Opinion 25-140
November 6, 2025
Digest: A family court judge may participate in a national initiative to develop and promote best practices in ensuring children’s participation in family court proceedings, which is co-sponsored by an agency which frequently appears before the judge.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.0(S); 100.1; 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); Opinions 25-120; 22-04; 17-04; 15-113; 15-26/15-44; 13-13; 12-74; 07-52; 99-77.
Opinion:
A family court judge has been invited to serve on the “Stakeholders Advisory Council” for a national initiative co-sponsored by a judicial association, the Children’s Law Center, and certain other non-profit or governmental entities.[1] The initiative seeks to develop and promote best practices in ensuring children’s participation in family court proceedings and will update the judicial association’s Guidelines on Children’s Participation in Child Protective Hearings. Members of the Stakeholders Advisory Council will include judges, representatives of statewide offices of child advocates, domestic violence and child abuse advocates, and other professionals. Neither the Children’s Law Center nor government agencies that regularly appear before the judge will serve on the Council, but a non-attorney “Children’s Voice Fellow” housed at the Children’s Law Center will serve as a primary point of contact for the Council and will work frequently with the Council’s members. The judge asks if he/she may participate in the initiative, given that staff attorneys from the Children’s Law Center frequently appear before him/her.
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). A judge must uphold the judiciary’s integrity, impartiality, and independence (see 22 NYCRR 100.1; 100.2[A]; 100.0[S] [“An ‘independent’ judiciary is one free of outside influences or control.”]). A judge’s extra-judicial activities must be compatible with judicial office and must not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially, detract from the dignity of judicial office or interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]).
Generally, “the community benefits from having judges take an active part in community affairs whenever possible” (Opinion 13-13), including in community efforts to prevent juvenile delinquency and reduce violence (see e.g. Opinions 15-113; 15-26/15-44; 12-74; 99-77). This principle is not without limitations, where special factors might create an appearance of impropriety. For example, a judge may not serve on a crime-prevention subcommittee of a city program designed to revitalize crime-ridden neighborhoods, where the program as a whole could be perceived as a law-enforcement program and could also result in cases which would frequently come before the judge’s court (see Opinion 07-52). We also said a judge may not attend a three-day human trafficking seminar sponsored by federal prosecutorial and law enforcement agencies where the program, as designed, will “focus primarily on strategies for effective prosecution” (Opinion 17-04).
Here, the same concerns are not present. To the contrary, the program at issue seeks to develop and promote best practices in ensuring children’s participation in family court proceedings and includes experts from around the country, while the Children’s Law Center fellow who will work with the Council is not an attorney and will not appear before the judge.
We conclude this judge may participate in the national initiative to develop and promote best practices in ensuring children’s participation in family court proceedings. In our view, such participation is not likely to undermine public confidence in the judge’s independence and impartiality nor conflict with the judge’s judicial obligations. Indeed, on these facts, co-sponsorship by a judicial association tends to underscore that this is an effort to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, in an area where family court judges may have special responsibilities (cf. Opinions 25-120 [“judges are generally encouraged to participate in bar association activities devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice”]; 22-04 [noting a family court judge’s “special responsibilities to protect and safeguard children within their purview”]).
[1] Since the judge is asking about serving on a “council,” we refer to the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges here as a “judicial association” to avoid confusion.