On Thursday, July 3, 2025, West Virginia Circuit Court Judge Tim Sweeney filed an objection with the state Judicial Investigation Commission (JIC) in response to a written admonishment issued on June 12, 2025, regarding Complaint No. 13-2025.
The complaint, mailed to Sweeney on February 12, 2025, relates to an administrative order he issued on February 3, 2025, aimed at addressing staffing shortages in the Department of Human Services (DHS) child welfare system. Sweeney argues that the admonishment is contrary to law and fact, incorporating his earlier response to the complaint dated March 20, 2025, into his objection.
Sweeney’s objection outlines four key arguments. First, he asserts that his administrative order was intended to protect children under DHS care. The objection highlights that DHS operates with only 25% of the recommended number of Child Protective Services (CPS) workers, with some workers managing caseloads of up to 100 families, far exceeding the recommended 10 children per worker. This understaffing, Sweeney claims, has led to children experiencing violence, medical distress, and suicide due to inadequate services. Despite multiple show cause hearings with DHS leadership, Sweeney reports receiving only unfulfilled promises, prompting his order to address the crisis.
Second, Sweeney defends the legality of his administrative order, which assigned abuse and neglect cases to DHS leadership and required their court appearance to confirm assignments. He cites the inherent judicial authority to issue such orders, referencing legal precedent that allows judges to mandate actions under pain of contempt to ensure compliance. Sweeney argues that the JIC failed to explain why his order was unlawful, asserting that his actions were based on good-faith legal arguments to ensure proper CPS staffing in his circuit.
Third, Sweeney contends that his media interviews about the child welfare crisis did not violate state law or judicial conduct rules. He denies disclosing specific information about children, focusing instead on DHS’s systemic failures. Sweeney also argues that the interviews did not breach rules prohibiting judicial statements on pending cases, as his order required only administrative confirmation from DHS leadership, not adjudication. He distinguishes his actions from those of judges seeking publicity, emphasizing his intent to protect vulnerable children.
Finally, Sweeney challenges the JIC’s claim that his actions violated judicial conduct rules concerning public perception. He argues that his actions enhanced, rather than undermined, public confidence in his honesty, impartiality, and fitness to serve. Sweeney notes that statewide news coverage has largely supported his efforts, reflecting positive public perception of his commitment to child welfare.
In his objection, filed under Rule 2.7(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure, Sweeney requests that the admonishment be overturned, arguing it is unwarranted by law and fact. He reserves the right to object to other aspects of the admonishment related to his administrative order.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
