A Mother’s Love
Jing Kelly Implores the Court, In Her Own Words

Editor’s Note: Jing and Tristram Kelly remain 3,000 miles apart, a loving mother and
her only child, victimized by the inhumanity and injustice of the New York State Unified
Court System for more than five years now. And, while the scenario for much of that injustice
has been playing out in New York County (Manhattan) Family Court, in the darkness of
Judge Sara P. Schechter’s ‘Chamber of Horrors’, nevertheless it has deep roots here in Westchester,
where former DA Jeanine Pirro kept Jing locked in jail and out of contact with her
infant son for more than a year prior to trial, having first arranged for his kidnapping by Gail
Hiler, sister of Jing’s deceased, abusive husband.


Attorney Robert Wayburn, working on behalf of Jing’s parents, Tristam’s maternal
grandparents, has been involved with the case since its inception. The Guardian has been
present at many of Jing’s court appearances and Mr. Wayburn has kept our readers frequently
updated. We present his most recent update, accompanied by Jing Kelly’s recently-submitted
Pro Se summation, in order that readers may better understand the horrific situation as
expressed in Jing Kelly’s own words.

It is now more than sixteen months since the November 17, 2005 initial appeal ruling reversing the unlawful March 20, 2003 Family Court award of permanent custody to Tristram’s paternal aunt, Gail Hiler. Still, to this very point in time Jing has been allowed nocontact with her son, Tristram, not by phone, or e-mail, or regular mail, or in person. This protracted delay in implementing visitation between mother and son in this case is due, in large measure, to the determination of the trial judge to delay visitation until the completion of the neglect dispositional hearing. The Appellate Division sixteen months ago, however,directed that a visitation inquiry be held immediately and that the new dispositional hearing be expedited. A delay of sixteen months in completing this hearing (no decision yet) is inconsistent with the mandate of the appellate ruling. Indeed, a mandamus as to visitation was issued by the Appellate Division on August 3, 2006 but to no effect.

After the passage of sixteen months, it appears family therapy will finally be ordered to start for Tristram. Although Jing Kelly sent her check in the sum of $350 to the therapist in California (and ACS was directed to pay $800 but it is not likely that payment has been processed)-- still nothing has happened here. The court order is not yet signed and has not been forwarded to the agency by the Law Guardian. It is anticipated that Tristram will have five therapy sessions in California and then Jing will join him out there for five more sessions.Jing is anxious to see her son. She wants these therapy sessions for Tristram to be started immediately. It is unusual that a respondent mother would be asked to travel to California to visit her son out there (in a neglect case) where, as in this case, no court approved the child being sent to California in the first instance.

Jing suggests an appropriate dispositional order would be a FCA Section 1055 placement of Tristram, under ACS supervision, through the Interstate Compact so California child protective agencies can be requested to cooperate, for a period of four to six months,maximum, while Tristram is prepared for his return to New York City to reside full time with his mother here.

ACS suggests a FCA Section 1055 placement also, but does not set a time limit in their summation (the maximum period is one year) and ACS suggests Jing Kelly be put under their supervision under FCA Section 1057 and ACS opposes visitaton for the maternal grandparents. As noted previously, ACS objected when the court directed them to pay $800 towards the therapy costs for Tristram. They did not discuss this in their summation but presumably they should pay towards Jing’s travel costs to and from California and for additional therapy costs during the placement period.

As noted in Jing’s summation, a good deal of the problems that have arisen here are due to the erroneous rulings of the Family Court trial judge and the improper actions of the paternal relatives in overstepping their bounds as Tristram’s caretaker. ACS and the Law Guardian share some of the blame here too for not arguing to the Family Court that the lawbe properly applied at all times in Jing’s case.

One would think that ACS, the Law Guardian and the Family Court judge would be moving mountains to reunite
this mother and child (given the reversal on two separate appeals of myriad improper, unlawful, and erroneous dispositional orders, and the passage of time where the paternal relatives were enabled to wrongly isolate this mother from herchild). But, neither ACS nor the Law Guardian nor the Family Court trial judge are inclined to recognize these factors and seem to be in no hurry to facilitate the reunification process.

One can only wonder if a third appeal will be necessary to get this matter moving in the right direction. The maternal grandparents dearly want to see Tristram but are willing to wait until Tristram meets Jing in family therapy, and that that situation is going well. Thereis no standing issue as to their visitation entitlement as the initial appeal ruling directed thatvisitation for them be considered by the court.

This was ordered to be done sixteen months ago. In the interim a mandamus was ordered in this same regard. Why is Tristram not yet seeing his mother and maternal grandparents,then? It is a sad commentary on the Family Court that little seems to get done right there.

Bob Wayburn