Providence Family Court Judge forbids communication by parties and their attorneys to ALL third parties.

After reading the article below, my first thought was, "Wow! What was it that the mother put on the internet?" In my experience, as recited by the DCYF Chief of Staff, these types of orders are entered in order to protect the interests of the child. What the article does not tell you is that DCYF is only involved when there is an allegation of abuse, neglect, or dependency. These are legal terms of art, but generally mean that there is some allegation that the child is being harmed in his or her current situation.

I am concerned that this is very broad order in that it prohibits the parent and their attorney from discussing the case with any third party. A couple of third party professionals that I would want to be able to consult with myself and ask my client's to consult with are the child's or party's counselor (if they have one), medical doctor (if there are applicable concerns) or the child's teacher. As the attorney, we do not know all there is to know about a child and consulting with other professionals can be a good way to get a handle on the big picture and look at a case from all angles. We need to be able to do that to assist our clients in their own case, as well as to sift through the he said/she said to know how the circumstances are affecting the child at issue.

If you have questions regarding a child custody decision or a divorce, please call us at 401-841-5700. It is always wiser to "counsel first!" Visit our website at www.CounselFirst.com

Judge bars R.I. mother from talking about custody case.

Posted: 08/13/2010 7:44 PM
Providence Journal
By News staff; By LYNN ARDITI, Journal staff writer

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A Family Court judge has forbidden a woman from talking about her custody case with anyone, including the media, or posting anything about the matter on any blogs or other sites on the Internet.
The woman, Faith Torres, has contacted the American Civil Liberties Union about the gag order, but declined comment for fear of violating it.
"This court order is a blatant violation of the First Amendment,'' Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU's Rhode Island affiliate, said. "If she believes she is being treated unfairly, or if she just wishes to make people aware of her case, she should be able to do so free of a court-ordered gag rule.''
The judge's order is so broadly worded, Brown said, that "Ms. Torres faces contempt of court charges if she discusses the case with her mother..."
By law, someone who violates a court order and is charged with contempt of court can face imprisonment.
Family Court Judge Debra DeSegna issued the gag order -- which applies not only to Torres but also her lawyers -- on July 29 at the request of the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families.
DeSegna was on vacation this week and could not be reached for comment. Neither Acting Family Court Chief Judge Haiganush R. Bedrosian nor Associate Judge Karen Lynch Bernard, who was filling in for DeSegna and signed the Torres order on Friday, responded to requests for comment.
Joanne H. Lehrer, the DCYF director's chief of staff, said Friday that she could not discuss specifics of the case. However, Lehrer said, it's not unusual for the agency's lawyers, particularly in custody cases involving domestic disputes, to draft such "broad brush" orders and ask the judges to enforce them to "protect the confidentiality of the child."
The gag order issued by Judge DeSegna in the Torres case is contained in paragraph 4 of a 1 ½-page ruling that details the conditions under which Torres is allowed supervised visitation with her oldest child. It states:
"All parties to this action, including the Plaintiff and Defendant, and all counsel are restrained and enjoined from discussing any of the within court proceedings and related matters involving the children with any third party, including but not limited to members of the media, postings on blog, and/or the internet."
Torres said at the time that her lawyer, Jodie Gladstone, objected to the order but the judge overruled her.
Several calls to the Providence law firm where Gladstone practices went unreturned. A woman who answered the phone at the firm told a reporter that Gladstone could not respond due to the court order.