Christopher A. Hackman is a judge of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania.
I am writing this article based on my knowledge of facts about a friends custody battle in front of [Judge Hackman. It is my belief that Lancaster County Common Pleas Judge Christopher A.] Hackman should be removed from this case and investigated. I am hoping that writing this article will make the public aware of what is going on inside of a Lancaster County court room. I am also writing this article with the hopes that others who have experienced the same situation with Judge Hackman will come forward.
Judge Hackman has broken multiple judicial rules:
Rule 1915.8 (a) and (c) =- Physical & Mental Examination of Persons
Rule 1915.11-2 (a) and (b) – Appointment of guardian ad litem
Rule 2.2 – Impartiality and Fairness
Rule 2.3 (c) – Bias, Prejudice and Harassment
Rule 2.5 (a) – Competence, Diligence and Cooperation
Rule 2.6 (a) and (b) – Ensuring the Right to Be Heard
Rule 2.7 – Responsibility to Decide
Rule 2.8 (a) and (b) – Decorum, Demeanor and communication with Jurors
Back Story:
Based on multiple hearings between March 2013 and June 2014, and the testimony of three therapists, a pediatrician and the guardian ad litem (an advocate for children’s best interests appointed by the Judge presiding over the case), Judge Hackman awarded primary physical and legal custody to parent A, allowing only supervised contact between Parent B and the children. He also ordered a psych eval be done on Parent B.
Testimony included: inappropriate sexual comments being made to child A about a rape by Parent B’s oldest child; mental abuse and drug use in Parent B’s home; the therapists personal fear of Parent B; the fact that Parent B will not stop inappropriate comments about Parent A and the guardian ad litem; Parent B not allowing prescribed medications to be taken by the children; Parent B causing a scene in the pediatrician’s office and causing extreme, measurable anxiety in child B; child C’s fears of weapons and drugs in Parent B’s home; Parent B’s bribery of the children prior to the custody hearing, offering expensive gifts in exchange for repeating the testimony Parent B provided them.
Review hearing: Parent B had started psych eval (not completed), but had made no attempt to see the children.
More evidence is presented showing continued drug and alcohol use by parent B.
It is shown that Parent B has stopped paying child support, claiming to be off work due to injury. Judge Hackman allows Parent A and the children to relocate – stating a fresh start would be good for all involved and that the move would allow Parent A and Parent A’s spouse to be able to better support the children.
Judge Hackman continues with the order that Parent A have sole physical and legal custody, he tells Parent B that the court order needs to be followed – that Parent B needs to pay the guardian ad litem; stop drinking; stop inappropriate FB posts; that it is Parent B’s responsibility to contact the schools and therapists for information and to set up visits. Judge Hackman emphasizes it is not Parent A’s responsibility to supply Parent B with all information, nor is it Parent A’s responsibility to set up the supervised visitation.
Support Hearing: It had been over a year since Parent B has paid any child support.
Parent A brings copies of Parent B’s bank statements, showing regular multi-thousand dollar deposits as well as a multi-thousand dollar balance. As well as 2 years of tax returns showing a 6-figure salary.
Parent B is questioned as to where the deposits are coming from since they are claiming to be unemployed. Parent B states that they do not know where the deposits are from. Parent A asks for further explanation, Judge Hackman stops testimony and allows Parent B to continue paying $0 in child support.
Judge Hackman than orders that the county pay Parent B’s debts to the guardian.
Review hearing: Parent B had finished the psych eval. The evaluation recommended that Parent B receive drug and alcohol counseling as well as anger management counseling. Parent B has still not made any attempt to set up visitation with the children (it has now been 8 months since Judge Hackman ordered supervised visitation). It was clear that Judge Hackman had not reviewed testimony from ANY of the previous hearings.
Judge Hackman lashes out at Parent A asking why Parent B has not seen children. Parent A states that Parent B has made no attempt to contact them in regards to setting up visits, nor has Parent B even done so much as to call/email to see how the children are doing. Judge Hackman than yells at Parent A, stating that the court order is just a suggestion, it does not have to be followed and that Parent A should have done more to facilitate Parent B in seeing the children. Parent A states that the order also recommends following the recommendations of the therapists, and that current therapists are recommending supervised or no contact with Parent B. Judge Hackman orders Parent A to make the visits happen.
Guardian ad litem requests that the recommendations of the therapist that did the psych eval on Parent B be completed. Guardian ad litem also testifies that since the last hearing, Children and Youth have removed Parent B’s grandchild from the home due to domestic violence and drug use. The guardian asks Judge Hackman to hear testimony from Children and Youth case worker. Judge Hackman refuses to hear from caseworker in Children and Youth case and states that there is no reason for Parent B to seek drug and alcohol counseling or anger management counseling, as neither of these issues have any bearing on child custody.
Judge Hackman will not allow any more evidence showing the continued alcohol and drug use in Parent B’s home to be entered, then states that not enough evidence has been shown to keep Parent B from the children.
Guardian ad litem asks Judge Hackman to please recall the testimony of all 4 professionals at the original custody hearing, Judge Hackman silences her and says that she is blowing things out of proportion.
Judge Hackman allows Parent B to use profanity and to direct derogatory comments to Parent A, Parent A’s attorney and the guardian ad litem.
Judge Hackman threatens Parent A by stating “you either come to an agreement with Parent B or I will do it for you and you will not like it”.
Support Conference: Parent B is now paying $30/week in child support for 3 children.
Since this hearing, Parent B has had 2 supervised visits and 1 therapeutic visit with the children. Parent B constantly expressed their dislike of the supervised visits and requested that Parent A supervise visits. Parent A agreed (out of fear that if they did not agree, Judge Hackman would punish them for not being accommodating). Parent A supervised 3 visits, as things were seemingly going well, the guardian ad litem recommended that Parent A allow a few hours of unsupervised time to see how things would go. This visit was a complete disaster:
Parent B spent most of the visit showering children with gifts, telling them that they should come live at their house, promising more gifts if they come live there. Parent B also spoke negatively about Parent A during the entire visit. At the end of the visit Parent B called the police on Parent A, informed the police that the children were in danger (in front of children), than had the children verify the story with the officer. Parent B also contacted Children and Youth and reported the abuse. In one weekend Parent B was once again able to turn the children’s lives upside-down.
All of the children have since recanted their stories, stating that they only agreed with what Parent B was saying in order to receive all of the gifts that they were being promised.
Parent B has now been able to hire an attorney (keep in mind that they still “can’t afford to pay child support”) and file an emergency petition for full custody of children based on the police report and the children and youth report that they filed.
Parent B can no longer afford representation, due to having a court case that has been drug out unnecessarily for almost 3 years by Judge Hackman, and the fact that no/little child support is being paid.
There are 4 professionals involved with the children willing to testify that Parent B should have no or supervised contact with children.
My fear is that Judge Hackman will act in the same manor as he did at the last hearing, thus putting the children in extreme danger.
