Experienced family judge Cees van Leuven is removed from a case due to the appearance of bias. The Zeeland-West-Brabant court decided this on Wednesday.
Lawyer Ine Avontuur submitted a request for recusal after the court requested permission to film a private hearing of her. The recordings were for the documentary Rejectedin which Van Leuven collaborates. That film is about parental alienation, of which Avontuur’s client is accused. The lawyer retaliated against the judge because she no longer had confidence that he could still judge the case independently.
Van Leuven has regularly appeared in the media in recent years as an expert in the field of complex family matters
Her client is involved in a long-term conflict with her ex-partner over custody and access to two young children. The mother states that there is domestic violence and safety risks for the children, while her ex-partner accuses her of parental alienation. This occurs when a child loses contact with a parent, for example due to negative influence from the other parent.
In the request for recusal, viewed by NRCAvontuur writes that Van Leuven’s cooperation in the documentary had given rise to her client’s “objectively justified fear” that the judge could no longer look at her case with an open mind.
Successful recusal requests are very rare. Of the 714 requests submitted last year, only 8 were granted, according to the annual report of the Council for the Judiciary.
The Family Advocate
Van Leuven (72) is considered an authority in family justice. He previously served as a judge at the courts of The Hague and Den Bosch. Nowadays he is a deputy judge at the Zeeland-West-Brabant court. In recent years he has regularly appeared in the media as an expert in the field of complex family matters.
Van Leuven also provides training for family judges and took the initiative for projects outside the judiciary, such as The Family Lawyer, which aim to prevent escalation between parents. He was also chairman of the Parental Alienation Expert Team, a panel set up by the Ministry of Justice.
According to critics, including Avontuur, this strong focus on restoring communication between parents means that judges pay too little attention to domestic violence and intimate terror. Safety risks for women and children can thus be underestimated, Avontuur writes in the challenge request.
Also read
Judges must take risks from violent fathers seriously
Broadcaster MAX
Avontuur received notice two weeks in advance that her client’s case would be heard on May 7. Van Leuven was assigned as a judge, while at the same time he was also scheduled for summary proceedings from an office colleague of Avontuur. Another judge was later appointed for that case.
This course of events gave Avontuur the impression that Van Leuven chose her client’s case herself. A week later she received an email from the court requesting permission for the recordings. Attached was a letter of consent from producer Memphis Features, which showed that Rejected is made by journalist Frénk van der Linden in collaboration with Omroep MAX. The statement states that “the role of grandparents in complex divorces” will be central. The documentary makers would also follow judge Susanne Tempel.
Rejection is often cited by fathers, who say they are wrongly accused of domestic violence or intimate terror
Avontuur did not agree to the recordings. In consultation with her client, she decided to challenge Van Leuven. They stated that the combination of the documentary and Van Leuven’s public activities on parental alienation raise doubts about his impartiality.
Parental alienation is controversial in family law. In cases involving custody and access, this repudiation is regularly invoked by fathers who claim that they are wrongly accused of domestic violence or intimate terror.
Responsible for the email
Van Leuven did not accept the challenge. He stated that he had only designated a number of suitable hearing days for the documentary and had not selected Avontuur’s trial himself. He felt it was unjustified that as a judge he would not pay sufficient attention to domestic violence and intimate terror. In terms of content, he is “open to all possibilities” of a case, he told the recusal chamber two weeks ago.
The room judges that Van Leuven had no influence on the allocation of the case. She also sees no reason to assume Van Leuven’s bias in Van Leuven’s side activities.
The situation is different with the consent statement that the court emailed. The recusal chamber considers it likely that this gave Avontuur’s client the appearance of bias on the part of Van Leuven, because she is now accused of parental alienation. The fact that the judge did not specifically select this lawsuit does not change this: he is responsible for the email.
Van Leuven does not want to reflect on the ruling of the recusal chamber. “I will not provide any further explanation about the ruling,” he said through a court spokesperson. Asked whether his side activities, such as the chairmanship of the Expert Team on Parental Alienation, do not conflict with judicial independence, he refers to the chamber’s ruling. It ruled that “my additional tasks and additional functions do not give rise to (the appearance of) bias.”
Documentary makers
The Zeeland-West-Brabant court states this Rejected is an old working title on a subject that the court did not want to participate in. It has therefore been agreed with the makers that they will focus on the question: “What is (essentially) about in the complex cases involving children and parents; how do judges deal with this?”
To date, the makers of Rejected no family court case filmed yet. And that is not going to happen: in response to the request for recusal, the court has stated that they are not allowed to film any private hearing.
Also read
Report: coercion to continue seeing both parents after a divorce can damage children
