Domestic Relations Work Group

July 24, 2000

Present:

Justice Bobbe Bridge, chair
Mr. Doug Becker
Judge Patricia Clark
Judge Karlynn Haberly
Ms. Michele Jones
Noella Rawlings
Ms. Mary Wechsler
Mr. Michael Curtis

Not Present:

Mr. Tim Botkin

Justice Bridge called the meeting to order. Because all in attendance knew each other, introductions were dispensed with.

Review of the legislatively-funded Unified Family Court demonstration projects
Michael Curtis provided a basic overview of the OAC/Unified Family Court pilot project. Enacting legislation was distributed to the DR Work Group prior to the 6/9 DR Work Group meeting. Pilot sites are in King, Snohomish and Thurston Counties. The legislature appropriated $200,000 for the project. However, $50,000 of the appropriation was dedicated to the project evaluation. The OAC subsequently obtained $50,000 in additional funding to support the project from the federal Children's Justice Grant ($25,000) and Court Improvement Grant ($25,000). In exchange for their assistance with data collection in support of the research component of the project, the OAC allocated to the projects a portion of the $50,000 specifically designated for the project evaluation. These funds in addition to the grant funds allowed the OAC to fund the projects as the levels requested in their proposals.

Due to request for proposal (RFP), site selection and contracting procedures, on-site project implementation did not commence until February 2000. The project is only funded for the biennium (i.e., until June 30, 2001), although a final report on the project is not due until December 1, 2004, allowing time for a longitudinal evaluation of the project's impact.

Justice Bridge added that it was hoped to have in attendance at today's meeting, Judge Mattson and Mary Coleman from the King County project and Judge Casey from the Thurston County project. However, arrangements were not made in time for this to occur. They will be invited to attend the next task group meeting scheduled for August 4. It was also suggested that Clallam County Superior Court Commissioner Bill Knebes should be invited to present information on his program and its applicability to smaller, rural judicial districts.

Other Washington models for consolidating domestic (including domestic violence) and juvenile offender and dependency cases
Information with regard to the program in Clallam County was distributed prior to the meeting. In Clallam County, Superior Court Commissioner Bill Knebes is the judicial officer who hears juvenile and domestic relations matters. In addition he has also been appointed as a district court commissioner, and in that capacity presides over domestic violence cases. Commissioner Knebes will be invited to attend the next meeting to discuss the UFC concept in jurisdictions with smaller populations.

Justice Bridge informed of the domestic violence case management system recently implemented in Clark County. In Clark County, DV cases initiate at the district court level and are heard by "specialized" DV judges . If a defendant has a pending domestic relations action in superior court, or if a domestic relations action arises during the pendency of a domestic violence no-contact order, the superior court cedes to the district court judge, jurisdiction over the domestic relations matter. This is accomplished by appointing the district court judge as a superior court commissioner pro tem.

Justice Bridge also reported that King County recently started a specialized DV court program. However, the interface is with DV and criminal actions and criminal case jurisdiction is not transferred to the district court (from superior court). The system incorporates a cross jurisdictional communication system, enabling better case coordination between the superior and district courts.

In addition to the Washington State efforts, the task group decided to review established UFC programs in the states of Hawaii, Nevada and New Jersey.

Essential components of a unified family court
During a discussion on the topic, the following were identified as essential components of a UFC:

• Case management:
  • technology providing on-line access to pertinent data;
  • one judge or judicial team/one family model;
  • case coordination (consolidating or linking);
  • case monitoring;
  • case planning conferences;
  • alternative dispute resolution (However, arbitration was identified as an ADR form that does not mesh well with family law.); and
  • clear direction upon leaving the courtroom (e.g., necessary appointments scheduled during the hearing, copy of court order indicating what is to be done next, by whom and the date/time of the next hearing.)
• Training/education:
  • Training should be for judicial decision makers, program staff, and staff of other disciplines involved in the system;
  • Training should include substantive law, court rules, case law as well as related social issues (e.g., child development, family dynamics, treatment modalities, etc);
  • Training should be provided at the local level and be on-going; and
  • There should be a special training for judicial officers emphasizing judicial leadership (in the courtroom and in the community).
• Program support services:
  • Family law resource center;
  • Drop in child care;
  • On-line information (or hard-copy packets) of social and legal resources in the community and identifying contacts for each resource;
  • Co-located facilities/on-site services (e.g., drug, paternity testing, child support enforcement, etc.); and
  • For the judiciary to encourage involvement, reduce burn-out.

Specific components for success in consolidating domestic, juvenile offender and dependency cases
The task group agreed that much can be learned from those involved in existing UFC programs and looks forward to the input from these individuals at the next task group meeting. However, those in attendance identified the following non-exhaustive list of components that they believe would contribute to a successful UFC.

• Judicial officers as well as other system actors need to be aware of actions taking place in other courts in order to avoid inconsistent decisions. One means be which to achieve this is the use of information systems enabling access to the court dockets of all case types falling within the jurisdiction of the UFC. Access to this information would enable early identification of a families' current or past involvement in the court system. (NOTE: The Judicial Information System (JIS) DV project incorporated into the information system, the ability to track intra-familial court activity in various case types.);
• Statutes and forms need to "talk to each other" and require consistency;
• Attorneys' training/education should ideally include all case types falling under the jurisdiction of the UFC;
• All system professionals should be involved in multidisciplinary training to obtain a better understanding of roles/services/procedures within the system;
• Record confidentiality issues must be addressed;
• UFC's require an adequate and stable funding source;
• Judicial officers should meet minimum training qualifications and among other factors, be selected based upon their commitment to a UFC process; and
• Judicial rotations into the UFC should be for extended time frames (e.g., 3 years)
• Services should be provided to assist pro-se litigants (e.g., courthouse facilitators; resource centers; interpreters; pro se classes).

Developing an implementation plan
Assess current unified family court models:

• Invite representatives from in-state pilot sites to attend future meetings; and
• Collect information on UFC programs in the states of Hawaii, Nevada and New Jersey

Identify components of a successful UFC/essential components of a UFC:

• Compile list of suggestions from this meeting;
• Incorporate into the list, the 22 recommendations contained in the report: Recommendations for a Model Family Court; and
• Limit the list to not more than 6 major components, with 3 being ideal.

Recommend a desired UFC implementation strategy:

• Obtain input from the UFC pilot project sites; and
• Ensure the proposal addresses/provides for: local variation; jurisdictional reach; applicability (consideration for the population of the judicial district); identification of obstacles to implementation.

Estimate financial impact for the implementation strategy:

• Review budgets of pilot programs; and
• Review UFC budgets of other states' programs (identifying what is included in the program budget).

Develop proposed legislation:

• Survey existing statutory barriers and identify suggested changes in order to eliminate statutory manipulations, as are now required to support existing UFC programs; and
• Develop additional legislative proposals upon the conclusion of the information gathering stages of the process.

Next steps/homework

• Collect information on UFC programs in the states of Hawaii, Nevada and New Jersey - Michael
• Invite representatives from in-state pilot sites to attend future meetings - Michael
• Develop a list of essential components of a UFC using input from this meeting, the 22 recommendations contained in the report: Recommendations for a Model Family Court, keeping the list to not more than 6 major components - Michael
• Survey existing statutory barriers and identify suggested changes in order to eliminate statutory manipulations, as are now required to support existing UFC programs. - all task group members

ORDERLY CASE MANAGEMENT

There should be orderly management of cases by the UFC for the purpose of eliminating duplication of effort, timely resolution of disputes, efficient leveraging of resources, networking with other courts within the court system and out of the jurisdiction and providing consistency of judicial decision making.

Components of Orderly Case Management

• Jurisdiction over cases in which children are involved, including: dissolution, 3^rd-party custody, child support, paternity, domestic violence, dependency, status offenses (CHINS, At-Risk Youth, truancy), and juvenile offender;
• Technology providing on-line access to pertinent data (e.g., knowledge of parties' or other family members' involvement in other court actions, related cases) as well as data for program evaluation;
• Case screening/coordination (consolidating or linking);
• Alternative dispute resolution;
• Extended judicial rotations;
• One judge or judicial team/one family model;
• Case planning conferences;
• Case monitoring; and
• Standardized rules, forms, guidelines and bench books.

APPROPRIATE STAFFING:

The UFC should be staffed with persons who have a strong interest and experience in juvenile and family law. They should have a full understanding of the interconnections of each of the disciplines involved in the UFC and be committed to its workings.

Components of Appropriate Staffing

• Training should be required for judicial decision makers, program staff, and staff of other disciplines involved in the system;
• Training should include substantive law, court rules, case law as well as related social issues (e.g., child development, family dynamics, treatment modalities, etc);
• Training should be provided at the local level and be on-going;
• There should be a special training for judicial officers emphasizing judicial leadership (in the courtroom and in the community);
• Judicial officers should meet minimum training qualifications and among other factors, be selected based upon their commitment to a UFC process.
• Incentives should be provided to UFC judicial officers to encourage extended rotations in UFC (e.g., 4 years) and to diffuse burn out.

COMPREHENSIVE AND ACCESSIBLE SUPPORT SERVICES

The UFC should be physically configured to allow for centralization of operations which will provide a holistic approach to the utilization of resources, allowing for increased public access, efficient use of resources and a comprehensive information base.

Components of Comprehensive and Accessible Support Services

• Family law resource center;
• Drop in child care;
• On-line information (or hard-copy packets) of social and legal resources in the community and identifying contacts for each resource; and
• Co-located facilities/on-site services (e.g., drug, paternity testing, child support enforcement, etc.)