×

Judges Sweeney, Akers file objections to JIC admonishments after raising child welfare concerns

Circuit Court Judges Tim Sweeney and Maryclaire Akers filed objections to their admonishments by the Judicial Investigation Commission, which could mean a hearing board could recommend punishments to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals or dismiss any charges. (Photo courtesy of the WV Supreme Court of Appeals)

CHARLESTON — Arguing that they were not violating judicial ethics by raising issues about West Virginia’s foster care and child welfare system, Circuit Court judges Tim Sweeney and Maryclaire Akers filed objections to recent admonishments.

Third Judiciary Circuit Court Judge Sweeney filed a formal objection Thursday with the state Judicial Investigation Commission to an admonishment filed last month, accusing Sweeney of violating four rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct after raising concerns about shortages of Child Protective Service workers.

“To be clear, I took these steps for one reason: to protect West Virginia’s children,” Sweeney said. “To ensure that the welfare of West Virginia’s children remains foremost among my priorities, and because other judges are faced with similar problems, I am objecting to the JIC’s decision and its admonishment of me for speaking out to protect West Virginia’s most vulnerable.”

Sweeney’s admonishment came following abuse and neglect hearings in October 2024 and Feb. 3, after a CPS worker testified that the agency was overworked and understaffed, causing local workers to not meet court-ordered deadlines. An order was issued on Feb. 3 where Sweeney appointed several state Department of Human Services to report to the Ritchie County Courthouse on Feb. 20 and receive assignments as CPS Services workers.

Sweeney conducted interviews with The Parkersburg News and Sentinel and WV MetroNews regarding this order. He later canceled the order after meeting with new DoHS Cabinet Secretary Alex Mayer and working out an agreement.

“As I said in my interview, the buck stops with me when child welfare issues come before me,” Sweeney said. “If I am not willing to speak out to protect our children, I cannot expect other judges to do the same when necessary and appropriate.

“I respect the work and members of the JIC and the role it plays, but I believe that objecting to its admonishment serves a greater purpose in protecting the welfare of children who cannot advocate for themselves,” Sweeney continued.

Eighth Circuit Court Judge Akers filed her objection to her JIC admonishment Wednesday. According to media reports, Akers placed DoHS in a one-year “improvement period” under a court-appointed monitor on Feb. 28 to report on the state’s use of unlicensed facilities – such as 4-H camps and hotels – due to reports of violent incidents involving children in state custody.

In that case, Akers had also ordered Mayer to report to her courtroom for a hearing on Feb 28 that was open to the public and attended by local press. The commission said Akers’ comments in that hearing and subsequent media interviews violated the Judicial Code of Conduct. Akers had also been interviewed by WV MetroNews on March 3, which her attorney said she was praised for by the West Virginia Supreme Court.

“Judge Akers’ comments complied with the applicable Rules of Judicial Conduct,” according to a statement released Thursday by attorneys representing Akers. “Indeed, her statements were in line with those made by other judicial officers who have spoken at legal seminars, public events and to legislative bodies, often while the media is present. In fact, the Supreme Court positively highlighted her interview in a social media post.

“While Judge Akers is mindful of the JIC’s important role in ensuring integrity of the judiciary, she respectfully disagrees with the Commission’s legal conclusion in her case,” the statement continued. “Accordingly, Judge Akers feels compelled to pursue her objection, not only to vindicate her own conduct, but provide clarity for the scope of the judiciary’s role in helping build ‘public understanding of and respect for courts and the judicial system,’ as expressly called for under the Judicial Code.”

Despite the alleged violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the commission found that formal discipline against Sweeney and Akers was not necessary given their impeccable judicial records and lack of previous punishments, choosing instead to publicly admonish them.

According to the West Virginia Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure, Akers and Sweeney had 14 days from the date of their admonishments to file their objections. The next step is for the JIC to file formal charges against the judges with the Clerk of the state Supreme Court. The judges will then have 30 days to file written responses to the charges. A Judicial Hearing Board will then conduct hearings on the formal JIC complaints and make recommendations to the Supreme Court.

Steven Allen Adams can be reached at sadams@newsandsentinel.com.

Starting at $2.99/week.

Subscribe Today