Could Maine district and probate judges answer a confidential federal survey about child and family services?

Plain-English summary

District and probate judges were invited to take part in a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services review of child and family services. The committee had been assured that each judge’s survey responses would be kept strictly confidential. Source: Opinion 02-8.

The committee referred to Advisory Opinion 97-2, which had found that answering a similar survey would not violate the Code of Judicial Conduct. It agreed that courts could respond confidentially to government surveys aimed at improving child and family welfare services. Source: Opinion 02-8.

The committee saw no problem with the survey described. It cautioned that surveys with responses that might not be kept confidential and might be construed as concerning pending cases or manifesting bias or prejudice could raise issues under the Judicial Code. Source: Opinion 02-8.

In practice

For this confidential federal review, the committee permitted the described responses. Its conclusion expressly distinguished surveys that might expose pending-case views or apparent bias. Source: Opinion 02-8.

Common questions

Q: Could the judges respond to this federal review survey?

A: Yes. The committee saw no problem with the survey as described. Source: Opinion 02-8.

Q: Did confidentiality matter to the committee?

A: Yes. It relied on assurance that individual judges’ responses would be strictly confidential. Source: Opinion 02-8.

Q: Did the opinion approve every judicial survey response?

A: No. It warned that other surveys could raise Code concerns if responses might not be kept confidential and might be construed as relating to pending cases or manifesting bias or prejudice. Source: Opinion 02-8.

Background and rules framework

The opinion addressed the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct without citing a numbered canon. It relied on the confidentiality of the proposed responses and cited Advisory Opinion 97-2 as an earlier treatment of a similar survey. Source: Opinion 02-8.

Citations and references

Other opinions cited:

• Maine Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 97-2 (September 4, 1997), on a similar survey.

See also

• ME Judicial Ethics Op. 03-1: Subpoenaed Judicial Testimony
• ME Judicial Ethics Op. 05-2: Judicial Committee Service

Source

• Landing page: Maine advisory-opinion index
• Original PDF: Opinion 02-8

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

JUDICIAL ETHICS COMMITTEE
Advisory Opinion 02-8
Issued: 12/06/2002

MrIVr
DEC 09 2002

Issue

Whether District Court Judges and Probate Court Judges may respond to a federal review survey being conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to review state child and family service programs in order to ensure substantial conformity with the state plan gequiements Specifically, the review covers protective services, foster care, adoption, family preservation, family support, and independent living.

Statement of Facts

District Court and Probate Court Judges have received a request to invite their participation in the upcoming Child and Family Services Review being conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Maine onsite review is scheduled for July 2003. The request indicates that the intent of the review is not merely to ensure compliance. Rather, it is designed to help states improve child welfare services and outcomes for families and children by identifying strengths and needs within the state systems. The review will identify areas where technical assistance can lead to program improvements. In communications with the Maine Department of Human Services, the Committee has been assured that the individual judge’s survey responses will be kept strictly confidential.

Discussion

A similar inquiry previously was aiidressed to the Judicial Ethics Committee. That

Committee believed that a judge’s response to the survey there in question would not violate the

Code of Judicial Conduct. See Advisory Opinion 97-2, September 4, 1997.

Conclusion

We agree that it is important that the judicial system be able to respond, in a confidential manner, to surveys from various agencies of government, particularly those which are working to improve child and family welfare services.

Our District and Probate Courts are the Courts with primary jurisdiction in these areas, and any improvement that may arise as a result of a survey benefits not only the Courts, but those who participate in matters before these various Courts.

We would close by again reminding the Judges of the District and Probate Courts that while we see no problem with regard to the survey in question, we note that other surveys on topics where a judge’s responses might not be kept confidential and might be construed as relating to pending cases or as manifesting bias or prejudice could pose potential problems under

the Judicial Code.

P:\rputnamVudicialEthics\Opinion02-8.doc