Oral Statement to the Court On Behalf of Affected Parents and Litigants 

Presiding Judge Hilton, 

We appear today as parents, litigants and citizens directly affected by the practices of Division 42, Judge Robert Heggie. We are not here because we disagree with one individual ruling or outcome. We are here because the record reflects broader, systemic procedural concerns that we believe compromise due process, the integrity of proceedings, and ultimately the safety and stability of our children.

These concerns are not isolated. Independent review of more than 781 Division 42 cases, spanning over years, encompassing thousands of orders, demonstrates recurring procedural patterns affecting hundreds of families.

Our request is simple: that decisions affecting families be made transparently, based solely on admissible evidence, and in accordance with the constitutional protections guaranteed to every litigant.

At its core, this matter concerns due process.

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that the State may not deprive a parent of liberty or custody interests without fundamentally fair procedures. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that a parent’s relationship with his or her child is a fundamental liberty interest entitled to the highest level of protection. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

At minimum, due process requires notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and decisions based only on evidence properly admitted into the record. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).

Our concern is that these foundational safeguards are not consistently being met.

First, there are recurring discrepancies between written orders and the evidentiary record. Orders have included “factual findings” not supported by sworn testimony or transcripts, and in some instances, findings directly conflict with what occurred in open court. When determinations appear outside the record, meaningful appellate review becomes impossible. The right to appeal depends on a reliable and accurate record.

Second, there is evidence of reliance on information obtained outside the formal hearing process. Affidavits document off-record communications and the later acknowledgment of psychological information that had not been admitted into evidence. Any reliance on extra-record material undermines the adversarial process and the neutrality required of a judicial forum.

Third, domestic violence, child abuse disclosures, suicide attempts, and a child’s mental-health crises are dismissed as routine or fabricated. This results in default disbelief of abuse victims and placement of children into dangerous situations. Cases involving these allegations and a means to financial resources last significantly longer with fewer resolutions. Extreme risk does not trigger immediate action, but prolonged litigation.

Fourth, temporary emergency mechanisms are frequently functioning as substitutes for final adjudication. A substantial number of trials are scheduled but comparatively few are actually held. Instead, temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions often determine long-term custody arrangements. Data reflects a 22-to-1 ratio of trials scheduled to trials actually held, meaning the vast majority of cases never receive a full evidentiary trial.

As a result, temporary orders often govern families for years rather than weeks. When temporary orders effectively become permanent without a full evidentiary trial, the constitutional right to be heard loses its meaning. 

Fifth, negative mental-health characterizations are sometimes embedded in preliminary orders or emergency motions without examination orders, expert testimony, or clinical evidence.  Labels such as “delusional”, “mental health issue” or “unstable” carry profound and lasting consequences. Under basic evidentiary standards, such conclusions require qualified expert testimony and procedural safeguards. Without those protections, these findings risk becoming prejudicial rather than probative. The results of this often include; lasting consequences for a parent’s credibility and significant restrictions on a parent's time with their children. 

Litigants who are given these labels are often ordered to comply with a psychological evaluation by an evaluator of the Court’s choosing, at the litigants expense, often costing the litigant well over $5,000.00.  Oftentimes a litigant already has an established, licensed, and clinically sound mental-health provider who often possesses higher levels of education and expertise than the court-appointed evaluator but this established mental health provider is discredited to make room for the Court-appointed evaluator.

Sixth, many families remain subject to numerous substantive orders without entry of a final judgment. Without finality, appellate remedies are practically unavailable. This creates a procedural stalemate in which litigants are bound by significant restrictions yet lack meaningful review, while children remain subject to unstable or unresolved arrangements without the stability of a final adjudication. 

Seventh, critical motions are at times denied without a hearing or without meaningful consideration. Due process requires not merely the filing of motions, but an actual opportunity to be heard. A hearing must be real, not illusory. 

Eighth, the increasing delegation of decision-making authority to a recurring pipeline of guardians ad litem, mediators, evaluators, parenting coordinators and special masters, combined with fee awards entered without itemization or evidentiary review, raises concerns regarding judicial gatekeeping and financial fairness. 

Division 42 dockets show that approximately six individuals are repeatedly appointed and granted authority to shape custody, visitation, and parental access.  This functions judicial in nature, yet exercised by private actors whose fees are compelled from litigants. These concerns are heightened when the same individuals are repeatedly appointed and when they happen to also be former law partners of the presiding judge, including Cynthia Albin and Douglas Beach. 

Families are unaware of the professional relationships of these appointed court professionals to the Presiding Judge, yet are ordered to bear their substantial professional fees. Oversight and transparency are essential when families are ordered to bear substantial professional costs. 

Individually, any one of these issues might be an anomaly. Collectively, however, when these patterns appear across hundreds of cases over multiple years, they form a consistent pattern that affects numerous families and undermines confidence in the process. 

The cumulative effect is significant: 

-Parents experience prolonged litigation without resolution. 
-Children remain in unstable placements. 
-Temporary findings become permanent realities. 
-Litigants bear a significant financial burden in efforts to be heard.
-And families are deprived of the full, fair adjudication the Constitution promises. 

For children, the passage of time in unresolved litigation is not neutral; it shapes their sense of security, attachment, and trust in the adults and institutions meant to protect them. 

We raise these concerns respectfully and with recognition of the Court’s difficult responsibilities. This is not about criticism of any individual. It is about ensuring that the process itself remains faithful to the rule of law. 

The remedy we seek is procedural, not punitive. 

With respect to your position as the presiding judge we wanted to bring these matters to you first. Each family here and each case is different. However, we bring this to your attention acknowledging each of our cases need relief and intervention. 

We respectfully request: 

-Administrative review of Division 42 practices
-Reassignment where necessary to ensure impartiality
-Restoration of full evidentiary trials in place of long-term reliance on temporary injunctions
-Assurance that decisions rely solely on admitted evidence
-Proper procedural safeguards for mental-health determinations
-Case dismissals in ways that truly reflect “the child’s best interest”
-Emergency orders to restore rightful parenting time
-Oversight of appointments and fee practices to ensure transparency
-And any other relief of Division 42 that you deem necessary and crucial

These steps would protect the integrity of the Court, safeguard families, and restore confidence that outcomes are based on evidence and law rather than process limitations.

At stake here are not merely legal technicalities, but the most fundamental interests our system protects- the relationship between parent and child. 

We ask only for what the Constitution already guarantees: notice, a meaningful hearing, neutral decision-making, and judgements grounded in evidence, and a record that reflects the truth.  

Thank you, Your Honor. 

Signed,

The parents, friends, family and community of those impacted by Division 42