No

A new opinion of the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee

Due to concerns about perceived impact on judge’s impartiality, a judge whose docket includes civil and criminal domestic violence should not be a member of a domestic violence advocacy group which is self-labeled as victim-oriented with the additional goal of holding responsible/accountable those who commit domestic violence.

A judge should limit participation with focused interest and partisan advocacy groups to speaking, lecturing, and teaching about law-related topics. 

Issue

May a judge assigned to unified family court, hearing civil interpersonal violence injunction cases, interact on an ad hoc basis with a local Domestic Violence Fatality Response Team for the limited purposes of offering recommendations and insights from a judicial perspective?

ANSWER:  Yes.

May a judge who presides over misdemeanor domestic violence cases and civil domestic violence injunction cases serve on the county’s Domestic Violence Oversight Board if it adopts as part of its mission statement that it is “survivor-centered” and exists to “support those affected by domestic violence?”

ANSWER:  No.

Facts

We have received inquiries from two judges regarding their desire to engage in extra-judicial service in the community by interacting with or serving on groups that analyze and attempt to reduce domestic violence.  There is no doubt that the groups provide valuable service to the community; however, the JEAC is called upon to advise whether these judges may participate, in the mode each set forth, in the groups described below.  We are responding to each inquiry separately, but are doing so in the same opinion to highlight their similarities and differences.

The judge inquiring as to Issue 1 (“Judge 1”) wants to serve in an ad hoc role with a local Domestic Violence Fatality Response Team (“DVFRT”), which is a statutorily-created organization. A DVFRT reviews and analyzes fatal incidents, such as homicides and suicides caused by or related to domestic violence.  Each local DVFRT decides what kind of incidents (fatalities only or also near-fatal incidents) and how many incidents they will review during any period of time.  “The purpose of the teams is to learn how to prevent domestic violence by intervening early and improving the response of an individual and the system to domestic violence.”  Part of the DVFRTs’ role is to “make policy and other recommendations as to how incidents of domestic violence may be prevented.”  A Florida handbook for DVFRTs suggests that the work of these teams can improve safety for victims of domestic violence while providing “insight into meaningful and constructive ways to hold perpetrators accountable for their violent behavior.” The teams may interview friends, family, co-workers, and others close to the victim or to the perpetrator of the domestic violence in an effort to gain better understanding of the circumstances surrounding the particular events.  The teams do not “investigate” the homicide or suicide; rather, they “review” it. 

The documents and information obtained by a DVFRT are confidential, privileged from discovery, and are not to be introduced in evidence at any proceeding.  Team members and those attending a meeting of the DVFRT may not testify in any proceedings with regard to records or information produced or provided to the DVFRT.  The “teams are assigned to the Department of Children and Families for administrative purposes.”  Members can include law enforcement, court clerks, court administrators, child protection service providers, medical examiners, and several other named categories.  Judge 1’s DVFRT does not include representatives from the Public Defender’s office or other defense attorneys.  Judge 1 will have no direct link to the local DVFRT and no specific role other than to share insights, information, and recommendations from a judicial perspective with the other team members.

Judge 2, who inquires as to Issue 2, wishes to serve on the county’s Domestic Violence Oversight Board (“DVOB”) which currently describes itself as having been created to serve in an advisory and oversight capacity with the local board of county commissioners with respect to issues affecting or related to domestic violence.  The DVOB is charged with developing and submitting a plan for using certain local funding to support domestic violence centers and to pursue federal and state matching funds.  The DVOB also monitors and evaluates the provision of services to domestic violence victims.  The reason for Judge 2’s concern and inquiry is that the local DVOB is considering adoption of a mission statement saying that it is “survivor-centered” and exists to “support those affected by domestic violence.”