EDITORIAL: Family Court selections - Opinion

PRINT THIS Popular

Oct. 17, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Family Court selections

Ten seats, featuring five incumbents, on the ballot

Aside from those who have had a case heard there -- and in those instances, opinions are rarely ambivalent -- public interest in the Family Division of the District Court is sporadic.

On Nov. 4 -- or sooner, with the trend toward early voting -- voters will select judges for 10 departments of the Family Court, half of which are occupied by incumbents. But most voters entering the voting booth won't have a clue who most of those 20 named candidates are.

Most Popular Stories

EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror

LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well

LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Barefooted, gun-toting hayseeds?

LETTERS: Senator just trying to kiss up to Harry Reid

EDITORIAL: 'That's the ticket!'

LETTERS: A giant octopus threatens rural Nevada

EDITORIAL: The time is right

LETTERS: America should try terrorists in open court

EDITORIAL: Religious freedom

Please: no coin-flipping. If you have no idea who these people are, please skip the race. But herewith, our modest attempt to cast some light through the gloom:

In Family Court, Department G, Amy Mastin challenges incumbent Cynthia "Dianne" Steel. Ms. Mastin has been practicing family law -- almost entirely divorce cases -- for 11 years. She acknowledges the incumbent "is unbiased and has integrity."

Judge Steel, who handles primarily abuse and neglect cases, had an acceptable 60 percent retention rating in the Review-Journal's most recent judicial survey. Ms. Mastin says she entered the race so Judge Steel would not go unopposed, but she offers no compelling reason to make a change. Voters can confidently retain hard-working Judge Cynthia "Dianne" Steel.

In Department I, 18-year family law attorney Greta Muirhead challenges eight-year incumbent Judge Cheryl Moss, whose judicial retention rating climbed barely above sea level this year, to a still unimpressive 52 percent.

Judge Moss offers: "I do what everyone does; if one side wants us to seal the case, we sign (the order)." She dismisses the survey of attorneys who have practiced in her court as "a way for attorneys to anonymously take pot shots at us," explaining her calendar is backed up because "every case is important to me."

Greta Muirhead, a fan of open courtrooms who has served as a child support hearing master since 2002, says Child Protective Services "needs to be more vigilant; I'm tired of their excuses."

Department I is not well-run. Perhaps Greta Muirhead can do better.

In Department J, 17-year attorney Kenneth Pollock is challenging incumbent Judge Lisa M. Kent -- formerly Lisa Brown -- whose retention rating in the Review-Journal's 2008 judicial survey was a bottom-dwelling 36 percent.

Judge Kent is personable and intelligent. But from her admission that she's often late to court, to her insistence that cases drag on in her court, she seems out of control and out of her depth -- a mismatch for the job.

Mr. Pollock, an alternative Municipal Court judge who took his law degree at the University of San Diego, has run unsuccessfully for two other judgeships. On the bench, he might find cause to revise his opinion that family law is "no different than any business dissolution." But his assertion that "we need more transparency" in Family Court is encouraging, as is his knowledge of the law and his determination to resolve cases more quickly.

In Department J, Kenneth Pollock is the better bet.

In Department K, 13-year family law practitioner Cynthia Giuliani, whose law degree is from Cleveland State University, is vying with North Las Vegas Alternative Municipal Judge Vincent Ochoa for the bench of Judge Nicholas Del Vecchio, who was properly denied re-election in August's primary.

This race offers county voters a candidate of unusual quality. Mr. Ochoa grew up in a ghetto in Flint, Mich., but managed to earn an economics degree from Michigan State and his law degree from the University of Notre Dame.

Fluent in both English and Spanish, Mr. Ochoa became the first Hispanic deputy attorney general for Nevada in 1979 and has served as a bilingual contract attorney for Juvenile Court for more than 24 years. He is admitted to practice in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th and 6th Circuits. By qualification as well as wisdom and demeanor, towering head and shoulders above the field from the beginning of the primary season, Vincent Ochoa is the better candidate for Department K.

In Department L, Dawn Throne, a graduate of the law school of the University of Arizona, challenges incumbent Jennifer Elliott, who has a respectable 73 percent retention rating.

Before her election to the bench, Judge Elliott was a licensed marriage and family therapist who also served as a Supreme Court settlement judge and as a child custody evaluator for the Family Court. Judge Jennifer Elliott is in her area of expertise; she should be retained.

In Department N, 20-year family law practitioner Mathew Harter and former five-year public defender Gayle Beck Nathan -- both of whom have run for office unsuccessfully in the past -- vie for an open seat. Mr. Harter's vow to "sanction in a heartbeat" those caught lying in court is welcome. Ms. Nathan argues she has more experience in court, but Mathew Harter has the better temperament for this office.

Another open seat, Family Court Department O, has drawn local attorney Ron Israel, who serves as a judge pro tem and has run unsuccessfully for the District Court, and juvenile hearing master Frank P. Sullivan, whose law degree is from DePaul University in Chicago.

The energetic Frank Sullivan lives and breathes the Family Court, and there's little doubt he's serious when he says his guiding question is "What can I do to get Johnny home?" Frank Sullivan should make a fine Family Court judge.

Because of a shuffling of departments, Family Court Judge Sandra Pomrenze says she would not have been allowed to run for re-election as an incumbent at the expiration of her term in Department E, explaining why she is instead campaigning for the new bench in Department P, where she faces local attorney Jack Howard, who has served as a judge pro tem in the Boulder City Municipal Court.

That's unusual. But Judge Pomrenze, who has a strong business background and scores an acceptable 62 percent retention rating, is firm, competent and efficient, asserting "I'm not a warm and fuzzy judge; it was my goal to be consistent."

Sandra Pomrenze is the better choice in Department P.

In Department Q, local personal injury attorney Carl Piazza runs for an open seat against family law attorney Bryce Duckworth, who favors open courtrooms and insists families "need quick closure, not proceedings that drag on."

The relevant experience of Bryce Duckworth, who serves as chairman of the Family Law Executive Council for Nevada and who edited the second edition of the Nevada Family Law Practice Manual, make him a stronger choice for this post.

In Department R, local attorneys Bill Henderson and Chuck Hoskin compete. Mr. Henderson has served both as an alternative hearing master and as a truancy master. Mr. Hoskin has handled exclusively family law matters for the past 17 years and has served as a Family Court judge pro tem for the past six years.

We have recommended a vote for Mr. Henderson in the past. He would make a good judge. It's a close call, but Chuck Hoskin's demeanor and experience make him the better choice in this race.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	46 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. TL wrote on November 17, 2009 01:51 PM: After leaving the court room today and watching a Judge deny a mothers motion for the third time which ultimately affects her sons education.Knowing that the Lawyer for the other side munipulated the Judical system by changing the initail date set in motion by the mother and then showing up to court on that initial date with his client as if the mother disregarded the court date has me NUMB. Here we have a mother whom can't afford to get a Lawyer of her own, trying to keep her sons from becoming Statistics and the judge doesn't care. Instead he hits the mother with the Lawyer fees ($1200.00) for the other side.How can we have any faith in the Judicial system if they keep electing Judges like Mathew Harter. melody nelson wrote on January 29, 2009 05:38 PM: I can understand your comments regarding Judge Sullivan. He lives family court. That's true but he should practice law and fairness in family court. He recently handled a case where he made orders for CPS, which were never followed.He ordered children taken away from a caring grandmother and given to a grandmother that gave her only child away. A grandmother who lives out of state in her parents family basement and is disabled. Judge Sullivan never heard the sound of this women's voice in over 10 court appearences. He never asked her one question. Like, why did you give your only child away. Instead of asking her questions he answered for her as if he was representing her as an attorney. Don't take my word, there's video tape to back up my words. This was not done for the best interest of the kids, but because Judge Sullivan made a terrible error in judgement and he's giving the children away to help him sleep at night. The oldest child begged to go home, a home he lived in since birth. He begged to be with his grandmother who provided him with love, learning, vacations, schooling, and provided a fairy tale life all documented in over three thousand pictures. CPS sided with the judge because of the circumstance of the mother. They never considered the mental or physical well being of the grandchildren. The oldest child reported physical abuse four times to CPS. Judge Sullivan and two CPS workers covered it up. Everything can be verified and is documented if anyone is interested in a serious investigation. The news media should take more of an interest in what goes on in the family courts. anita marlene Pogen wrote on January 14, 2009 06:46 PM: CPS is in contempt of court.They removed my Grandson Jeffrey Pogany from his mother in the home with no valid reason. There was no court order to remove Jeffrey.He was safe in the home we bought in 6/1/97 for her to enjoy with her boys. When I went back home the neighbors wanted her out of the neighborhood and wrote a letter to the county.The county didn`t give Tracy and the boys protection.Street people moved in.She called the police and they ignored her. They had her utilities turned off.She was assaulted on her bike and nearly died.Judge Gibson ordered CPS before all this to take care of their needs and they didn`t.Would our illegals be treated this way?We`re having to rent because our property is unlivable.We are still paying our mortgage taxes and insurances.While Tracy was in the hospitol Jeffrey`s bike was stolen from his bedroom plus many other possessions.A crazy women down the street came in and took the doors off the home.When Tracy came home she nearly froze.An other women threaten to kill Tracy and our whole family and steal Jeffrey.Tracy worked with her at Target and this idiot stole Tracy`s bike and Tracy had to Ride the bus to work.The kids threw rocks at Jeffrey while on his bike and stole his bike at the park.The neighbor Sherrie screams Absentities when she comes outside.She was upset because I didn`t want to rent our rv out.We always kept to ourselves;that was the reason for the lg private porch.People always want the property.They could`ve bought it before me.It`s Vegas we hoped to retire here.My husband is Army retired.Anita England wrote on January 14, 2009 02:42 PM: Don`t vote for Gayle Nathan. She hates men and if she gets on the bench all the guys are gonna lose. Women always win. I hired her for my divorce and she did nothing for me except help me lose everything I own. She even offered advice to the other attorney. She is bad news. Everything she said to me was negative, not a positive word came from her mouth. I could vent for a long time but this is not the place. Check out rip off report and other websites and see what they say about her. Cora wrote on October 30, 2008 11:34 AM: Why would Sandra Pomrenze be the better choice if she is not to be allowed to run for re-election in Dept. E? This Judge favors men, and women have poor outcomes in her courtroom. Her demeanor and lack of understanding Family Court should have her off the bench period. Harter and Elliott are Family Court Embarrassments! wrote on October 26, 2008 04:46 PM: I am so glad to see people finally speaking up about the ill prepared, selfish, unsympatheic people we have at the helm of our family courts. I too have dealt with Harter and feel strongly as to voice my concern with him as a court judge. He belongs to the LDS club and looks down at those who do not share his Mormon boy beliefs. We need someone who is fair and unbiased, not someone who has made up his mind before he's met you in his court room. As for Elliott- what an unprofessional, biased, sarcastic person! Please don't put this judge back on the bench. Finding yourself in family court is heart breaking enough. Having to go through it and placing all your hope in those that have no interest in your family's well being and having to be subjested to insults all the while is enough to drive a person to the edge. DO NOT VOTE FOR HARTER OR ELLIOTT!! Harter Must Not Have Learned The First Time wrote on October 26, 2008 04:30 PM: I guess Mr.Harter hasn't learned from his last attempt at public office Las Vegas are not interested. I too have delt with Mr. Harter in family court & can't believe he's trying to run again?! As far as his no tolerance for lying in court goes, I find it offensive he has the nerve to hide behind his shiney LDS front, when he himself, perges himself & clients as a matter of routine lawyering. However; what are we to expect from a graduate of the New England School Of Law, which continually ranks last in law school rankings, with a virtual open enrollement standard for it's students. Bluntly, it's not a place for the brightest & most talented. Funny...shouldn't the brightest & most talented serve us on the bench? It would be a shame to have a judge on the bench being schooled in the law by the attorneys lawyering in his court. Further, spend some time polling other attorneys practicing in family court regarding Attorney Matt Harter. You'll find his reputation is as a by the pants, unprepared, uneducated attorney. As a father myself, I am offended by Harter placing himself as a pro-Dad "judge to be". He hides behind a shiny Christian cloke, playing the decent & ethical attorney then abushes the opposing side like the Mountian Meadows Masacre with proven lies & deception. Truth eventually is heard, but half the battle in opposing Harter is wasting time & money rebuttling his absurd motions which are like reading a 5th grade book report. Las Vegas has had enough D grade attorneys take office & can't afford another embarressment. Voters: Do your homework & find out who your voting for. pslatinoamericano wrote on October 25, 2008 03:45 PM: Mr. Ochoa represented me in a juvenile case and didn't show up for court-his nickname is "no show ochoa". If he's elected, he won't show up for court--he's lazy and cost me my case. DON'T vote for him. Concerned Parent wrote on October 25, 2008 03:17 PM: Both Judge Elliott and Matt Harter were key players in my children's custody hearing. Both of them are guilty of father bashing and as for Harter not tolerating lying- his clients are among the guilty and he perpetuates it with his digs and sarcasm. I laugh at Harter's endorsement by Equal Rights for Fathers! They both were snowed by the typical story of a helpless ex wife even though I continued to support her financially so she could stay home with our children after the divorce, they painted the picture of the uninvolved, abusive father. How many women can say their ex husbands kept them at home, in the same home, same car, same quality of life after the divorce? It pains me to see the trend of father bashing going on when so many dads only want what is best for their children and to be involved in their lives even after a marriage is over. Please DO NOT VOTE for MATT HARTER OR JUDGE ELLIOTT. Too many children are victims of the court system and need both parents in their lives. And beware to those assigned John Paglini for their court appointed "impartial" psychologist. A pretty face and a lot of money go a long way! Moss Victim wrote on October 24, 2008 09:28 PM: As the election approaches...My heart races..A lump in the throat...Tears in my eyes...I pray that the people of Las Vegas DO NOT VOTE FOR CHERYL MOSS. Putting our children in her hands are as good as dead. TRUST ME...I KNOW. R.I.P. Syber A. Wells Read All Comments