Helen Zelon: We’ve learned from different sources that seven or eight seats will be open on the Family Court bench next year. Is that correct?
Edwina Richardson-Mendelson: My count is eight at this time. Not all are [official] Family Court judges; some are on loan. And some of the judges who are on loan were really permanent in Family Court. There’s one in the Bronx on a criminal court line who has never served in criminal court.
HZ::Why is a judge who sits in Family Court on a criminal court line? Is it budget-driven?
ERM: Not necessarily. There may have been an opening in criminal court, but not as much need there – or the person is experienced with Family Court, but there were no Family Court lines [for new judges] at the time.
The recognition has been long-standing that we need additional judicial resources in our Court. We thought we were coming close to having more judges in 2008 [after the LINK Sampson report on Family Court]. It really felt as if it was going to happen, but it didn’t.
HZ:: Lawyers for Legal Aid and on 18B panels have said that ‘judges are the elephant in the room’ – they assert that too few judges on the bench stymies their work and slows the overall workings of Family Court.
ERM: It’s critically important that we keep trying to thrive in the absence of judgeships. I really do believe that court administrators recognize that we’re suffering in Family Court.
HZ:: How do you think cutting back the Judicial Hearing Officer program has affected the Court?
ERM: Quite frankly, we made some difficult and painful decisions as to who should stay and who should go. The recognition that we could keep some judicial hearing officers [while cutting others], for example, is recognition that we’re in trouble.
It’s difficult when we have judges on loan from other courts. We’re grateful to have them -- we learn from them and train those inexpert in Family Court. Many serve greatly. But it is difficult to serve our community. When a judge is there for two years, you train them, they understand the cases and the community – but they say "so long," and we start over with a new judge.
HZ:: Do you think that former Chief Judge Sol Wachtler’s observation a quarter-century ago, that Family Court is the stepchild of the state’s legal system, still holds true?
ERM: I don’t see it that way. My leaders, they understand that we are suffering and struggling. We deal with very, very difficult cases and we are under-resourced. I think they recognize that. My job, as the leader of this court in this season, is to continually advocate for resources – and also to make sure we’re doing our best with the resources at our disposal. Aristotle said, ‘We are what we repeatedly do.’ Quality is not an act, it’s a habit.
It’s over 20 years without new judges to Family Court. Our hope is the crisis will end, and we will be able to resource our court.
HZ:: How is it that so much good talent is chewed up in the Family Court churn?
ERM: This is difficult work. Even if you fully resource us, you will still have children who die. Children I’ve released have been killed--where everyone consented, agreed that this would be the best outcome. Children die. That’s difficult work.
The burnout is not just because of the culture of the court. We’re dealing with really difficult issues every day. That can wear on you.
HZ:: How does Family Court deal with increasing caseloads despite budget cuts and limited personnel? How can the court do more – with fewer people and less money?
ERM: Overall, even though we have more cases, we’ve increased our dispositions. Our data indicate that we are doing a better job recently in terms of how we handle our cases. For example, in child protective proceedings, in 2008, it took 11.5 months citywide to reach disposition. In the first quarter of 2011, [that] has gone down to 7.3 months.
All of the judges and stakeholders are trying to do a better job. We’ve not thrown up our hands in the air, or said ‘We can’t do this.’ We still look at system and try to make improvements.
HZ:: During CL’s observations, very few cases reached resolution. Most were taken up in 15 to 30-minute segments, then rescheduled weeks out, protracting the time kids spend in foster care, for example. How does the Court address that issue?
ERM: Trials by the teaspoonful shouldn’t happen. But it doesn’t, everywhere. In Queens Family Court, in the child-protective arena, some parts hear trial-ready cases day to day. You can get your trial in a week, starting and finishing in a week.
[But, Richardson-Mendelson noted, this is an exception, not normal practice at Family Court citywide. ]
HZ:: So many people represent themselves in Family Court. How does pro se representation speed or encumber the progress of individual cases?
ERM: Pro se representation is complicated. Civilians don’t know the techniques. The burden is very high on civilians.
We’re a due-process-driven court of law. We have to comply with a court process. But people are under-represented in legal proceedings.
The right to counsel is limited to the truly indigent – otherwise, you have to hire an attorney. I couldn’t hire an attorney without going into debt, and I’m a judge! But cases go smoother if they are represented by an attorney. There are ways to bring in information that an attorney knows how to do.
We don’t have universal counsel: We have a help center. We have the volunteer attorney program, which gives people half an hour with an attorney. We are trying to provide access to justice as best we can. Faced with the reality that we don’t have a universal right to representation at this time, it takes longer to process cases.
HZ:: Will Family Court ever evolve beyond specialization and go back to the practice of one judge hearing all matters related to a single family?