ALFRED — York County Judge of Probate Robert M.A. Nadeau is asking a court to dismiss a civil complaint filed against him earlier this month by a New Hampshire woman who lost guardianship of her granddaughter due, she claims, to scheduling delays at the probate court.
As well, he has initiated a cross complaint against the County of York, asking that the county be required to provide funding and litigation insurance coverage equal to that of a full-time state court judge and to comply with what he described as the county’s statutory obligation to ensure that the judicial functions of the probate court are available and open to the public whenever the other courts of York County are open.
In the cross claim, Nadeau is seeking safe workplace accommodations for the staff of the probate court and registry, including a security employee, safety glass separating registry staff from the public and conference rooms. He is seeking entrances and exits to the courtroom located away from the offices of the court staff and judge, as well as a larger courtroom that provides more space for those appearing before him and space for up to 30 members of the public.
In addition, he is asking that the County of York, Register of Probate Carol Lovejoy and County Manager Greg Zinser “refrain from any further conduct depriving the York County Judge of Probate of the ability to regularly and without interference, obstruction or delay, supervise and appropriately redress the job performance of, and to provide pertinent input to, his court’s Register of Probate and to all registry staff regarding their duties; and to ensure that the Judge of Probate be fully informed by the register and staff regarding all matters affecting the York County Probate Court,” according to the court document. He is seeking the same rights of holiday time and personal time off that apply to other county employees, along with reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses.
As to the class action complaint filed against him by Renee LeGrand, who alleges scheduling changes Nadeau made in April resulted in her losing guardianship of her 3-year-old granddaughter, Nadeau said that isn’t so. The LeGrand complaint alleges that Nadeau was retaliating against county commissioners’ denial of his bid for more court time and a larger salary when he ordered a change in court days and a scheduling memorandum within hours of their denial. LeGrand is seeking a return to the previous schedule, court costs and fees.
In his filings, Nadeau denied LeGrand’s suggestion that her inability to obtain a temporary guardianship was due to scheduling changes, asserting instead that she had failed to complete and comply with service and filing requirements, and pointed out that on the available days her case could have been heard, her own attorney was unavailable. In an affidavit, he wrote that he had appointed another judge to hear that case and others, and alleged that Lovejoy, as register, was uncooperative in scheduling the matters.
He noted that he called for a scheduling hearing with the other judge on the LeGrand case, but that Lovejoy refused to attend. In an attached exhibit, a letter from county attorney Gene Libby asserts that because LeGrand is suing Nadeau in his capacity as probate judge, he has a conflict of interest in dealing with that case. Nadeau disagreed.
Nadeau, in his filing, denied that the focus of his request to county commissioners was more about his salary than the need for more court time. He pointed out that the probate court has been funded at 64 hours a month for the past 15 years. He said he regularly expends about 90 hours each month on probate work and noted that Lovejoy, the probate register, has said she believes the court could use two or three more days each month.
Nadeau wrote that the workload of the court not only consists of about 1,200 new cases annually, but just as many filed in connection with cases docketed in prior years, along with other filings.
He wrote that the probate code gives him supervisory authority over the register and staff.
His response includes numerous filings, including an affidavit from himself, one from his wife, and exhibits.
Nadeau cites a number of reasons why he believes the LeGrand case against him should be dismissed, including judicial immunity.
Nadeau is representing himself in the case at this juncture and has filed a motion for the County of York to provide him with a prepaid legal defense in the proceeding and to reimburse his law firm for attorney’s fees he has incurred in the interim as, he wrote, he has been assured he is covered under the county’s insurance risk pool.
— Senior Staff Writer Tammy Wells can be contacted at 282-1535, ext. 327 or twells@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
