Judge’s Adopted Preschool Daughter Left Alone

I don’t believe in sparing any sacred cows (or mad cows for that matter) and now it’s time for the legal system – a judge no less – to take some hits. Apparently in late November a Fulton County, Georgia juvenile court judge left her 4-year-old adopted daughter home alone at 11 PM to retrieve a piece of luggage from the airport. The girl was found alone on the street late at night after she fled the house. The judge has agreed that she will not sit in judgment of other parents until authorities have completed their investigation into her conduct.

Read all about it at Law.com
More on this story from the Atlanta Journal Constitution
Reform advocate Richard Wexler voices his opinion.

Breaking News Judge Resigns

Should the judge resign? Can she get a fair investigation? How will this affect her judgment on future neglect cases?

1 Reply to "Judge's Adopted Preschool Daughter Left Alone"

  • hmm she took "a leave"
    September 10, 2004 (3:40 am)

    IT is subsequently referred to as resignation etc. below but ……
    ————–

    DA rejects charges against ex-judge
    Jill Young Miller – Staff
    Thursday, May 27, 2004

    Nina Hickson, the former chief judge of Fulton County Juvenile Court, did not commit a felony when she left her 4-year-old daughter home alone to retrieve a bag from the airport, the county’s district attorney has determined.

    District Attorney Paul Howard made the decision “after careful consideration” of information he received in late March from the Atlanta Police Department, according to a statement from his office.

    Hickson was investigated after her child was found wandering the streets late one night last November.

    Mark Trigg, Hickson’s attorney, said, “We are pleased that Mr. Howard has made the correct determination: that there’s no basis for prosecution by his office.”

    Trigg said he was surprised that Howard had considered the possibility of a felony prosecution. “To my knowledge, there’s no felony that this set of facts could fit,” Trigg said.

    Howard wasn’t available for comment Wednesday afternoon. Spokeswoman Jada Dawkins said, “He indicated that if there would have been any kind of felony charge, it would have been cruelty to children.”

    Hickson, who wasn’t available for comment Wednesday, has said she made a “single serious parenting mistake” by darting to Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport to pick up luggage while she thought her child was home asleep.

    Hickson was on suspension with pay from her $126,221-a-year job since January and announced her decision to resign in early April.

    Hickson is not employed, Trigg said. “She is continuing to evaluate job opportunities.”

    ————–

    (for three months of being at home she was paid then more than thirty grand…. I say if she really quit she should have to repay it which might explain why she is reported to have only gone on ‘leave.’

    This issue is of course central. Merely firing this worker or that judge, or voting said lawmaker out of office is little deterent. If someone concedes unfitness they should have to agree to entry of judgement in the amount of salary like military cadets have to repay tuition if they don’t enlist upon graduation.

    Paying them while under investigation is fine, especially if subject to the above caveat. The Bryant case has been solicited as a potential class action, and likewise should not be allowed to settle privately without AT THE VERY LEAST the consent of all who have answered the call to come forward.

    Conduct which threatens termination should breach immunity, and if not contested such a judge should be fair game for any party to have arguably been victims well to her unfitness.

    I recognise no right for a judge to move on and not have to deal with her work when questions are raised even if criminal prosectution is waived in exchange for her ‘leaving.’ THe state will continue to employ such people if the decisions remain on teh books prior to there resignation. She has no right to decide to not defend herself BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT OPERATIING A SMALL BUSINESS SHE WAS THE STATE.

    THe money she was paid for past work makes her answerable to it forever. She can elect to no longer be paid for new cases, but as long as her name is on the file anything she has done in the past given her vanishing now should require her to defend because almost all judges might deservve protection we can not afford to continuie to provide her adn can easally afford to deny her- that is if we are willing to go without such ‘performers.’

    —–