Opinion ID: 2211910
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Contempt Hearing of June 18, 1980.

Text: Prior to the hearing, numerous motions to dismiss were filed by all respondents, all of which were taken under advisement. Three witnesses testified: Jeanene McCormack, Michelle's mother; R. Stephen LaPlante, attorney for the mother; and respondent Judge William D. Richardson. Respondent Richardson testified that, while he named the panel of judges in the Child in Need of Services (CHINS) case, he did not know how respondent Arthur was ultimately selected as special judge. Richardson did acknowledge, however, that he signed the special judge qualification sheet. Additionally, Judge Richardson testified that, when a petition alleging a child in need of services (CHINS petition) is filed in his court, he follows the statutory procedure. [5] Nevertheless, he could not explain why, at a minimum, he did not first examine the CHINS petition to determine if probable cause existed to believe Michelle Lemond was in need of services, and then authorize the filing of the petition by the prosecutor, had probable cause been found. In this case, the prosecutor, respondent McGaughey, merely filed his petition alleging that Michelle was in need of services, without requesting permission to file the petition, and without obtaining authorization from respondent Richardson. Finally, respondent Richardson's testimony revealed that he delayed the execution on the writ of habeas corpus in order to allow the respondents, McGaughey, Gray and Lemond, time to move forward with the CHINS proceeding. Attorney David B. Hughes [6] conducted questioning with regard to the enforcement of the writ of habeas corpus: Q. In other words, you granted the writ of habeas corpus but then decided it shouldn't be executed until 1:00 p.m. because you knew the other proceeding had been commenced and you wanted an opportunity for it to get off the ground, correct? A. No. In other words, I wanted to give them an opportunity, if they could get a judge from another county, surrounding county to issue, it was all right with me. But I was out of it. I didn't intend to have anything to do with 80 J 20. Contempt Proceeding Transcript at 84-85. Under questioning by Chief Justice Givan, this matter was pursued further: Q. You are stating to this Court, Judge Richardson, that you did that deliberately to allow this welfare matter to get off the ground? A. No, no. Q. I thought that is what you said. A. If they could, I didn't figure I could act on this thing, on this welfare thing. It was none of mine, involved in this one here, and I figured I had to do what the Court of Appeals told me to do, and I did, and I delayed order of the Sheriff at 1:00 p.m. to take custody. In other words, their entry came out in two parts, as I recall their entry. One of them was that Mr. Lemond, Earl Lemond, was to place custody with the-and if not then the Sheriff was to assist him, to assist Mrs. McCormack in obtaining custody. Q. But you delayed it until 1:00 because you knew this other matter was pending, did you say that? A. Yes, sir. Contempt Proceeding Transcript at 86. The testimony of the mother essentially reiterated many of the facts as previously set out. Respondent McGaughey had the following exchange with the mother: Q. Where at the initiation of this proceeding and right prior to it, what did I do to cause, that you are saying, that I concertedly, intentionally, and willfully delayed you? How did I conspire with these people to do that? A. Because you were involved in the action which was taken by counsel of Earl Lemond and the State or the County that you said you represented the State, as the County Prosecutor, in bringing an action that had no basis. The petition that my daughter is mentally disturbed or in some way unable to, I believe it was, physically or mentally carry on if she were to come with me and live with me, her mother. You were involved along with all of the other judges and attorneys in that action, Mr. McGaughey. Contempt Proceeding Transcript at 86. Respondent McGaughey did not move to strike the answer. During the course of direct examination of R. Stephen LaPlante, trial counsel for the mother, respondent Gray's role in this case was disclosed: Q. [By Mr. Hughes] I would like to call your attention to Thursday, June 5, 1980, in the afternoon hours of that day, and ask whether or not you had a conversation with attorney Thomas Gray who is in the court today? A. I did. Q. Where were you? A. I was in my office. Q. Where is that? A. In Evansville, Indiana, the old National Bank Building. Q. Did you call Mr. Gray or did he call you? A. I don't recall. We had tried to communicate with each other several times that day on another case, and whether I was returning his call or he was returning mine, I can't recall that. Q. Do you know Mr. Gray when you speak with him on the phone, I take it? A. Yes, sir. Q. On that date did you have a conversation with him about the Lemond-McCormack matter? A. I did. Q. At approximately what hour, Steve? A. It was subsequent to 3:30 in the afternoon. Q. Would you tell the Courts please what you said to Mr. Gray and what he said to you? A. I asked Mr. Gray what was going to happen in Pike County the following day and he told me that he would be present with his client, Earl Lemond, standing tall and waiting for the Judge's orders. Q. Standing tall? A. Yes, sir. Q. Those were his words? A. Yes, sir. Q. Waiting for the Judge's order? A. Yes, sir. Q. What else was in that conversation, if anything? A. I told him that I had heard that there had been some kind of contact with the Department of Public Welfare in Pike County and I asked him what that was about, and he indicated to me that he did not know and that ... Q. When you say he indicated to you that he did not know, do you recall what he said? A. My recollection is that he said that he did not know what that was about, that he heard that the child in this particular case had sought separate counsel and he heard of communication with the Department of Public Welfare. That is my recollection. Q. Was there any other conversation with him at that time? A. He indicated to me at the close of our conversation that he did not represent the child and that his client was Earl Lemond, and that he wanted me to understand that, and he was going to be prepared to obey the Court's order, whatever that might be. Contempt Hearing Transcript at 113-15. However, respondent Gray took the position at the CHINS hearings and before this Court that he no longer represented Earl Lemond and instead purported to act as Michelle's independent counsel. During the course of the testimony in the contempt hearing, the respondents insisted that the transcripts from the CHINS proceeding would be the best evidence, and objected to other testimony as to what occurred at the CHINS hearings. The transcripts were not available for the June 18, 1980, contempt hearing. However, these Courts did wish to give respondents the opportunity to produce them. Accordingly, these Courts indicated that the hearing would be continued and that the transcripts would be ordered produced for the resumption of the hearing. The Courts then unanimously ruled that respondent Arthur lacked jurisdiction in the case, and ordered that custody of Michelle Lemond be returned to her mother in the presence of the Courts. [7] Thereupon, Michelle Lemond was returned to Mrs. McCormack, and they were allowed to leave and return to Hawaii at their pleasure. The contempt hearing was then continued, with August 25, 1980 ultimately selected as the date for resuming the proceedings.