Robert DePaz, Jr. was ordered to take a hair follicle test to determine if he had been using illegal drugs, by Judge Julianne Eisman, sitting in the Family Court of Nassau County. At the time Judge Eisman ordered the test, the lawyers for the children’s mother requested Judge Eisman to direct DePaz “not to cut his hair again until a hair follicle test is done.” Judge Eisman stated the tester “would find a hair on his body, wherever it is, and have it tested.”
DePaz shaved his entire body prior to appearing for the hair follicle test. The tester was unable to conduct the test because he had no hairs on his body.
Judge Finds DePaz In Contempt
Upon appearing before Judge Eisman, DePaz was found in contempt. She ordered him incarcerated for 90 days. Mr. DePaz’ attorney appealed to the Appellate Division (an Appeals Court).
The Appellate Court held since Judge Eisman did not order DePaz to refrain from shaving his body, her ruling to incarcerate him was overturned. The Appellate Court, in its decision stated “contrary to the Family Courts determination, its statement in open court…that the individual designated to perform the hair follicle test ‘would find hair on the father’s body wherever it is and have it tested’ does not qualify as a lawful order of the court clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate which is necessary to support a finding of contempt.”
Mr. DePaz’ lawyer stated “if you are going to tell an individual to do something, you have to spell it out” especially if you are a Judge!
About The Author
Elliot S. Schlissel, Esq. is a father’s rights lawyer representing fathers concerning visitation and custody issues, divorces and other family legal related matters.
About Elliot S. Schlissel
