ANGRY AND OUT OF CONTROL FAMILY COURT JUDGES

In a much too common bout of extreme anger Trial court Judge 246 Harris County exploded while attacking a litigant before his court. The litigant had several motions PRO SE with the court and was schedule for hearings before the trial judge. The court was involved with a trial until lunch break about 12:30 pm. Both Petitioner and Respondent were present for the morning session of the trial. Attorney for the Respondent appeared during the lunch break. Concluding the lunch break,

respondent attorney waived the petitioner to the bench where the judge was waiting. In a sudden burst of aggressive anger, the trial court judge screamed he was not of help to the petitioner and that the petitioner should take his case to the appellate court, since I had taken my case from his court.

The trial judge continued his rampage from the bench screaming to the petitioner that he was a liar and that he did not pay monies for material for the appellate court and that the petitioner was not meeting the financial requirement of the appeals court.

 His rage continued screaming loudly that he told the petitioner at the last meeting that he had nothing more to do with the case. then in a bizarre turn of events, the judge turned to the respondent attorney an inquired of him whether he said to the petitioner on 18 March, that he had nothing to with the case, to which the attorney answered yes.

The irony is this attorney was not present in the court that day and that he sent a certified excuse to the petitioner indicating he was in another court, unavailable for appearance in family court that day. In one hearing, the opinion says, when speaking to a woman who was seeking an order of protection against her then-husband in a domestic violence case, Watkins blamed the woman for “shooting off your fat mouth about what happened,” told her to “Shut up!” and then continued:

 On 18th March the trial judge was singing another tune stating the respondent was not served and that the petitioner has to give 7 days service to the respondent prior to trial. In that incident when the judge was in a state of rage much calmer than he was today, It was the Attorney General representative that saved the day explaining the method of service for herself and the respondent. The respondent was served certified mail return signature, and a notice of service was filed with the court.

A trial judge places the court in grave danger when he becomes deranged and obviously out of control. There was a trial waiting with 4 attorneys present in the court. There was obvious concern on expressed on their faced, and one could conclude the impression of the litigants in the court.

The trial judge of court 246 is obviously out of control, and his shouts of anger is very dangerous and unbecoming of a judicial institution. Lack of professionalism, integrity and control are qualities displayed by the judge.

Security officials approached the bench obviously concerned with the activities occurring in the court. Trial judge 246 should be given anger management training and made to show control and discipline deserving a professional. Below is a case of anger from a family court and steps taken to aid the out of control judge.

 This 246 family court judge turned the court into a street brawl and not a court of law. Trial Judge 246 H “Shut up! You stupid woman. Can’t even act properly. One more word out of you that you aren’t asked a question you’re out of here, and you will be found in direct contempt of court and I will fine you appropriately. So, shut your mouth.

You know I hate it when people are just acting out of sheer spite and stupidity.” The court also criticized Watkins for failing to make timely rulings, failing to comply with court orders to do so and failing to see that his staff timely completed required tasks, such as entering protective orders into the state’s domestic violence registry.

The Charleston Gazette says Watkins did not respond to a Tuesday phone call seeking comment and notes that the court entered an order that retains Deloris Nibert, a former Mason County family court judge who was appointed by the court in December to handle Watkins’ caseload after he took an emergency medical leave.

Watkins did not contest the conduct cited by a hearing board of the Judicial Investigation Commission when it recommended that he be suspended without pay for the remainder of his term in office, which concludes on Dec. 31, 2016. However, he argued that the sanction amounted to removal from office, which the state constitution allows only the West Virginia legislature to do, by impeachment.

 Hence, the judge said, the supreme court didn’t have the power to suspend him for the rest of his term. The court disagreed, distinguishing impeachment, which would also have stripped Watkins of his pension and prohibited him from serving in office again, from a suspension and saying that public policy requires that the court use its inherent powers to protect lawyers and litigants from a judge who is unable or unwilling to do his job properly. It also censured Watkins for 24 violations of nine canons of the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct, which are printed in full in the opinion.

“Socrates said, ‘Four things belong to a judge: to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially,’” the court wrote. “We recognize that regulating the demeanor of a judge is a difficult task, because judges are human and may occasionally display anger or annoyance, and lawyers and litigants sometimes incite judges. Judges must also be allowed some flexibility in criticizing the performance of lawyers who appear before them.

But a judge owes a duty to treat lawyers and litigants courteously, to hear them patiently, to study their arguments and evidence conscientiously, and to decide their cases promptly.” In a concurring opinion (PDF), Chief Justice Brent Benjamin agreed that Watkins should be suspended without pay for the rest of his term but disagreed about the manner in which the court imposed this sanction.

Instead of using inherent judicial powers, which opens the door to potential misuse in the future for political reasons, the court should have simply imposed consecutively the one-year suspensions it is clearly authorized to impose under the state constitution, he wrote.

 “While I have the utmost respect for my colleagues and the professionalism of our current court and share their belief that the admittedly harsh sanction in this case is fully justified, I fear how a highly partisan or polarized future court might misuse this expansive new precedent.”

familyactivist@gmail.com / techparalegal.us