|
Brother Can You Spare A
Dime?
New York Judges Forced To
Survive On $136,700 Per Year
By
Guest Author:
Rinaldo Del Gallo,
III
Rinaldo Del
Gallo, III, is an attorney-at-law in Massachusetts. He runs the
Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition (see the advertisement below this
article). Permission was granted to reprint this article that
was originally published on
the American Daily.
The Tragedy -
There is a new concern in America - a “tragedy” that is
beginning to surface. According to the New York Bar Journal,
which can be read
here,,
Chief Justice Judith Kaye used the words, “Disgraceful.
Shabby. Infuriating,” to describe a lack of a pay raise.
According to the Democrat Chronicle out of Rochester New York,
in an article entitled “Judicial
Pay Equity,”
“Clearly infuriated and
distressed, Kaye's shift in style and tone was understandable
and appropriate.” The Democratic Chronicle claims, “Increasing
the pay of Supreme Court justices, for example, from $136,700 a
year to a recommended $165,200 is hardly asking too much.” Notes
the New York Bar Journal, “The bar cannot be complacent, for
this may be the last chance for common sense to take hold.”
According to an Albany Times Union article, there were threats
of work stoppages and unionizing.
According to the United States
Census bureau, the median income for a family household is in
ballpark of $46,326. In other words, today, New York judges make
approximately three times that median household income. All over
the web, article after article, discusses Judith Kaye and her
drive to increase New York Judges Salaries. As of April 15,
2007, the term “Judith Kaye” and “salaries” listed 52 articles
in a Google news search—and not every newspaper or news station
has stories that appear in a Google search. In fact, the Chief
Judge is so uncontrollably angry, she has threatened a lawsuit
on numerous occasions.
Matrimonial Commission Tragedy
You the reader should know
something about Chief Judge Kaye. In 2005, Chief Judge Kaye had
a matrimonial commission, which met around the state. (The
report (pdf) was published in February of 2006).
I spoke to the Matrimonial
Commission in Albany. Despite fathers’ rights activist after
fathers’ rights activist appearing at these hearings to express
their pain, the commission offered an 88 page report that hardly
mentioned shared parenting. In an 88-page investigation on
matrimonial law (the law of marriage and divorce), the term
“father” or “fathers” never appeared. Though there were numerous
members of the panel, not a single fathers’ rights activist was
on the panel. And while sole purpose of the panel was to examine
the state of matrimonial law and how it was handled in New York,
shared parenting was reduced to but a single paragraph, and did
not discuss any findings by psychologist or learned
professionals. In fact, those four sentences can be reproduced
here:
Presumptions:
(Sentence 1)
The Commission heard extensively about the current law governing
custody decisions, including whether any presumptions regarding
the awarding of custody should exist. Under the precedent set
forth in the Court of Appeals decision in Braiman v Braiman,
44 NY2d 584, 587, 590 (1978) and its progeny, New
York courts have determined that where the parties have engaged
in a bitterly antagonistic custody proceeding, joint custody is
inappropriate, thus creating a de facto presumption in favor of
the granting of custody to one parent.
(Sentence 2)
Following extended consideration
and debate, the Commission concluded that no presumptions
whatsoever should be created via legislation, case law or
otherwise.
(Sentence 3)
This conclusion was reached in the hope and expectation that
well-trained, competent judges would evaluate each individual
case and each individual child’s needs without prejudice.
(Sentence 4)
Further, the conclusion was reached that a presumption of either
joint or sole custody would be inconsistent with the optimal
functioning of the judge.
These four sentences— a mere 156
words—were the result of endless discussions, reports,
scientific analysis, and the reaction to entire fathers rights
community in New York. In short, Judge Kayes did not care, and
the matrimonial commission’s report focused mostly on how to
restructure the bureaucracy, rather that how to elicit real
change. Because so little was said about shared parenting, a
story that would effect millions of New York children, was
hardly covered.
An Ability to Relate
According to one article by the
Associated Press, “The state's top judge on Monday said the
Legislature's failure to give judges a raise since 1999 is
threatening to undermine the judicial system and held out the
possibility of a lawsuit to achieve long-sought raises.”
Threatening to undermine the legal system? The article
concluded:
“Kaye
said judges cannot maintain public confidence if the there are
questions whether their decisions are influenced by efforts to
encourage pay raises and said the lack of adequate pay keeps the
best lawyers from entering public service. She noted that some
judges have already left the bench for better earnings.”
Give me a call if judges are
leaving—I graduated in the top half of my class from a top
twenty-law school. If $136,700 cannot purchase objectivity in a
courtroom and a sentiment that someone is not being “underpaid,”
we desperately need other judges. $136,700 is a million miles
from chump change, even with someone with a law degree and years
of experience. It is a disgrace that someone would call that
type of salary “Disgraceful. Shabby. Infuriating.”
More troubling is the disconnect
How can one expect justice from
a family court judge so far removed from what an average father
makes? If you take 30% or even 50% of a paycheck from somebody
that makes $136,700, they can still enjoy a comfortable living.
This percentage of take simply cannot be done when one makes
$30,000--$40,000. The real result is a loss of an ability to
keep oneself afloat financially. When fathers claim they don’t
have the money to pay for child support arrears, someone that
makes $136,700 is far less apt to believe the money is not under
the couch somewhere. The concept of not being able to pay for
groceries, having to struggle in between jobs, and the every day
difficulties of staying alive are hopelessly beyond their
understanding through ordinary experience.
Justice Kaye’s priorities are
way out of place. It is doubtful that writing more than 4
sentences on shared parenting (she calls them “presumptions”
without using the warmer term) would erase my sentiment that
$136,700 a year constitutes a reasonable salary putting most
judges above most Americans even most lawyers. But when the
Chief Justice of New York’s highest court goes on a rampage
about how $136,700 is not enough to live on, and when virtually
every media outlet cannot resist sticking a microphone in her
face, and when uncountable millions of children are growing up
without their fathers with little media, something not only
wrong with our media, but there is something wrong with America.
If just shy of 19 million people
live in New York State, how many are growing up without fathers?
Apparently, this is not a story, because it doesn’t happen to be
foremost on one person’s mind—Judith Kayes. That is ridiculous.
Let her fly coach on her Aruba vacation instead of first class—I
am sure she will live to tell about it.
Email
Rinaldo Del
Gallo,
III
|
