Juvenile judge broke no rules, attorney says

The attorney for 3rd District Juvenile Judge Joseph Anderson told the Utah Supreme Court Wednesday that although Anderson was late in handling nine cases involving minor children according to state law, Anderson did not violate the Code of Judicial Administration's time lines.

And the law that says a judge "shall" make a decision within 60 days regarding such cases could be interpreted as "directive" in nature, rather than mandatory, according to Wayne Petty, Anderson's lawyer. "It's a very unclear area what 'shall' means," Petty said.

The Judicial Conduct Commission, which investigates and makes recommendations regarding allegations of judicial misbehavior, has recommended that the high court publicly reprimand Anderson for not addressing 11 juvenile cases in a timely way.

Anderson, however, has fought the reprimand and has asked that this matter be dismissed, or at least, that a reprimand be administered in private. He has questioned the constitutionality of the law that requires judges to decide juvenile cases in the 60-day period, and also challenged the role and actions of the JCC, which he said acts as "investigator, complainant, prosecutor and judge."

Petty, in oral arguments before the high court, said each of the juvenile cases in question exists in a "fact-specific context" that the Supreme Court should consider. "These cases do not appear to me to demonstrate disregard for the law. If you look at the cases, you'll see there are reasons (for Anderson's conduct)," Petty said, adding that three cases were decided within one to four days of the deadline and two were referred to mediation.

Colin Winchester, executive director for the JCC, said the commission made no findings regarding the word "shall" because that is not its role. The fact that there were a total of 11 cases that Anderson did not resolve in a timely way "constituted a pattern," Winchester said.

The Utah Court of Appeals meanwhile has disqualified Anderson from hearing certain types of juvenile delinquency cases.

The justices repeatedly raised questions about how Anderson could possibly return to hearing these kinds of cases, especially in light of statements about lawyers from the Utah Attorney General's Office and the state Guardian ad Litem's (GAL) Office that were included in a federal lawsuit Anderson filed involving those agencies.

Petty said if the JCC matter and the federal suit were resolved, Anderson could begin hearing these cases immediately since the particular lawyers would not appear before him.

However, Justice Jill Parrish noted that Kristin Brewer, who heads the GAL office, is named as one of the parties in Anderson's suit.

---

E-mail: lindat@desnews.com

Comments