Mother of the Year and Other Tales of Bureaucratic Folly

“I want a man who is kind and understanding. Is that too much to ask of a millionaire?” Zsa Zsa Gabor
“If you want to sacrifice the admiration of many men for the criticism of one, go ahead, get married.” Katherine Hepburn
“There's only one way to have a happy marriage and as soon as I learn what it is I'll get married again.” Clint Eastwood

Well, I may have voted too early. Sure Melody M. was a fine candidate for Mother of the Year 2013, telling a judge that she called her son an “asshole” on Facebook because he was, well, an asshole. That was before Keeley BonHotel sought redress in the Third Department for the injustice of awarding custody of her son to the father. It seems Ms. BonHotel was in love with a guy she met on the internet. Five months later, she quit her job and made plans to relocate to lovely Decatur, Alabama with her three children. Not wanting to spring this on Dad at the last minute, she let him know the night before she left that he wouldn’t be seeing his son so much anymore. What’s wrong with that? She was after all engaged to marry the Decatur Lothario, even though she and the fiancé were still married to others at the time. No matter. She argued to the Third Department that it was completely wrong to shackle her and the child to Warren County since Decatur, Alabama offered “greater diversity and cultural opportunities for the child.” Who could argue with that? It is after all the “Home of Meow Mix” and Alabama’s education programs rank 44 out of 50 states in the category of “Chance for Success” in the U.S. of A., but who’s counting? New York is 16th. In a heartless defeat for True Love, a unanimous Third Department upheld the custodial grant to the father crediting for some reason Mom’s statements to the child, “When you are with Mom, you are home. You are just with your Dad, that is not your home." You might be a redneck if…..
What else is new and entertaining in the law this month? My favorite Commission this side of the Third Reich’s Auswärtiges Amt, The Commission on Judicial Conduct removed a Town Justice from office and extracted a promise from him never to be a judge in New York for the rest of eternity. His offense? Among other things, confronting a 15 year old kid he suspected of stealing from him, yelling profanities at him, taking his bicycle and returning it to the parents. Now just how this reflects on a judge’s ability is beyond me, let alone what could possibly be the violation of any Rule. Well, according to the boys at the Commission, this violates 22 NYCRR 100.2(A) and 100.4(a) in that he “failed to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary” and “he failed to conduct his extra-judicial activities so that they did not detract from the dignity of judicial office.” Really? This interaction detracted from the dignity of judicial office? Not to my eyes, but I guess a judge must open his life to all aspects of scrutiny if he seeks judicial office in New York, as the Commission has its own unique view of dignity. If this kind of private interaction justifies removal from office, I daresay I wouldn’t last more than a week on the job. Just ask my neighbors.
Of course, that is just the tip of the iceberg in the court system News of the Weird this month. Remember the Chief Judge passed a Rule requiring us to keep track of the time we spend on voluntary unpaid pro bono services to the poor and underserved clients? Of course this must be read with the Chief Judge’s Rule 6.1(a)(1) requiring us to “aspire to provide at least 50 hours of pro bono legal services each year to poor persons.” Well this rankled a few organizations as the interpretation of the services to the poor and underserved is a bit too vague and so on June 7, 2013 the lead counsel to the Unified Court System clarified that this includes a host of other even more ill-defined tasks, such as “activities related to improving the administration of justice by simplifying the legal process for, or increasing the availability and quality of legal services to, poor persons.” Are you kidding me? This is laughable as the Unified Court System and its bureaucracy has been the number one enemy of simplifying the legal process for poor and rich alike. Just ask anyone who has recently filled out the silly, useless Matrimonial Request for Judicial Intervention Addendum otherwise known as UCS-840M. Or try the one of the 30 forms of the “Uncontested Divorce Packet” which ludicrously states, “This divorce packet may not be for you.” Or anyone else thank you very much.
By the way, the nifty Uncontested Divorce Packet form of the Automatic Orders does not have the updated Automatic Orders. It seems like the OCA bean counters cannot even keep up with their own silliness. As pointed out by Bruce Wagner in his column last month, the Orders, which are not really Orders anyway, were amended in January to include a statement that “The failure to obey these automatic orders may be deemed a contempt of court.” Putting aside that the Divorce packet alters this language, maybe the failure to obey will be contempt and maybe it won’t. The last I looked an Order is something signed by a judge, not attached to a summons by a lawyer. Saying so it won’t make it so. But OCA thinks that an Order of the Chief Judge to attach some notice to a summons constitutes an order punishable by contempt. Not to me it doesn’t. Imagine the jailhouse conversation, “What are you in here for?” “Well, the Chief Judge ordered that the Summons in my Divorce contain a notice that I not change the beneficiary of my life insurance, and when I did I was thrown in the slammer. That, and donating my shirts to Good Will. What are you in here for?”
Finally, did you see that Taiwan’s Minister of Culture, Lung Ying-tai, said she is embarrassed by Criminal Code Article 239 which provides that "married spouses who commit adultery be imprisoned for up to one year.” One commentator says that this archaic law puts Taiwan on “an inglorious list with conservative South Korea and the Islamic countries.” Add New York State to that inglorious list as last I looked Adultery was still a Class B misdemeanor under §255.17 of the Penal Law. Of course that could get you 90 days in the slammer with the guy who disobeyed those pesky unsigned Automatic Orders.
Happy Bastille Day.

Melody M. v. Robert M., 103 A.D.3rd 932 (3rd Dept., 2013)
Batchelder v. BonHotel, __ A.D.3rd __ ( May 30, 2013.
Education research Center, Quality Counts Report, 2012.
Abbreviated AA, this is the Federal Foreign Office.
Matter of Roman, A Justice of Sullivan Town Court, May 28, 2013.
22 NYCRR 118(e)(14)
Taiwan’s Archaic Adultery Law by Jens Kastner, Asia Sentinel, June 19, 2013.