Judicial oversight committee says Troy judge may have signs of early dementia

By Kara Berg, kberg@detroitnews.com

An Oakland County District Courtroom choose with a public grievance of judicial misconduct in opposition to her has now been moreover accused of probably exhibiting signs of early-stage dementia, based on a brand new submitting from the Michigan Judicial Tenure Fee.

Troy’s 52-4 District Courtroom Decide Kirsten Nielsen Hartig was accused in June of withholding the outcomes of her psychological well being investigation from the Judicial Tenure Fee for months, assaulting court docket workers and improperly dismissing instances, based on the uncommon public grievance filed in opposition to Hartig.

The fee, which investigates all allegations of judicial misconduct in Michigan, filed a second grievance Friday about Hartig, which alleged based mostly on psychological testing that given Hartig’s age, “an rising dementia-like syndrome is excessive on the differential listing.” The kind of dementia the take a look at raised issues about would have an effect on her emotional regulation and character, in addition to her judgment, downside fixing and planning, based on the JTC grievance.

The JTC wrote that the outcomes of the evaluations and different proof of her psychological standing present that Hartig “has a psychological incapacity that forestalls the efficiency of her judicial duties.”

Hartig was faraway from her prison instances efficient Might 27 following an administrative order from District Decide Travis Reed, chief choose of the 52nd District Courtroom. Hartig presently handles normal civil, landlord-tenant and small claims instances.

Reed referred his remark to Oakland County spokesman Invoice Mullan, who declined to remark.

Hartig’s lawyer, Don Campbell, didn’t reply to a request for remark Monday.

Hartig underwent an impartial psychological analysis in September 2024. On the identical time, she once more refused to supply a report back to the JTC about earlier psychological checks she had taken, based on the JTC.

Hartig and Campbell filed a movement in September to dismiss the majority of the JTC’s grievance as a result of it was “legally poor,” they and Campbell wrote.

Within the movement, Campbell mentioned that when Hartig refused to present the JTC her psychological analysis, together with a letter from an lawyer objecting to it, the JTC did nothing about it for months. It may have requested a court docket to resolve the difficulty, but it surely “failed to deal with the matter in any respect,” Campbell wrote. Hartig finally handed over the report back to the JTC in December 2024.

The preliminary psychological analysis discovered that Hartig had impairments that had been essential to her capacity to carry out her judicial duties, comparable to studying and remembering visible particulars, remembering particular details and altering focus from one activity or activity to the following, which the JTC famous had been of explicit significance “as this might trigger additional confusion of data whereas presiding over a case.”

In December 2025, when Hartig took one other neuropsychological analysis, she had comparable issues and in addition struggled with government capabilities. In response to the JTC, some checks confirmed a decline between September 2025 and December 2025.

The analysis discovered that Hartig’s efficiency sample on a measure of visible studying and reminiscence retention was irregular. When her research and work historical past are taken under consideration, the findings are away from neurocognitive decline and in line with a medical analysis of gentle neurocognitive dysfunction, the JTC mentioned. The Mayo Clinic defines neurocognitive dysfunction as an “intermediate stage between typical pondering expertise and dementia.”

When refusing to launch the psychological report back to the JTC, Hartig argued that she had issues about how the report could be dealt with, which she mentioned proved to be legitimate when the JTC allegedly misused the report.

Hartig mentioned the incorrect statements she made to the committee had been errors, not an try to mislead them, and due to this fact not misconduct.

The JTC additionally accused Hartig of failing to adjust to prosecutors’ calls for about her function, after which dismissing instances when prosecutors did not do their jobs. Hartig isn’t required to present prosecutors management over her function, and it could have been unethical for Hartig to cede that authority to at least one aspect in a contentious case, based on Hartig and Campbell’s movement in September.

“At worst, dismissing the instances with prejudice slightly than with out prejudice was a commonplace authorized error. It was not misconduct,” the movement mentioned.

Reed twice wrote to Michigan Supreme Courtroom Administrator Decide Thomas Boyd to request Hartig’s removing from listening to instances, based mostly on his issues in regards to the security of litigants, attorneys, witnesses and workers, however was denied each instances.

Already’s first letter to Boyd, dated April 25, cited a February 26 dialog during which she allegedly disclosed to him {that a} psychological well being analysis had discovered her “mentally ‘unsafe’ and ‘unfit’ for work.”

Hartig was first elected in 2010 and was re-elected in 2016 and 2022.