Analysis Of Judge Richard Ross

Returning to the judicial world of the Bronx Family Court as a judge, after years of working in administration, Judge Richard Ross is astonished to find a distinctly more disjointed situation than the one he left. As he attempts to live out his life as “both the fact finder and arbiter of the law” it is clear the current judicial system does not serve him well (xv). Judge Ross conveys to the reader the fundamental issues of the Family Court system through his day to day happenings which range from endless caseloads to death threats. The use of personal experience is effective in adding credibility to more clearly convey his point that not only the Judges, but the case workers, 18-B attorneys, and various legal aides are overworked to a point

As a judge in Family Court, his objective is ultimately to rule in the best interest of the child. In fact, he asserts that “The phrase ‘best interests of the child’ appears several dozen times in New York State laws governing support, custody, visitation, adoption and protection of children” (21). As Judge Ross sees it, “Being a judge isn’t about sending messages. A judge applies the facts to the law. And that’s all…” (126). This is problematic as, in Family Court, the judge is dealing with personal matters such as custody cases, parental rights termination, child placement, juvenile offenses, and other familial indiscretions. Judge Ross himself recognizes that “No legal principle, and certainly no amount of written words, however, provide better guidance as to a child’s best interests than good common sense” (21). Because of the purely logical nature with which his position requires him to approach cases and the fact that he has too many cases to adequately address them, Judge Ross is forced to become numb to the atrocities he encounters daily. In the rest of the book, this sort of disconnect is best depicted through Judge Ross’s personal experiences. At one point, he recalls his decisions to remove children from homes, describing images of crying children and parents, and refusing reflect on

The areas in which these reforms should occur are twofold. One argument that Judge Ross raises repeatedly is that measures should be taken to insure the sustainability of Family Court employees through more manageable caseloads. The necessity of this change is evident in countless examples of children suffering as a result of constantly changing, thin-spread, staff. In one particular instance, a six month child abuse case is adjourned because they “don’t have the medical records” in time (128). The second argument that can be implicitly made based off of Judge Ross’s expressed frustrations is that, if given the proper time for consideration, there should be more room for consideration of circumstance in Family Court. From a legal standpoint, there is substantial evidence for the validity of a common law approach to Family Court over the traditional civil law. Judge Ross establishes that ideally “In each case to protect children, to assure due process, to remain neutral until the facts are established, to apply common sense and sound judgment within the framework of the law in making decisions—the Family Court judge’s charge lies quite outside the arena of public policy, comment, and debate” (104). However, as seen in many of his cases, the combination of the overflowing workload and an inability to apply proper consideration to any given circumstance makes it impossible for the pre-existing