Custody Rulings Variously Judged

The Board of Directors of the Family Law Section of the Orange County Bar Assn. feels compelled to comment on the controversy and associated press coverage regarding the 1991 decision of Judge Nancy Wieben Stock concerning the custody of the Kyle children. While the death of the children is an unimaginable tragedy, the outrageous and unwarranted criticism of Judge [Wieben] Stock’s decision by uninformed lay persons is inexcusable. As practitioners of family law, this board and the membership of this section are intimately aware of the complex issues faced by any judge when considering any contested custody dispute. Unlike in the fiction imagined by Judge [Wieben] Stock’s critics, there are no simple decisions in reality, each requiring a balancing of disputed facts and equities. The Kyle transcript, which was obviously not reviewed by the critics, reveals a choice between granting custody to a mother employed part-time or a father employed as a truck driver. Judge [Wieben] Stock’s decision was to grant immediate joint physical custody so long as the father returned to the area. That decision was supported and recommended by a forensic psychologist.

Judge [Wieben] Stock is one of the finest and best regarded jurists in the Orange County Superior Court, unanimously respected by the Board of Directors of the Family Law Section who appear before her, including those who have received unfavorable decisions. Not only is the unwarranted criticism of her decision an attack on the independence of the judiciary, the cornerstone of our democracy, but the politically motivated comments are an outrageous insult to Judge [Wieben] Stock, demeaning to the memory of the children.

JUDI A. CURTIN

President

Orange County Bar Assn.

Family Law Section

Orange

* Judge Nancy Wieben Stock knew Marcia Amsden-Kyle was a danger to her children and still granted her custody (“Mother Found Unstable Before Murders-Suicide,” Jan. 31)?

The judge knew the mother was emotionally unstable and still gave her equal control over the lives of two helpless children?

I have a 9-year-old daughter of my own and the thought of ones so young having their lives taken from them so violently, especially under these circumstances, makes my blood boil!

I think this judge ought to be brought up on criminal charges, the same as anyone else who helps facilitate a criminal act. I can also come up with an appropriate punishment. And before too much time passes, maybe someone ought to review all her other decisions so this scenario isn’t recreated elsewhere.

V. ADDEMAN

Costa Mesa

* Nancy Wieben Stock is under attack. As the Superior Court judge in the O.J. Simpson custody case, she found that the grandparents had failed to show by clear and convincing evidence, the extremely high standard in such cases, that being in the custody of their natural father would be harmful to his children. The grandparents’ daughter, Denise Brown, was quoted as saying the judge “doesn’t have a heart.”

In another case, some six years ago Judge Wieben Stock awarded joint custody of two children to both their natural mother, who had emotional problems, and their natural father, who was homeless and had had several run-ins with the police. When the mother was recently found dead in circumstances suggesting that she had killed herself, her two children and her boyfriend, the natural father had no trouble assigning culpability: It was the judge’s fault. She should be recalled, he said.

In response, Judge Wieben Stock declined to comment. Does that mean she has nothing to say in her own defense? Should she be recalled?

No to both questions.

Judges are forbidden from commenting on pending cases, even if they are attacked first or unjustly accused. When Judge Wieben Stock ruled in the Simpson matter, she did something she did not have to do. She wrote an 11-page opinion setting forth her analysis. But her silence in not responding to attacks outside of court means merely that she’s not violating the judicial canons of ethics.

Nor is she a proper candidate for recall. In fact, if you find yourself in court, you and your lawyers will want her to be your judge. She will read all the papers, become immersed in the case, do her own independent research when necessary, and follow the law wherever it leads her.

When I heard that her assignment to the Simpson custody case was said to be routine, I smiled with disbelief because she is widely regarded among lawyers and her fellow judges as a rising star of the bench. As a lawyer, she was a crackerjack prosecutor in charge of the U.S. attorney’s office in Orange County. The only issue was whether the governor would appoint her as a state judge before the president nominated her to be a federal district judge.

The criminal trial of O.J. Simpson brought the public to a level of sophistication usually possessed only by judges, lawyers, court clerks and court reporters. That is, cases usually are decided on the law and the evidence, even when it leads to a result different than one’s gut feeling.

That same lesson should enable the public to accept surprising decisions from the courts with more equanimity. The courts have to play out the hands they are dealt. Rarely is either choice optimal.

STUART P. JASPER

Irvine