\n
\n
\nSummary<\/p>\n
There is debate as to whether an Oakland County judge has cognitive difficulties and should be working.\u00a0But what is to be done if officials believe both that there is some basis for concern with Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig\u2019s psychological state and that she is not mentally disabled?\n<\/p>\n
That was central to one question asked on Oct. 5 as the 52-4 District Court judge continued to fight for her job in front of the Judicial Tenure Commission. After weeks of testimony earlier this year on accusations that she behaved badly in office, Hartig appeared in front of the commission in a final plea before it sends her case to the Michigan Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
Hartig\u2019s lawyer Katharine Smith said at the arguments on Oct. 5 that Hartig is no longer fighting a professional misconduct claim that she mistreated courthouse staff, but said her punishment should be no more than a public censure by the state Supreme Court. She argued against Hartig\u2019s removal from office \u2014 as called for by the disciplinary lawyers for the commission \u2014 and the other accusations against Hartig. She specifically disputed the accusation of mental disability tied to alleged cognitive decline.<\/p>\n
To that end, Wayne County Third Circuit Court Judge Qiana Lillard asked Smith what the proper outcome should be if she and her fellow commission members still had lingering concerns over Hartig\u2019s cognitive status.\n<\/p>\n
Smith said that the question in front of them is about true, functional impairment, something she argued is not at play for Hartig.\n<\/p>\n
\u201cThe correct disposition may be some sort of monitoring \u2026 but the question is, \u2018what is her condition right now?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
If the answer isn\u2019t \u201cmental disability,\u201d the commission should reject that part of the case, Smith said.\n<\/p>\n
Yet, lawyers for the commission argued that \u201cmental disability\u201d is, indeed, Hartig\u2019s current state. That\u2019s despite the conclusion of a judge who oversaw hearings in the matter at an earlier stage.\n<\/p>\n
Hartig has continued to sit on the bench and hear cases throughout the process, though her chief judge moved her off felony cases. The commission has not invoked its ability to request Hartig be temporarily removed from her work.\n<\/p>\n
At the hearings at the start of the year, two psychologists testified to Hartig having mild cognitive impairment and noted that high on the potential list of causes was behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. Another psychologist did not agree and took issue with how the other experts reached their conclusions.\n<\/p>\n
The three did agree that someone experiencing the conditions under scrutiny could be expected to get mentally stuck on a topic, be unable to appropriately control their behavior, and struggle with problem-solving, learning information, and organizing information.\n<\/p>\n