ILNews

St. Joseph County magistrate receives public admonition

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

St. Joseph Probate Magistrate Barbara Johnston received a public admonition Thursday stemming from an ex parte ruling she made in 2011 which denied the father due process in a custody hearing.

The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications issued the public admonition after Johnston’s admission that her actions violated the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct and trial court rules designed to ensure basic due process. She violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 2.2 and 2.5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which require judges to ensure fairness, impartiality, diligence and integrity of the judiciary. She also violated Rule 2.9(A), which forbids ex parte contacts absent a true emergency.

In the August 2011 hearing, the maternal grandparents of a child whose mother had recently died filed a motion asking for custody of the child. Paternity had been established for the child, and the father had been making support payments. However, the grandparents and their attorney did not provide the father with a copy of the motion or notify him of the hearing and the fact that they were seeking custody.

Johnston set a hearing date and, when the father did not appear, the hearing was held and testimony on the custody motion was heard without the father’s presence. No effort was made to check the contact information the father had on file with the clerk’s office and use that information to notify him of the proceedings.

An ex parte change of custody order was granted to the grandparents and an order to change support payments was issued without giving the father an opportunity to be heard. Several months later, when the father learned of the court order, he hired an attorney and was granted custody of his child.

The commission determined that formal disciplinary charges are warranted against Johnston, but in lieu of formal disciplinary proceedings a public admonition would be issued. The admonition concludes the commission’s investigation, and Johnston will not formally be charged with ethical misconduct. The commission indicated that Johnston cooperated in the matter and acknowledged she violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by entertaining and granting an ex parte motion without prior notice to the noncustodial father or an opportunity for him to be heard.

“The Commission recognizes that when child custody is at issue, judicial officers may be confronted with parties, and their attorneys, desperately seeking urgent judicial intervention. Such occasions call upon all judges and lawyers to proceed with heightened awareness of and high regard for the importance for a parent’s right to be heard. In the absence of a true emergency that presents a risk of irreparable injury to a child, such right must be scrupulously honored and protected. This fundamental notion has long been emphasized and enforced by both the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission,” the admonition states.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT