CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Kanawha County Circuit Judge MaryClaire Akers says she respectfully disagrees with the West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission (JIC)’s admonishment regarding comments made about the state’s child welfare system.
On March 3, Akers appeared on MetroNews Talkline shortly after she convened a hearing asking Department of Human Services Secretary Alex Mayer to explain the circumstances as to why a 12-year-old in state care attempted suicide.
Akers had issued an order regarding the accountability within the system and appointed a monitor to look at the department and determine what they could improve on. This was after it came out that the state had been using hotels and 4-H camps on a temporary basis to house foster children.
Akers began the interview by stating she would not speak on specifics, saying, “There are lots of rules that govern what I can say publicly. If you guys ask me questions that I’m not allowed to answer, I will tell you. That is because we have rules that apply to the judiciary,” Akers said.
“What I can tell you is what I said in my orders and what I said in open court,” she continued.
Still, the JIC claimed that Akers violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The JIC, in the admonishment, stated that they were not “unmindful” that Akers was “trying to do something good for children who suffer as a result of abuse and/or neglect.”
“The fact remains that respondent cannot talk to the media about pending matters whether it be tied to the underlying case involving the 12-year-old or the one monitoring the DoHS,” the commission continued.
Audio Version
A Wednesday release from Akers’ office maintained that she did comply with the applicable Rules of Judicial Conduct.
The release also said, “By participating in the March 3rd interview, Judge Akers aimed to increase public trust in the judiciary by providing transparency. The JIC’s admonishment in this case, on the other
hand, appears to have had the opposite effect.”
It went on to say, “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. 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.”