In a child protection proceeding, the incarcerated father's lawyer obtained a production order from the criminal court to have the father transported to family court for a routine appearance.
The family court convened a conference to address the process, finding that the order was improperly obtained without notice, was procedurally defective, and caused unnecessary logistical and security issues.
The court emphasized that prisoner production to family court is not an entitlement for routine appearances and must satisfy the necessity test under Family Law Rule 23(10).
