Judge Tim Sweeney
CHARLESTON – Another circuit court judge has filed a formal objection to his admonishment after he spoke to the media about child welfare matters.
Judge Tim Sweeney filed his objection July 3 with the state Judicial Investigation Commission. Sweeney is a judge in the state’s third judicial circuit, which includes Doddridge, Pleasants, Ritchie and Wirt counties. Kanawha Circuit Court Judge Maryclaire Akers also filed an objection last week to her JIC admonishment in a similar incident.
“To be clear, I took these steps for one reason: to protect West Virginia’s children,” Sweeney said in a media statement. “To ensure that the welfare of West Virginia’s children remains foremost among my priorities, and because other judges are faced with similar problems, I am objecting to the JIC’s decision and its admonishment of me for speaking out to protect West Virginia’s most vulnerable.
“As I said in my interview, the buck stops with me when child welfare issues come before me. If I am not willing to speak out to protect our children, I cannot expect other judges to do the same where necessary and appropriate.
“I respect the work and members of the JIC and the role it plays, but I believe that objecting to its admonishment serves a greater purpose in protecting the welfare of children who cannot advocate for themselves.”
The JIC issued its admonishment of Sweeney last month. It began in October 2024 when Sweeney held an abuse and neglect hearing involving a minor who had been severely traumatized. He ordered the child to be placed in an out-of-state treatment facility, but the case fell through the cracks. At a February 3 hearing, Sweeney wanted to know why Child Protective Services had not yet sent the child to placement.
At the hearing, a local CPS worker said they were severely overworked and understaffed. That caused them to have to prioritize cases based on who was safe and who wasn’t by way of threat assessment. One worker said the worker assigned to this case had 100 families in her caseload when the average should be no more than 10.
Sweeney said DoHS had “failed grossly” in looking out for children, and he discussed the process of civil contempt.
“I think that it is unfortunate, and I’m loathe to get into managing the department, what it does, its employees and whether they do their job,” Sweeney said. “However, I think it probably falls upon me to make sure that happens because probably the buck stops here. …
“Maybe we need the commissioner’s name so that I can sign a civil contempt order today to require the commissioner to be incarcerated until this situation is rectified. Well, to do that, I would have to get them here, which could be done. Then maybe that would bring it to the attention of the folks in Charleston. Maybe if it gets in the Charleston Gazette and on MetroNews and in various news feeds, the Legislature might recognize something and realize this is a situation that needs to be addressed.”
Sweeney ordered the parties back for a February 20 hearing to “enter a placement order which speaks for itself to become part of the record in this proceeding to address the matters that have been discussed today.”
In a separate order that day, Sweeney ordered members of the DoHS to appear in court “personally, under penalty of contempt” on February 20 “to receive their case assignments” as CPS workers, removal workers, case workers, “court workers,” etc.
Sweeney admitted to contacting a reporter for The Parkersburg News and Sentinel on February 4 and providing him with a copy of the order and giving an interview. The article appeared in the February 5 newspaper before anyone named in the order had received it. He also talked to MetroNews and The West Virginia Record about the order.
The JIC opened a complaint February 10 against Sweeney alleging he failed to properly provide the DoHS workers with notice and an opportunity to be heard before ordering them to work and that his media interviews were improper. Sweeney provided a sworn statement May 21 to the JDC with his attorney present.
In the statement, Sweeney denied any impropriety with respect to the media interviews. He said he didn’t think he had released any information from an abuse and neglect case, which are confidential. He said he went to the media to “call attention to the issue.”
By a 7-1 vote, the JIC said Sweeney violated five rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct regarding compliance with the law, confidence in the judiciary, judicial statements on pending and impending cases and extrajudicial activities in general as well as participation in charitable, fraternal or civic activities regarding some unrelated posts that he has since removed from social media.
The JIC said formal discipline wasn’t necessary because Sweeney had a reputation for being a good judge, had cooperated in the investigation and had no prior discipline.
“The commission is not unmindful that respondent was trying to do something good for both the children and local DoHS workers when he initiated attempts to correct understaffing in his jurisdiction,” the admonishment states. “As the old saying goes, ‘A good deed is never lost.’ Moreover, ‘every time you do a good deed, you shine the light a little farther into the dark’ as was done in this case.
“Nonetheless, respondent used his flashlight in the wrong manner to achieve the right result. He should have issued a rule to show cause and brought the DoHS officials before him in court to address the matter thereby insulating his comments … since they occurred during the course of his official duties. …
“The commission is of the belief that but for the confidential hearing, the news interviews would never have taken place. Even if we were to agree, which we do not, that the DoHS order was not related to the hearing, respondent scheduled a comeback date for the DoHS officials to appear in court under penalty of contempt.
“At the time he talked to the news media, respondent did not know that the matter would resolve. The DoHS could have filed a writ against the judge, sought injunctive relief or simply not shown up and respondent would then have been obliged to hold them in contempt.
“Thus, either way, there was a pending matter before the court at the time he spoke to the news media.”
In a three-page letter to the JIC dated July 3, Sweeney’s attorney J.H. Mahaney said the judge’s objections fell into four categories: Sweeney acted to protect children, the administrative order was lawful, Sweeney’s interviews were lawful and his actions did not violate the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Sweeney previously told The West Virginia Record he disagree with the admonishment.
“I’m just trying to protect children,” he told The Record. “I’m disappointed that it is not, in my opinion, being properly recognized. I respect the JIC and their opinion.
The JIC also admonished Sweeney for some Facebook posts he had made. It says Sweeney had a Facebook profile photo of him in his judicial robe in a courtroom with an American flag behind him. In addition, the JIC took objection to posts in six categories.
Those include fundraiser posts, law enforcement and prosecutor hiring posts, a tongue-in-cheek post by a sheriff’s department about drug dealers, a post from a sheriff’s department about a wanted fugitive, human trafficking posts and one post about a high-profile Kanawha County sentencing in which he liked some of the comments.
Sweeney told the JIC he made some of the posts for informational purposes and made one because he thought it was humorous. He has since taken down all of the offending posts and changed his primary profile picture.
Judicial Investigation Commission of West Virginia complaint numbers 13-2025 (Sweeney) and 35-2025 (Akers)Top of Form
