Petitioners request removal of Norfolk Probate Court judge

Most people probably believe judges know the law and are fair in administering courtroom procedures and determining verdicts. The traditional image of justice, after all, is a woman wielding a sword symbolizing power and holding a set of scales representing impartiality in weighing facts and evidence.

But some area residents who have had cases heard in Norfolk Probate and Family Court on Shawmut Road have a far different perspective. They are among the 33 people who signed petitions to state lawmakers in 2022 to have Judge Patricia A. Gorman removed from her position at Norfolk County Probate and Family Court as well as Dukes County Probate and Family Court in Edgartown (Martha’s Vineyard), where she also presides.

The complaints are centered around decisions related to family matters such as divorce, custody, child support, etc. and often involve repeated negative experiences. (Probate cases are related to wills, estates, and trusts.) Claims have been made that Gorman, who is First Justice of the Norfolk County courthouse in Canton, ignores critical evidence, putting children and disabled people at risk of abuse by caregivers with a record of problematic conduct.

In addition, some argue that Gorman has violated canons of law, for example, engaging in communication with representatives of one side (ex parte) without the same consideration given to the other side. Gorman is also alleged to have revealed bias against one side by making negative statements predicting a case’s outcome or not allowing individuals to speak.

A former Canton resident and domestic violence abuse victim who has been involved with the court since 2018 said she had a restraining order against her young son’s father. Gorman ruled in court that supervised visitations with the father must take place despite documentation, including photographs, provided by such entities as the local police, visitation centers, and the state Department of Children and Families (DCF) that visits were not in the child’s best interest. The woman, who uses the pen name Nora Smith, said that Gorman refused even to look at any of the material.

The situation worsened, Smith said, after the requirement for supervised visits was suspended, making them unsupervised, and a firearm was discovered in the father’s possession, which violated the restraining order. In addition, Smith said Gorman went against rules relating to communication by talking to the father’s attorney about the effort to vacate the restraining order against the father.

Smith believes that Gorman may favor individuals with money or connections to police even when there is evidence of abuse. Besides her own situation, she said that Gorman has some history of siding with abusers and cited her legal representation of Daniel Holland, the abusive husband who was convicted of shooting and bludgeoning his estranged wife, Liz, in Quincy in 1998.

Shannon Barnes, originally from Braintree and now a Rockland resident, tells a similarly nightmarish story of abuse and a daughter about whom multiple agency representatives (excepting Gorman) agree should not be subjected to visits with her father. In many court encounters with Gorman, Barnes, who must represent herself because she can’t afford an attorney, said, “I’m advocating for my child and she won’t hear me.”

Barnes will soon be facing Gorman again; she has two court appearances coming up in August and September. She expressed hopes that Gorman might step down in the meantime or perhaps recuse herself per Barnes’ request affidavit. Or, she said, “She could start acting in the best interests of the children.”

Smith and Barnes are both in close touch with several area women who all share resources and support each other through the stresses of fears for their children’s safety while doing what they can to publicize the harms caused by Judge Gorman’s decisions. The petitions they signed requesting action by the state legislature, however, have not resulted in any action.

Two legislators, Rep. Dylan Fernandes of Falmouth and Rep. Jay Livingstone of Boston, each filed a bill in January to remove Judge Gorman, one for Dukes and one for Norfolk, on behalf of the petitioners. In October, a short hearing was held at the State House during which eight women, including Smith, testified about their experiences. Although no one spoke in defense of Gorman, the bills were ultimately not sent on to the full legislature but only out for further study, effectively killing them.

Smith said over 100 people reached out to the group or Rep. Livingstone’s office to describe their experiences with Gorman. While the details of their stories (including some from men) differ, they all report similar treatment by the judge, which Smith said helps spur the women on to keep up their efforts.

Re-submitting their petition is a possibility; in the meantime, they have been trying to broadcast their complaints, although with very limited success. Governor Maura Healey’s office, the state attorney general, and state senators and representatives have mostly responded with sympathy but with clear statements that involvement with court decisions isn’t possible. An online petition at Change.org, “Demand the Removal of First Justice Patrica Gorman,” currently has about 500 signatures.

“We’re shocked that she’s still on the bench,” Smith said. Yet the group is far from claiming that unfair court hearings are the norm. Another woman said, “Some judges are very fair. All we need is for the ones who aren’t to be removed.”

In general, Massachusetts courts and government agencies strongly favor keeping children connected to their parents. For many years, American authorities tended to be too quick to remove children permanently from homes deemed inadequate or neglectful, even severing ties with their parents based on narrow-minded attitudes. A lot of damage was done in consequence, but some say the pendulum may have swung too far in the other direction.

Oversight of judges is almost nonexistent, and efforts to remove them very rarely succeed. Another possibility is registering a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct, but such complaints are mostly dismissed with no investigation. Of the few that are investigated, almost none result in discipline. What’s more, since judges learn who has complained, they may choose to retaliate, and claims have been made that this has occurred with Gorman.

Judge Gorman’s office did not respond to a request for a comment.

She received her JD from Boston College Law School in 1994. She was a founding partner in the Canton law firm Gorman and Greenberg. In 2011, she was appointed associate justice of Middlesex Probate and Family Court by Governor Deval Patrick and later became first justice of Norfolk Probate and Family Court.

Short URL: https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/?p=126740

Posted by Candace Paris on Jul 12 2024. Filed under News. Both comments and pings are currently closed.