Opinion ID: 1385402
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: issuing the protective order

Text: Paragraph five contains the most serious allegation in the complaint. On March 10, 1993, Samantha M. [12] went to the Mingo County Magistrate Court seeking a protective order against her husband claiming that he beat her the previous night. She arrived at the magistrate court sometime between 8:30 and 9:30 a.m. Those who saw her that morning, including Magistrate Browning, said that Samantha M.'s face was badly beaten. Magistrate Browning was scheduled to do intake on that day, and Chief Magistrate Sidebottom-Shemelya was conducting a hearing. Magistrate Browning stated that she told Samantha M. to go to the Chief Magistrate's office to see if they could help her because there were other people in need of assistance who arrived before her, one of which was a woman who also needed a domestic violence protective order. Magistrate Browning said that her secretary was not at work that day, and she knew it would be a while before she could get to Samantha M. Magistrate Browning claimed she closed her office door and stopped seeing the public around 11:30 or 11:45 that morning because she was not feeling well. She said that she looked for Samantha M. but did not see her. Therefore, it appears that she assumed Samantha M. was being served by Chief Magistrate Sidebottom-Shemelya's assistant. Magistrate Browning said she stayed in her office until about 1:00 p.m. typing and answering the phone. Contrary to Magistrate Browning's testimony, Samantha M. said that she waited to see Magistrate Browning; however, when it was her turn, Magistrate Browning told her that she would not see her because she did not feel well. Another woman, who was with Samantha M., testified that Magistrate Browning told them that Samantha M. should either file a petition with another magistrate or come back tomorrow. Magistrate Browning never gave Samantha M. the opportunity to complete a domestic violence petition. Chief Magistrate Sidebottom-Shemelya testified that the lobby was full of people when she came out of the courtroom at approximately 12:20 p.m. She noticed that Samantha M.'s face was beaten and cut, so she took her into her office and issued her a domestic violence protective order over her lunch hour. In the meantime, she sent someone to Magistrate Browning's office to ask her if she could assist another man who was upset over the wait. Chief Magistrate Sidebottom-Shemelya stated that at first the person she sent returned and reported that Magistrate Browning was not seeing anyone else because she did not feel well, but, after a second request, Magistrate Browning agreed to see the man. Magistrate Browning admits to assisting this man before she left for the day. After reviewing the record, we find that Magistrate Browning violated Canon 1 and Canon 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct by failing to issue the protective order to Samantha M. Canon 1 provides, in part, that [a]n independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved. To further this objective, Canon 2A states, in part, that a judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. We find that there is clear and convincing evidence that Magistrate Browning told Samantha M. that she would not assist her, then returned to her office to do paper-work, and, later, agreed to assist another man. Therefore, we find she violated these sections. Samantha M. was badly beaten and was in desperate need of a protective order. Samantha M. testified that she believed her husband was going to kill her and she jumped from a second story bedroom window to get away from him[.] To refuse to assist Samantha M. was in total disregard and a dereliction of Magistrate Browning's duty to uphold the public's confidence and the integrity of the judiciary. Domestic violence cases are among those that our courts must give priority status. [13] In W.Va.Code, 48-2A-1, et seq., the West Virginia Legislature took steps to ensure that these cases are handled both effectively and efficiently by law enforcement agencies and the judicial system. Specifically, W.Va.Code, 48-2A-1(b)(2) (1992), provides that among the purposes of this article is [t]o create a speedy remedy to discourage violence against family members with whom the abuser has continuing contact[.] Under the article, any individual may file a petition for a protective order, and relief shall not be denied if the individual presents sufficient facts. W.Va.Code, 48-2A-4(a) (1992). [14] The magistrate court system is a critical link in the process of filing petitions and issuing protective orders in domestic violence cases. Frequently, a magistrate may be an abuse victim's first contact with the judicial system. [15] In fact, under W.Va.Code, 48-2A-4(e)(1) (1992), magistrates are obligated to provide assistance to those individuals who desire to file petitions. W.Va.Code, 48-2A-4(e)(1), states, in part: ... such person may obtain assistance in filing such a petition at a magistrate court within the county of such place of temporary or permanent residence. In such event, a magistrate or the clerk of such magistrate court shall : (1) Provide to such person such forms and such assistance as may be necessary for the filing of a petition described in subsection (a) of this section[.] (Emphasis added). See Harman v. Frye, 188 W.Va. 611, 620, 425 S.E.2d 566, 575 (1992) ([t]he legislature has clearly stated its intent to allow abused parties to present complaints to the magistrate, and a party who has suffered abuse has a statutory right to file a petition under W.Va. Code, 48-2A-4(a)). Moreover, once a petition is filed, it shall be given priority over any other civil action before the court except actions in which trial is in progress and shall be docketed immediately upon filing. W.Va. Code, 48-2A-3(d) (1994), in part. [16] Therefore, we conclude that magistrates are statutorily required to provide an individual with any assistance necessary to complete a petition for a protective order. Once the petition is completed, the magistrate must file the petition and, upon a showing of sufficient facts, issue a protective order. If a magistrate believes that she or he is disqualified from handling the matter, the magistrate must examine carefully whether the rule of necessity applies. [17] Under no circumstances should a victim of abuse be turned away from a magistrate or a circuit judge without ensuring the victim will receive prompt attention by another magistrate or judge. We agree with the Hearing Board and find that Magistrate Browning violated the Judicial Code of Conduct by the actions stated in paragraph five of the complaint.