Advocate puts judge on hot seat for contempt order

A veteran Virginia Beach circuit judge was forced – without preparation – to defend a 10-year-old ruling in a contentious and emotional custody case as he appeared Dec. 13 before legislators in Richmond.

Caught unaware by criticism from an advocate for child crime victims, Judge H. Thomas Padrick Jr. said he thought it was “unfair” to have to try to remember details of his 2003 decision to order a mother jailed for contempt of court.

Padrick was among 40 judges up for re-election by the General Assembly who appeared for interviews before members of the Assembly’s courts committees. A handful of judges came in for criticism from Camille Cooper, legislative director for the child advocacy group “PROTECT.”

Cooper offered a report purporting to show sentencing statistics for nine of the judges. In Padrick’s case, however, she brought first-hand reports.

Two children of the jailed mother became tearful as they testified about the hardship of their removal from their mother’s home. Cooper herself said Padrick appeared retaliatory and vindictive toward the mother at a hearing in the case. She said he was rude to the mother’s attorney.

“He threw the mother into debtor’s prison for an $11,000 guardian ad litem fee,” Cooper said.

Del. David B. Albo, R-Springfield, suggested the appropriate response would be for Cooper to have filed a complaint with the state Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission. The JIRC would investigate and the legislators would get a report on any disciplinary action, Albo said.

Del. Rob Bell, R-Charlottesville, asked Cooper to provide the entire record of the hearing in question to provide context for her criticisms. Cooper said she would request the record.

When Cooper pointed to a list of more recent cases involving child victims where Padrick had imposed no jail time, Del. G. Manoli Loupassi, R-Richmond, asked whether the cases involved trials or plea agreements.

“If I’m going to use it against him, I’m going to need to know how many were plea agreements,” Loupassi said.

Taking the microphone, Padrick told the legislators every one of the cited cases involved plea agreements.

The disputed contempt ruling came in a “very, very nasty divorce case with numerous lawyers representing various parties,” Padrick said. The case was marked by accusations of sexual abuse by the husband, but Padrick said he found the mother to be “manipulative.”

He confirmed the mother was jailed on his contempt order, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Virginia.

“I think it’s unfair to have me go back and try to remember what happened 10 years ago,” Padrick said.

Padrick also defended his demeanor.

“If you ask anybody who’s been in my courtroom in Virginia Beach for 21 years, they have never described me as being rude, ever,” Padrick told the legislators.

The mother’s attorney on the GAL issue, Jack E. Ferrebee of Virginia Beach, did not share Cooper’s perception of Padrick.
“I’ve appeared before him many, many times and found him to be fair,” Ferebee said in an interview, adding, “I think it would be unfortunate if he did not get reappointed.”

The lawyer for the husband in the divorce case, veteran Virginia Beach lawyer and former state Sen. Moody E. “Sonny” Stallings Jr., also defended Padrick in a later interview.

“He’s nothing but professional in the courtroom,” Stallings said. “I’ve never seen him treat anybody with disrespect.”

Padrick was introduced to the Courts committees as having the unanimous support of the Virginia Beach Assembly delegation.
Padrick’s ruling to hold the mother in contempt was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in a 2004 opinion, Walker-Duncan v. Duncan (VLW 004-7-026).

In the midst of a “lengthy and contentious custody dispute,” Padrick determined to split the cost of a guardian ad litem between husband and wife, according to the Court of Appeals opinion. When the mother balked at paying the fee, Padrick rejected her objections based on disagreement with the GAL’s findings and inability to pay.

Padrick found the mother had the “ability to pay as many as four attorneys” and failed to pay the fee “without legal justification or excuse.”

Holding the mother in contempt was neither an abuse of discretion nor a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, the Court of Appeals held.