The Post & Email had reported on two Tennessee child custody cases as told to us by the girlsâ€™ mother, Karen Caldwell, in late November 2011. Ms. Caldwellâ€™s open letter to readers wishing to assist her to regain custody of her daughters was reposted here.
Since that time, Karen Caldwell has traveled twice to Nashville to speak with members of the Tennessee Senate and House Judiciary Committees about her experience and perception of the custody orders made by the respective judges in her daughtersâ€™ cases.
This is the story in The Post & Email:
Karen Caldwell reported that last week, she was asked to speak during a House Judiciary Committee meeting on February 14 which was technically not open to the public.
Karen Caldwell had been a full custodial parent of her two girls until discovering that her husband and father of her younger daughter was selling drugs out of their home. She filed for divorce, but her husband had already taken their daughter, who was a toddler at the time, to live with his parents and him and refused Karen Caldwell any access to her. After taking a few days to move out of her home, Karen Caldwell was then refused access to her older daughter by her father. She then petitioned for custody through the Madison County Juvenile Court system and was certain that she would get it.
Karen Caldwellâ€™s February 14, 2012 testimony to the House Judiciary Committee is found at 50:55 following mention of the â€œBoard of Judicial Conduct.â€ The Tennessee legislature is considering revamping the Court of the Judiciary, which is charged with overseeing state judges. Karen Caldwell gave a tearful presentation including audio of Judge Christy Little, who ordered that Karen Caldwellâ€™s younger daughter reside with her father, who is an admitted drug dealer and user and has driven while intoxicated without a license.
1. Provide an orderly and efficient method for making inquiry into:
- The physical, mental and/or moral fitness of any Tennessee judge;
- Whether the judge committed judicial misconduct;
- Whether the judge committed any act calculated to reflect unfavorably upon the judiciary of the state or bring it into disrepute or which may adversely affect the administration of justice in the state
2. Provide a process by which appropriate sanctions may be imposed;
3. Implement constitutional provisions by providing a procedure for the removal of judges.
Judge Christy Little was also on the panel the year before.
Karen Caldwell believes that Judge Christy Little and others have retaliated against her for suing Chancellor James F. Butler for â€œallowing the attorney, who was not the attorney of record, to continue my case.â€
On the audio of the court proceeding, Judge Christy Little is heard saying to Karen Caldwell, â€œâ€¦You need to watch what you say, â€™cause Iâ€™m not dumbâ€¦You need to be quiet when Iâ€™m talkinâ€™â€¦Iâ€™m the judge; youâ€™re a party to this suitâ€¦you either need to practice law or youâ€™re goinâ€™ to sit there and do what I tell you, or somebodyâ€™s goinâ€™ to have a problemâ€¦because Iâ€™m very smartâ€¦trust meâ€¦I went to school a long time to get to this pointâ€¦You are treading on really thin iceâ€¦you understand me? Then donâ€™t let it happen it againâ€¦You donâ€™t want to mess with me on that.â€
Karen Caldwell stated that â€œthe Court of the Judiciary has failedâ€ and asked for â€œsome justice for her daughters.â€
Rep. Jim Coley then stated that the Judiciary Committee would â€œseriously considerâ€ issuing a subpoena to Judge Christy Little to â€œexplain her comments in light of the gravity of the situation.â€ Another representative requested that Ms. Karen Caldwell provide â€œthe entirety of the discussionâ€ rather than just a 30-second audio clip so that an informed judgment of Judge Christy Littleâ€™s behavior could be made. Rep. Mike Stewart asked for the entire file, stating that he â€œwas looking forward to further testimonyâ€¦.Iâ€™d like to see the whole legal fileâ€¦if thatâ€™s possible.â€
Karen Caldwell was also told privately that other subpoenas could be issued to resolve her complaint against the judges involved in awarding custody of her two young daughters to their respective fathers, one of whom has not proved paternity as required by Tennessee state law.
The Post & Email asked Ms. Karen Caldwell how many people were in attendance on Tuesday, and she responded, â€œThere were probably 10-15 members of the House Judiciary Committee, but altogether it was easily 80 or 85 people.â€
Ms. Karen Caldwell stated that she gave an entire copy of the audio of the hearing with Judge Christy Little to Rep. Vance Dennis, who had stated that he wished to hear the whole recording to obtain proper context. She reported that another committee member indicated that he â€œhad a serious concern about how the entire juvenile court was functioning with that type of judge on the bench.â€
There are two bills under consideration to alter the Court of the Judiciary, one of which proposes:
As introduced, provides that if a complaint is filed against a judge who is or was a member of the court of the judiciary at the same time as the investigative counsel served as counsel for the court, the investigative counsel must retain a special counsel to investigate any such complaint.
The other proposal, which is favored by judges, would change the name of the oversight entity to â€œBoard of Judicial Conductâ€ and have fewer or no judges on it.
The Post & Email asked Ms. Karen Caldwell how her daughters are doing, and she answered, â€œMy oldest one is distraught. She doesnâ€™t understand, and she tells me every day. I got her a little Ipod with a phone number so she can call me.â€ She stated that she believes that her younger daughterâ€™s father is still using and dealing drugs. â€œWhen she was taken, she was 20 months. She exhibits a lot of alienation symptoms. I see her three hours a week on supervised visits, and I donâ€™t get one-on-one time with her, ever.â€
Karen Caldwell told us that her younger daughterâ€™s father was required to undergo monthly drug testing beginning in November 2010, â€œand he has never gone to a drug test. He told the judge that heâ€™d never gone to a drug test, and theyâ€™ve never done anything. Heâ€™s told the judge that he withholds my phone calls; heâ€™s told the judge that he withholds my visitation; heâ€™s told the judge that heâ€™s broken a lot of the orders. Heâ€™s never been found in contempt, and heâ€™s never been reprimanded, and he still has custody.â€
Karen Caldwell was ordered to take â€œanger management classesâ€ by Judge Roger Page even though she was told by the counselors that â€œtheyâ€™d never had anybody ordered to take anger management who wasnâ€™t charged with a crime. They donâ€™t just let anybody take anger management, but they say Iâ€™m not a candidate for it, so Iâ€™m in a Catch-22.â€
A hearing is set for â€œchange in custody and contemptâ€ for March 22 with Senior Judge Walter Kurtz in Nashville, whom Karen Caldwell said refused to lift the â€œanger managementâ€ requirement ordered by Judge Page.
It has been asked why county grand juries, already in place throughout Tennessee, cannot assume the responsibility of examining complaints against judges.
Could enough pressure from constituents be causing the Tennessee General Assembly to take action against overreaching judges? Last fall, it was reported that Gov. Bill Haslam was â€œundecidedâ€ about whether or not the Court of the Judiciary required restructuring.
In Tennessee, judges at the appeals level are selected by a Judicial Nominating Commission, with the governor choosing one of three names. The voters then elect to either â€œretain or replace them.â€ During this session of the legislature, a constitutional amendment is being considered to have the House and Senate approve judicial appointments. Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey has questioned the constitutionality of the voters electing judges statewide.
In 2004, the Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury had identified several factors which suggested that the judicial system required reform.
The Tennessee Court of the Judiciary describes â€œjudicial misconductâ€ as:
â€œwillful misconductâ€ that is in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Code of Judicial Conduct outlines various rules relating to how a judge should conduct himself or herself in the performance of the duties of office. In addition to judicial misconduct, the Court of the Judiciary may also consider any disability, physical or mental, of a judge that substantially interferes with his or her judicial duties.
TCA 17-5-302 lists the offenses for which judges can be disciplined in Tennessee:
(1) Willful misconduct relating to the official duties of the office;
(2) Willful or persistent failure to perform the duties of the office;
(3) Violation of the code of judicial conduct as set out in Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10;
(4) The commission of any act constituting a violation of so much of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct as set out in Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8 as is applicable to judges;
(5) A persistent pattern of intemperate, irresponsible or injudicious conduct;
(6) A persistent pattern of discourtesy to litigants, witnesses, jurors, court personnel or lawyers;
(7) A persistent pattern of delay in disposing of pending litigation; and
(8) Any other conduct calculated to bring the judiciary into public disrepute or to adversely affect the administration of justice.
In 2005, Judge Christy Little was featured in an article which stated that â€œdoing the right thingâ€ was â€œimportantâ€ to her. â€œHaving enough time to truly hear what the families are trying to say, to give each case the time it deserves because I donâ€™t want to miss anything that might have an impact on the family, is key to my ability to rule properly,â€ she was quoted as having said. Judge Christy Little even mentors teenagers acting as jurors to their peers in cases of non-violent crimes.
Karen Caldwell told us that she was forced to cash out her IRA to avoid a two-day jail sentence for failing to pay child support which exceeded her paycheck. â€œI have had to endure being treated like a crackhead for years, and that has really taken a toll on me,â€ she said.
Attribution: The Post & Email
I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney. This website expresses my OPINIONS. The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions. Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response. This website does not provide legal advice. I do not give legal advice. I do not practice law. This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption. Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed. Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website. The law is a gray area at best. Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.