When husband-and-wife attorneys couldn't find a sitter for their 6-week-old daughter, they took her to court. Now they claim that a Howard County circuit judge's comments about the baby's presence have biased him against their client.
John Condliffe and his wife, Judith Shub-Condliffe, filed court papers yesterday asking for Judge Cornelius Sybert Jr.'s removal from the sexual misconduct case against a Lutheran minister.
They say he made "supercilious" comments when they brought their daughter to court because her day care provider was closed for the Thanksgiving holiday.
Several weeks after the hearing, Judge Sybert dismissed part of their client's suit. In papers requesting the dismissal, defense attorneys had reminded the judge that the Condliffes brought the baby to court.
The Condliffes, who share a law practice in Towson, say Judge Sybert's actions are an example of gender bias in the courts, where women and issues that concern women are sometimes treated unfairly.
"Once you realize that a judge is not going to be able to listen impartially and fairly to a case, there is no other remedy," Ms. Shub-Condliffe said. "As harsh as this is, I think this is the only remedy."
Judge Sybert could not be reached for comment.
Two defense attorneys in the case dismissed the couple's complaints, calling them desperate efforts to save a failing case.
"This is a rather pathetic and outrageous effort by the Condliffes to salvage the case," said Baltimore lawyer Larry Albert.
William Parler Jr., a Baltimore lawyer, defended Judge Sybert's handling of the case. "I cannot think of a more fair-minded judge," he said. "Any charge otherwise by the plaintiffs is absolutely ridiculous."
In addition to the motion for removal, the Condliffes filed a complaint yesterday against Judge Sybert, Mr. Parler, Mr. Albert and his associate Paul Finamore with the Select Committee on Gender Equality. The committee is a group of judges and lawyers set up by the courts to handle such bias complaints.
Susan Elgin, who leads a committee group that investigates complaints, declined to comment, saying complaints are confidential.
The Condliffes represent Susan Romanic, a Columbia woman seeking $156 million in damages from the Rev. Rodney Ronneberg, pastor of St. Paul's Lutheran Church in Fulton. The suit also names St. Paul's, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and its Delaware-Maryland Synod as defendants.
Ms. Romanic, a former parishioner at St. Paul's, claims in the suit filed last March that Mr. Ronneberg manipulated her into having a sexual relationship with him.
Court papers filed by the Condliffes detail proceedings that served as a basis for the request for their actions.
The attorneys had written a letter to Judge Sybert about a month before a Nov. 25 hearing informing him that they could not find a baby sitter that day -- the day after Thanksgiving. They had earlier asked Judge Sybert to reschedule the hearing.
At a meeting in the judge's chambers before the hearing, the Condliffes had again explained why they brought the 6-week-old child.
"Judge Sybert said with a scowl and in a supercilious manner that 'he had had five children and he never once had an occasion where any child interfered with his work,' " court papers say.
The judge then said one of the Condliffes should have stayed home with the baby. The attorneys assert that the comment was aimed at Ms. Shub-Condliffe.
The Condliffes say their client requested both attorneys to attend the hearing, particularly Ms. Shub-Condliffe, because of the sensitive nature of the case.
After the hearing, Judge Sybert dismissed the case against the Lutheran Church and the synod. The Condliffes then filed court papers asking the judge to reconsider his decision. The defense attorneys, meanwhile, filed papers opposing the Condliffes' request.
Mr. Parler, who represents the church and the synod, reminded Judge Sybert in his response that the Condliffes had brought their child to the court hearing.
Mr. Albert and Mr. Finamore, representing Mr. Ronneberg and St. Paul's, also questioned in documents why the Condliffes brought the child to court, calling it an effort to obtain the judge's sympathy.
The Condliffes assert that the lawyers raised the issue in court papers to remind Judge Sybert that he was annoyed when the infant was brought to court.