Delaware County will bear "some costs" of the new family court judge - how does it mesh with the idea of the County being a party in front of that new judge?

The County of Delaware finally got its with to get a 2nd judge, a dedicated family court judge for Delaware County, by 2016.


It is reported by the same source that some costs of that new judgeship are to be borne by the county.


The county is the petitioner in child neglect and abuse cases in Family Court in front of the same judge whose "costs of judgeship" the County, at least partially, will bear.


If I would be a parent whose children are threatened to be taken away by that new judge, I would be concerned about the conflict of interest that such a situation presents.


An attorney for that parent, would be concerned both for the issue of the judge feeling obligated to the County in his or her rulings, and for his or her license if the attorney raises that issue in court - because, as I have written in my blog before, judges react to such "sensitive" issues with retaliation against the attorney that can cost the attorney his or her livelihood, and there is no recourse through the appellate process where appellate courts usually endorse whatever the trial judge does in retaliating against the attorney for pointing out the judge's conflict of interest.


Family court proceedings are considered civil proceedings subject to the New York State Court Administrations' frivolous conduct rule allowing judges, in their sole discretion, to impose upon parties and their attorneys sanctions of up to $10,000.00, often without a hearing, plus legal fees of the opponent, also often without a hearing. 


Such sanctions may be immediately followed by a disciplinary action against an attorney.


Thus, any attorney representing a parent in a child abuse or neglect case may ponder whether it is worth it to raise the obvious conflict of interest where the costs of a "judgeship" are "partially" borne by a party in front of the judge.  It might be too costly for the attorney to do his or her job for the client and raise this issue.


For that reason, I feel compelled to raise this issue in a blog, without any regard to any case in Family Court, as a general issue of public concern.


A judge simply may not be dependent on the funds from a party which appears before him or her, however "minor" the cost sharing may be.


That must be a given.