Complaint 1: Ingrid L. Campbell submitted a complaint to the Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline on April 22, 1998 against Family Court Judge Paul Suttell.

In the fall of 1995, Ms. Campbell sought to relocate with her daughter to the State of Tennessee to be with her husband. The father had initially agreed to the move, but would later change his mind and a hearing commenced. The hearing came before Judge Paul Suttell.

Ms. Campbell had her daughter living with her since the child’s birth in 1987. There was extensive testimony as to the fact that the child’s father had abandoned the family and had not bothered to exercise his visitation rights. Ms. Campbell testified as to a journal she had maintained for a period of over four years, which documented the father’s absence in the child’s life. Eighteen entries to the journal had documented times when the father told the child he would be coming to visit, but he never bothered to show up or even to call and cancel. The journal documented that on the rare occasion that the father would exercise his visitation rights, it would correspond to a holiday or special event, but never just for the sake of visiting. Ms. Campbell was never cross-examined regarding the journal, rendering it an uncontradicted material piece of evidence.

During the father’s testimony, he was unable to name a single time that he had ever done anything alone with the child. The father testified that his visitation attempts were "free and easy" and that Ms. Campbell did not frustrate visitation. In addition, his testimony as to visitation times was completely inconsistent with what he had told the investigator who had performed the Home Study.

In spite of this, Judge Suttell concluded that the father had been diligent with his visitation. Judge Suttell was unable to substantiate this finding with any of the evidence presented. He blatantly ignored evidence.

Judge Suttell blatantly ignored other important evidence as well. The father had been a deadbeat dad for years. The Family Court file is replete with motions filed by Rhode Island Child Support Services (RICSS), in an effort to collect on back support. At the time of the trial, Judge Suttell had two court documents before him, which he chose to completely disregard. One was a computerized accounting from RICSS, which indicated an arrearage of over $1,800.00. The other was the Home Study, in which the father claimed to be current with all child support payments. Another lie told by the father and ignored by Suttell.

A judge is required to review evidence, not to ignore it. Judge Suttell did not do this. He was grossly negligent in his duties. The Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline returned its usual rubber-stamped answer on June 11, 1998: "After careful review of the complaint, the Commission found no violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct or Canons of Judicial Ethics and has therefore closed its file in this matter."  Email Ingrid Campbell or view supporting documentation.