Provide Better Custody of State's Family Courts

Palm Beach Post Editorial (Fl)
July 6, 2004

Barbara Pariente, who last week became chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court, wants to improve the state's family courts. Judging by what she said last month about a Palm Beach County case, the need for improvement is real, and she's the person to promote it.

Four years ago, Senior Judge Howard Harrison prohibited Esig Perlow from seeing his son, Adam, for six years. But that was just the beginning. In his final judgment, Judge Harrison told Sharon Berg-Perlow to tell Adam of his father's "deceitfulness" and "total anti-social personality disorder." That judgment was written not by Judge Harrison but by Joel Weissman, who represented Ms. Berg-Perlow.

As the Supreme Court noted, Judge Harrison made no "changes, additions or deletions" to Mr. Weissman's 25-page proposed judgment. And while judges usually ask both sides to present a proposed judgment, it is for the purpose of resolving all issues. Judge Harrison, the court said, discouraged Mr. Perlow from submitting one, then adopted Mr. Weissman's in two hours without making any finding of fact. Ms. Berg-Perlow paid her attorneys $850,000. Mr. Perlow represented himself.

No court hits people where they live like family court, and emotions often run high. So do complaints that judges show favoritism. This time, however, the state's highest court took notice. Writing in a concurring opinion to the unanimous ruling that ordered a new trial and a temporary custody hearing, Justice Pariente said that "what happened in this case is inexcusable and preventable." She went on to say that Judge Harrison violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. "The appearance of unfairness," Justice Pariente wrote, "is certainly present."

We are less concerned with the comparative merits of Ms. Berg-Perlow and Mr. Perlow as parents than we are with the family court as a key state institution. It is no surprise that of two parties in a lawsuit, one spent more and got a more favorable result. When one spends so much more, however, and gets such a lopsided ruling, there is a problem. In a related matter, new rules on court financing and budgeting may affect the social evaluations that are part of custody hearings. Whatever Justice Pariente can do to make these courts function better will be a great public service.

As for Judge Harrison, if the Judicial Qualifications Committee hasn't begun an investigation into his handling of Perlow vs. Berg-Perlow, it should start one.

http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/070604/edjudges.html

Summary of the Court's Opinion:

We quash the decision of the Fourth District and hold that in a marital dissolution proceeding: (1) the trial judge may ask both parties or one party to submit a proposed final judgment; (2) if proposed final judgments are filed, each party should be given an opportunity to review the other party's proposed final judgment and make objections; (3) if only one party submits a proposed final judgment, there must be an opportunity for review and objections by the opposing party; and (4) prior to requesting proposed final judgments, the trial judge should, when possible, indicate on the record the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. We conclude that the trial judge erred in this case by entering as the final judgment the proposed final judgment prepared by the wife's attorney without giving the husband an opportunity to comment or object. Because there will be a new trial in this case, we decline to address the other two issues that the husband had raised.

              To read the full Florida Supreme Court opinion, No. SC02-1317  - Perlow  vs. Berg-Perlow, click here.
                  To access the above case you will need the free   Adobe Acrobat Reader. You can download  
                  it by clicking on  MAC or PC