Adam John Wolff’s Co-Authored Letter to the Editor Titled “In-Camera Interviews Should Not Be Used to Cross-Examine Children About Parents” Featured in the New York Law Journal and Law.com
Adam John Wolff, along with Robert Z. Dobrish, Lee Rosenberg, and Eric I. Wrubel, co-authored a letter to the editor of the New York Law Journal, titled “In-Camera Interviews Should Not Be Used to Cross-Examine Children About Parents.” The letter examines the court’s use of in-camera interviews of children, and explains that the use of such interviews to “truth test” parents, without the parents’ ability to respond or know what questions are being asked, is problematic.
Full Article:
In-Camera Interviews Should Not Be Used to Cross-Examine Children About Parents
Editor's note: This letter was submitted in response to Fink & Katz partner Phillp Katz's column "Praemonitus Praemunitus: The Importance of the…
March 02, 2023 at 04:41 PM
3 minute read
By Robert Z. Dobrish, Lee Rosenberg, Adam John Wolff and Eric I. Wrubel | March 02, 2023 at 04:41 PM
Editor’s note: This letter was submitted in response to Fink & Katz partner Phillp Katz’s column “Praemonitus Praemunitus: The Importance of the In-Camera Interview in Child Custody Matters,” which the New York Law Journal published on Feb. 27.
Having read the Feb. 27, 2023 article by Philip Katz in the New York Law Journal titled, “Praemonitus Praemunitus: The Importance of the In-Camera Interview in Child Custody Matters,” and, without voicing general opinion on the due process and other broad issues which are implicated by in-camera interviews, his commentary on credibility is striking.
The in-camera is a procedure which is veiled in secrecy and completely excludes the litigants and their attorneys to the extent that not even the transcript is available to them. The court’s use of the child to “truth test” the parents, without any ability of the parents to respond or even know what questions are being asked, is truly problematic.
Mr. Katz, based upon his experience, states quite clearly “most jurists will use this opportunity to ask questions of the children that will serve to test the credibility of the parents in addition to ascertaining what the children’s independent thoughts are related to custody and parenting time.”
Clearly, every jurist is different and possessing varying levels of experience, skill and acumen. The child’s attorney, with their own set of responsibilities and obligations, has a skill set just as variable. Presumably, children are not subject to any form of significant “cross examination” while in chambers.
If, in fact, many or most judges are engaging in this truth-testing practice, at least one—if not both—parents will have no way of correcting, elaborating on, or outright contradicting statements made by a child which may be false, subject to misinterpretation by the court, or even the result of the child’s honest but mistaken misinterpretation of what was perceived to be accurate.
This cannot, and should not, be the function of an in-camera hearing. The rights of parents and the integrity of the system deserves better.
Robert Z. Dobrish is a partner at Dobrish Michaels; Lee Rosenberg is a partner at Saltzman Chetkof Rosenberg; Adam John Wolff is a partner at Alter Wolff & Foley and Eric I. Wrubel is a partner at Warshaw Burstein.