Opinion 26-46
March 26, 2026
Digest: A judicial hearing officer serving part-time in Family Court may not join an advisory council for a project sponsored by a not-for-profit organization that is an advocate and service provider for survivors of gender violence, unless both the advisory council and its sponsoring organization include representation from all participants in the adjudicative process.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.6(A); Opinions 23-53; 17-108; 12-156; 08-191; 06-108; 03-45; 00-54/00-56; 95-34.
Opinion:
The inquiring judicial hearing officer (JHO), who serves part-time in Family Court, has been invited to join the advisory council for a project sponsored by a not-for-profit organization that is an advocate and service provider for survivors of gender violence. The initiative is “dedicated to increasing access to justice for domestic violence survivors who are involved in international parental abduction cases.” As described, most of the cases “fall under the purview of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.” The advisory council includes “law firm pro bono partners, academics, non-profit organizational leaders, Hague survivors, and retired judges.”[1] The JHO proposes to recuse from any matter in which the sponsoring organization appears as counsel, and from any cases involving allegations of international child abduction, but would otherwise continue to handle cases involving domestic violence survivors.
As quasi-judicial officials, JHOs must comply with the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct in performing their judicial duties and otherwise use the Rules as a guide to their conduct “so far as practical and appropriate” (22 NYCRR 100.6[A]). Thus, a JHO must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). A JHO’s extra-judicial activities must be compatible with their quasi-judicial role and must not, for example, cast reasonable doubt on their capacity to act impartially as a JHO or otherwise interfere with proper performance of judicial duties (see generally 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]).
We have recognized that “the services that domestic violence organizations provide to domestic violence victims are critical to society’s goal of extricating domestic violence victims from abusive relationships” (Opinion 08-191). The permissibility of a judge’s involvement often hinges on “balanced membership” of the entity, which “helps ensure that the judge’s participation will not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s impartiality” (Opinion 12-156; see also e.g. Opinions 03-45; 95-34). Indeed, we have advised that a full-time quasi-judicial official may not join a governmental advisory council that seeks to implement comprehensive domestic violence services for survivors who need assistance addressing child support “unless the council’s membership includes representation from all participants in the adjudicative process” (Opinion 23-53).
We have also singled out extra-judicial activities involving domestic violence and abuse for heightened caution (see Opinion 17-108), advising that a judge should not join a domestic violence task force that seeks to promote “offender accountability” (Opinion 06-108) or assist law enforcement agencies in the development of protocols involving domestic violence victims where the project excludes defense attorneys (see Opinion 00-54/00-56). In such instances, our concern was “a risk the judge would be perceived as improperly aligned with one ‘side’ of domestic violence cases” (Opinion 23-53).
Here, the organization sponsoring the project is an advocate and service provider for victims of gender violence. In our view, given the nature of the project, both the sponsoring organization and the council itself would have to include representation from all interests in the adjudicative process in order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and maintain public confidence in the JHO’s impartiality and independence. As it appears that neither the project’s sponsor nor its advisory council includes entities that provide services to respondents, we conclude that the JHO may not participate in the project’s advisory council.
[1] The term “Hague survivor” reflects the idea that when a parent “fled to safeguard themselves and their children” from domestic violence, only to “face international child abduction proceedings under the Hague Convention,” such proceeding may become “yet another site of fear and traumatization” (https://sanctuaryforfamilies.org/2025ab-duanemorris/ [visited 4/20/2026]).