The Court Report
Jing and Tristram Kelly Update: “A Shameful and Grievous Commentary On The
Condition Of The New York State Unified Court System”
The following is a report from attorney Robert Wayburn who has alternately been representing Jing Kelly and her parents in their struggle to be reunited with Jing’s now-7-year-old son Tristram for more than five years.
The court appearance in Jing’s case was brief Tuesday morning, August 28th. The trial lawyer for ACS and
the Legal Aid Society trial lawyer, the assigned law guardian, were both away on vacation.
ACS submitted a new Permanency Plan Report which was supposed to have been served 14 days in advance
of the hearing, and, thus, was very late. ACS, noting that Tristram said he was reluctant to continue visitation
sessions with Jing, his “birth mother”, if by his doing this, he would be making it more likely that he will be uprooted from his current home in California (with Doug and Cori Kelly) and sent to New York City to live with Jing.
Jing noted that this was an astute observation to be made by a seven-year old child and, thusly, she wonders if
it is the product of discussions about the pending litigation held between Tristram and Doug and Cori Kelly.
ACS concluded that further visitation should be denied until such time as Tristram requests it be resumed. It would be strange, indeed, for a seven-year-old boy to be in control of visitation. The ACS recommendation in this regard is totally unacceptable to Jing.
Judge Schechter granted Mr. Schiff ’s application to consolidate the custody petition of Douglas and Cori Kelly with the permanent neglect proceeding. Jing objected to this but to no avail. On September 4, 2007, the court was scheduled to establish trial dates for both cases.
In the meanwhile, Jing still has no contact with her son, neither by telephone, nor by e-mail, nor by regular mail. How is Tristram to get to know his mother if he continues to be kept isolated. No new visits were scheduled.
I objected to the report of the social worker who monitored the visits in California, noting that it was beyond the scope of her court appointment order to make recommendations. That objection will be decided on the next court date.
All in all, it was a disappointing day for Jing. Tristram will never be reunited with her if he is left in the care of Doug and Cori Kelly and Mr. Schiff may substantially delay the new permanency hearing by being permitted to call his custody witnesses first. Jing feels she and Tristram were not given a chance to work things out between them. No competent decision can be based solely on five visitation sessions between a seven-year-old boy and his mother, neither of whom have seen each other for more than four years.
What we are now witnessing in this American Family Court Tragedy is the fulfillment of the most fervent
and cruel wishes of Gail Kelly Hiler and Judge Sara P. Schechter who, for several years, acting in concert, aided
and abetted by other members of the Kelly family, have succeeded in keeping a loving mother and her son apart.
There can be no question that this cruelty has been, and continues to be, at least partially racially motivated, and
has likely been financed by substantial funds left to the child by his deceased father but under the control of Gail
At no time was it ever established that Jing Kelly did anything harmful to her infant son. To the contrary, her taking him to China for some 18 months, when he was barely six months old, was motivated by her justifiable concerns caused by the child’s 24/7 contact with his alcoholic, abusive father in the Hiler household, in blatant defiance of court-imposed restrictions limiting his contact to supervised visitation.
All of the unlawful activities which Judge Schechter has engaged in with respect to this mother and child, as well as all of the perjury, connivance and cruelty employed by Gail Hiler in their joint malicious and bigoted scheme against this loving mother, cannot be permitted to succeed in perpetuity by virtue of the harm already imposed. The fact that this un-Constitutional and inhumane scheme has flourished unfettered, either by rulings or mandamus from the Appellate Division, First Department, insisting upon the reunification of mother and child, nearly two years ago, is a shameful and grievous commentary on the condition of the New York State Unified Court System.