Tom Eldridge, running for Judge of the Circuit Court, Montgomery County, MD

 

1. Under what conditions if any, should preferential treatment be shown to one gender in family law cases? Which gender and with what restrictions? Explain:

None.

 

2. What percentage of all domestic violence do you believe is committed by men?

Circle One 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

Based on (a) news reports, (b) case statistics, (c) prosecutions, (d) research studies, (e) other

 50% - based on guess and vague memory of news reports and research studies

3. To your knowledge and in your opinion, does the issuance of a protective order result in decreased domestic violence? Explain:

Not in the short term.  Studies, I believe, suggest violence increases after the issuance of a protective order, although I do not believe the studies establish whether this is proof of correlation or causation.  Recent studies reported in the press suggest it may decrease violence in the longer term (out a year).  Again, whether this is correlation or causation I do not know.

 

4. Do you believe the current Family Law system treats both men and women equally and what would you change if given the opportunity? Explain:

As someone who has not practiced family law, I do not have sufficient information to answer these questions.  However, if it does not, then the answer is to elect judges who will treat men and women equally. 

 

5. Do you believe that false testimony occurs frequently in contested custody or divorce cases? If so, what can be done to deal with this situation? Explain:

I do.  I believe judges can play a powerful role in discouraging false testimony by holding it against the perpetrator.  I also believe in perjury prosecution for particularly egregious provable examples.

 

6. Currently, judges issuing protective orders via Ex Parte’ requests consider only the written statement made in the request and if the accused is capable of carrying out the alleged action. Do you feel that the civil rights of the accused are adequately protected under these conditions? If not, what changes would you recommend? Explain:

I am uncomfortable, in general, with ex parte proceedings since I believe in open proceedings with involvement by both sides.  However, the Legislature has established this procedure to address legitimate safety concerns for victims of domestic violence and, assuming the law they enacted passes constitutional muster, it is the judge’s job to enforce the law.  The civil rights of the accused are protected by giving them an opportunity to be heard and present evidence at an adversarial hearing held within a short period of time after the issuance of the ex parte order.       

I would need to be a judge for some period of time before I felt comfortable making recommendations.

 

7. Are you concerned that the number of domestic violence protective orders fall disproportionately against men and to what do you attribute it? Explain:

I am concerned about this disparity.  I do not know to what to attribute it, but suspect a number of factors are at work, including greater reluctance by men to seek such orders and a perception by the system  (bias) that men are more likely to be domestic abusers.

 

8. Would you support legislation to modify the current domestic violence statutes to correct abuses currently occurring in the system? Explain:

It is not the role of a judge to legislate.  However, I would support the modification of any law to “correct abuses.”  The law should be subject to continual improvement.

 

9. Do you believe that given the opportunity, as a single parent, both men and women are equally capable of raising children? Explain:

Yes.  I have seen excellent single parents who are men and excellent single parents who are women.

 

10. Would you support legislation to direct judges to require the joint legal physical custody of children unless there are compelling reasons not to do so? Explain:

Again, a judge’s job is not to legislate but rather to determine what the law is and then enforce it.  Were I a legislator, faced with the job of deciding whether to support a change like this for my state, I would want to know how many jurisdictions had adopted the “no compelling reason” test and what their experiences had been, specifically, whether it had improved the lives of children and families in those states.

 

11. What are the compelling reasons for not giving joint legal physical custody of children to both parents who live in the same jurisdiction? Explain:

I can think of several:  Danger to the child from one parent or the environment at one parent’s home; inability by one parent to meet a child’s basic needs while at their home; credible scientific/psychiatric evidence that the child would be harmed by having a joint arrangement; strong opposition by the child (once they reach an age where their opinions warrant such consideration).  There probably are more.