicial election. Your official response, sir?”
“If keeping the courts fair, by protecting the rights of innocent men being tried in absentia, could set the women’s rights movement back fifty years, Cindy, then I simply don’t understand what that movement now represents. When it started, if I recall, the Women’s Rights movement was all about ‘equality.’ Women wanted equal treatment in employment, and generally, under the law. To oppose the RAP program is to favor preferred treatment for women. The women I know want true equality not an unfair advantage. Tell NOW to ‘bring it on,’ and I’ll take my chances that reason will prevail with the electorate.”
The next question came from a slovenly looking, male reporter. “Biff Cartier, Internet Radio. Isn’t this just another example of an activist judiciary overstepping its bounds, Your Honor? What makes you think the state legislature goofed, when they set up this program, and why should you be second-guessing them now?”
“Do you mean, aside from the fact that their program doesn’t work?” Judge Farnsworth asked, to laughter from all sides. “At best, they thought judges would step in and cross-examine the petitioners, but that goes against our training. At heart, we are supposed to be impartial observers, not advocates. At worst, the legislature’s failure to provide some form of in-court representation during ex-parte hearings was a huge oversight. My role, as chief administrative judge of the court, includes making sure it functions properly. I feel I’m fulfilling my mandate, nothing more.”
Judge Farnsworth next selected an older, female reporter standing several rows back. “Sally Donleavy, the Washington Post,” she said.
“Judge, if you were going to defend this program before the Supreme Court, what would you tell them was your legal basis for taking matters into your own hands in this way?”
“Excellent question,” Judge Farnsworth said. “The current system, which allows people to press charges against others unchallenged and in ‘absentia,’ undermines many long-held, cherished principles of western jurisprudence. While some might argue that those principles apply ‘strictly’ to criminal cases, I think we’re splitting hairs here, as the type of charges being brought in these civil cases are actually ‘criminal’ in nature.
“The rights I’m referring to are protected by the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. They include the guarantee of “equal protection under the law;” the right to “face our accusers,” the right to “due process.” and our right to be “secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
“All of us also have the right to expect that we will be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But for those tried, unfairly, in absentia, just the opposite is true. When these falsely accused individuals finally get their day in court, they already have been declared guilty and penalized in some way. They now must prove to the court that found them guilty, in absentia, that it made a mistake.”
The judge glanced at his watch. “We have time for just one more question.” Hands went up everywhere. “The young man in the middle of the back row,” the judge said.
“Me?” shouted the reporter. He was a young man, who appeared to be in his early twenties.
“Yes, you,” Judge Farnsworth said.
“I’d like to know in what specific ways you hope this program will make things better?”
“I’m assuming you mean in addition to the points already cited?” the judge asked.
“Yes.”
“Well, I cannot think of a way in which these changes could possibly make the system work any worse than it does right now. But specifically, I think it could make many things better.
“For instance,” Judge Farnsworth continued, “this one-sided, unfair treatment of people sends two very different messages to the parties in a divorce. In my opinion, it tells women they can expect preferential treatment from the courts and it invites them, to some extent, to stretch the truth, if not out-and-out lie, to get the outcomes they desire.
“At the same time, i
t tells men they will not get a fair shake. This realization can either encourage men to give up the fight to remain a constant, meaningful presence in their children’s lives—in which case the children lose—or it can make a man want to get even with his wife, particularly if she has brought false, scurrilous charges against him. That just ratchets up the conflict in the divorce case and makes the attorneys rich.
“Once we start treating both parties fairly, I think everyone will act better and divorce cases will become less of a circus. I also think this new approach will take away the incentive attorneys presently have to try and ‘game the system’ on behalf of their clients. That should translate into fewer trumped-up, ex-parte domestic violence cases altogether.
“Finally, by making the petitioners accountable in court, I think the number of questionable cases will decline dramatically. That will benefit the true victims of domestic abuse. The courts will be able to hear their cases faster and should be able to assign them to experienced judges, rather than deputized district court commissioners. As a society, we’ll also get a truer, more accurate picture of the nature, and extent, of this very real, very serious problem.
“Thank you.”
Thanks for Reading!
Dear Reader,
I hope you enjoyed The Reform Artists. I’d love to hear your thoughts about the book—both the good and the bad. Just click here (or visit http://jonreisfeld.com/contact to connect with me via email.
If you’re looking forward to the next installment in the series, then I have good news: The next two books are now in early development. You can even help shape them! Do you have ideas about a social issue or a special interest group that you’d like to see the reform artists take on? If so, please contact me online at: http://jonreisfeld.com/contact and make your case. Who knows? You might be reading that story one day soon!
Now, I need to ask a favor of you: Would you be willing to write a brief review and post it online? I realize that you may, or may not, have ‘loved’ the book, but that’s ok. I’m interested in honest feedback, warts and all. Reader reviews greatly help book discoverability, and that’s vitally important to authors.
