Editorial: This flap not exactly child’s play

Tuesday, Nov. 9, 1999 | 9:13 a.m.

Divorce can be the most emotionally wrenching time in an individual's life. The breakup can lead to words and deeds which, in the heat of the moment, would never be made under normal circumstances. Agreements over a child's custody and how to equitably split property and assets can be hard to reach -- often they must be decided by a judge if the couple can't reach a decision on their own.

In his seven years as a Family Court judge, Gerald Hardcastle has seen his share of bitterness in divorce cases. Normally the public doesn't hear much about what goes on in Family Court since the hearings often are closed to the public. But Hardcastle was so frustrated with a particular case that he invited the media to attend a hearing on Friday. What had exasperated Hardcastle? A couple divorced four months ago still couldn't agree on how to divide their Beanie Babies collection, prompting the ex-husband to file a motion to get his share.

"I'd just had enough," Hardcastle told the Sun's Stacy Willis. "We spend a lot of time dealing with some simply unreasonable issues. They are time-consuming, expensive issues. A lot of our calendar is made up of just this kind of nonsense." Hardcastle's solution was straightforward. He had the Beanie Babies placed on the floor of the courtroom, and Hardcastle had each ex-spouse pick a collectible, alternating the selection until each Beanie Baby had been picked.

This must have been humiliating for the couple, but this episode should serve important purposes. First, it might help another couple unfortunately mired in a divorce proceeding; maybe they will remember what can seem so important to them at the moment also can appear to be petty to an unbiased outsider. Second, it helps the public understand better the difficulties that judges face. While the Beanie Babies certainly were valuable -- the collection was estimated to range between $2,500 to $5,000 -- the fact that the couple couldn't agree on a simple way to divide them shows how intractable litigants can be on seemingly easy side issues, let alone those involving the big picture. This acrimony not only takes away from the more important issues a court has to address on a given divorce case, but it also diverts attention from other proceedings that Family Co urt must hear, whether it's complex divorce cases or issues involving child abuse or neglect.

Family Court has had its share of problems in recent years, including decisions that seem at odds with the available evidence, so judges aren't immune to criticism themselves. But Hardcastle's decision to let the public see what kind of issues Family Court judges must confront does help put into context the difficult job these jurists face when litigants can't agree on issues that needlessly consume the court's time.