The Nevada Supreme Court administratively closed a 

This matter was docketed in this court on November 2, 2018, with the filing of a certified copy of the Order of Interim Suspension of respondent David Humke. See Procedural Rules of the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline (“PRJDC”) Rule 9(4) (commission shall promptly file a certified copy of the suspension with the clerk of the supreme court). Respondent did not subsequently appeal that decision. See NRS 1.4675(6); PRJDC Rule 9(3) (suspended judge may appeal to this court). Accordingly, the clerk of this court is directed to administratively close this matter.

The Reno Gazette Journal reported

Washoe County Family Court Judge David Humke faces another suspension after he was again accused of mishandling child support and custody cases within his department.

Humke appeared before the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline for a hearing on Tuesday regarding his possible suspension and the allegations raised against him by two other family court judges.

Humke was recently fined $1,000 and suspended for three months in a separate but similar case. Earlier this year, the disciplinary commission found he had mismanaged his department — which had processed about one-tenth of the 700 cases processed by other departments.

The commission also previously found that he had failed to discipline a former judicial assistant, who was accused of inappropriate behavior.

More: Washoe judge Humke apologizes for mishandled cases, wants to regain public trust

More: Family Court Judge David Humke faces ethical misconduct hearing

Related: Study shows Nevada’s 15 rural counties are struggling to provide public defenders

During his three-month suspension, Senior Specialty Court Judge Deborah Schumacher was ordered to oversee Humke’s department. In that time, she found that his department had issued incomplete or incorrect orders in several child custody and support cases, according to her testimony at Tuesday’s hearing.

Schumacher said she believes Humke lacks knowledge over family law and diligence as a judge. She said Humke failed “to make decisions in a job that requires a judge to make decisions.”

Humke did not return requests for comment on Wednesday. A reporter with the Reno Gazette Journal also reached out to prosecuting officer Kathleen Paustian.

Schumacher said Humke asked his law clerks to process court orders without giving them enough direction, forcing them to review hours of video footage of court proceedings – some of which lasted several days.

Schumacher then told Judge Bridget Robb, who is the presiding judge for the Family Services Division, about her concerns. Robb then began reviewing cases over a six-month period to check for anomalies.

“I was very disappointed in that outcome,” Robbs told the commission on Tuesday. “I was also disappointed in myself because I had believed, after the first complaint was filed, that things were getting better in Judge Humke’s department. Unfortunately, my review demonstrated that that was not the case.”

Chief Judge Scott Freeman then decided to limit Humke’s caseload. He also ordered Schumacher to mentor Humke, according to an administrative order filed in early October.

“I take no pleasure in being here and having to make this complaint,” Robb said, adding she felt obligated to do so. “This isn’t something I enjoy.”

She also testified many judges have their court clerks write out “cookie-cutter orders,” which judges then review, edit and sign. She said some judges also assign orders to lawyers involved in a case.

Robb said those orders give people the framework to start crafting a settlement agreement. It also provides parents involved in custody battles with visitation schedules.

“Based on the physical custody determination, you can then establish child support,” she said.

According to Robb’s testimony, Humke did not file child support orders in several cases.

“So, you had a party who had custody and had to take care of these children but wasn’t given child support… as required by Nevada law,” Robb said.

Schumacher, who has training in domestic violence cases, said one of the most dangerous times for couples dealing with domestic violence is when the pair separate.

“So to send parties away without orders on custody or visitation just strikes me as dangerous,” she said.

One case involved a custody battle between the parents of a 5-month-old child and the child’s grandparents. In that case, the parents wanted their child back, but the grandparents took the toddler to live with them in Utah.

Robb said Humke never filed a court ordered guardianship that allowed the child to be relocated in another state. She also said the parents’ paternal rights were never terminated.

“Humke ordered reunification, but there was no framework on how that should happen,” Robb said.

The commission did not file a decision on the case as of Wednesday afternoon.

(Mike Frisch)