Opinion ID: 1972014
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Bornstein Matter

Text: This matter arises out of respondent's conduct of a matrimonial proceeding entitled Andrea Bornstein v. Alan Bornstein. The particular aspect of the matrimonial proceedings over which respondent presided involved the visitation rights of defendant, Dr. Bornstein, with respect to two minor children who were in the custody of their mother, the plaintiff. Dr. Bornstein had remarried and failed to exercise his visitation rights for a substantial period of time. He subsequently changed his mind and sought to visit the children, who were 13 and 9 years of age. However, he was unsuccessful because the children refused to see him. Mrs. Bornstein did not force the children to see their father nor did she discipline them for refusing to do so. Respondent at one time expressed his attitude toward defendant by stating that [i]n plain English,    if I had a stick thirty feet long to reach him now, I would bop him one.   Later, he invoked his own personal views about child rearing when, referring to the fact that the Bornstein children would not call Dr. Bornstein father or daddy, but only by his first name, Alan, or simply as he, respondent stated, [i]f I had a kid and he called my wife Gail, his nose would be out of joint and his teeth would rattle. Respondent also indicated that his personal views concerning religion took precedence over the law. When Mrs. Bornstein explained that she was in court because the children did not want to see their father, and not because of an intention on her part to stop them from doing so, respondent told her that she had an absolute affirmative duty cast upon [her] by [her] God, not by Yaccarino, not by me, but by God to persuade them to change their attitude and to respect and revere their father, and that she was not relieved of that responsibility because the father might have been a 100 carat cad. Respondent again criticized Mrs. Bornstein for permitting the children to refer to their father as Alan and then invoked a religious example by reminding Mrs. Bornstein of how God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. When Mrs. Bornstein informed respondent that two independent psychiatrists had advised her that it would be harmful if the children were forced to see their father, he stated, I am not talking about a psychiatrist. I am talking about God. Respondent also advised those present in court of his personal views on divorce. He announced from the bench that he did not believe in divorce. With respect to custody, respondent commented that he could not imagine a situation in which a court would say to him [y]ou may or you may not see your children. In addition, respondent stated that if confronted with such a situation, I would pull this courthouse right off the hinges. There wouldn't be a courthouse. There can't be a world where those are the rules in my life. When counsel demurred, respondent informed the attorney that while both he [the attorney] and his client were civilized, he himself was uncivilized since I don't believe in divorce. The respondent expressed his personal views that the State's matrimonial laws and the court's authority to limit a parent's visitation rights would not be enforced by him. Respondent also expressed his willingness to kill anyone including himself for the protection of his children. We appreciate that this was an unusual, difficult, and exasperating case. A prominent and experienced matrimonial practitioner personally solicited respondent to attempt to resolve the dispute. The respondent made extraordinary efforts to reconcile the father and his children. The judge struggled to assure each party that he understood that party's position. For example, the lawyers involved testified that they believed the judge, in describing the husband as a cad, was not only making it clear that the court did not condone anything that he had done, but wanted the wife to recognize how intractable the situation was. The case was undoubtedly stressful. Still, [n]o matter how tired or vexed,    judges should not allow their language to sink below a minimally-acceptable level. Judges, like other members of society, will occasionally have a bad day. Even on such days, however, a judge must conduct court proceedings in a manner that will maintain public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. [ Matter of Sadofski, 98 N.J. 434, 441 (1985).] Based upon our independent assessment of the record, the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent spoke in crude terms, displayed a personal animus to the parties, invoked personal beliefs not legally relevant to the cause, and made irresponsible and reckless statements showing disrespect for and defiance of the law. Based on these findings, we conclude that respondent violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A(3) and 3A(4).