Where We Stand: An Analysis of America's Family Law Adjudicatory Systems and the Mandate to Establish Unified Family Courts

Family Law Quarterly

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 31-55

  Babb, Barbara A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1542531345     PISSN: 0014729X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (189)

1. Family law in this article means a comprehensive approach to family law subject-matter jurisdiction, including jurisdiction over cases involving divorce, annulment, and property distribution; child custody and visitation; alimony and child support; paternity, adoption, and termination of parental rights; juvenile causes (juvenile delinquency, child abuse, and child neglect); domestic violence; criminal nonsupport; name change; guardianship of minors and disabled persons; and withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining medical procedures, involuntary admissions, and emergency evaluations. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, §§ 921-928 (Supp. 1996). See also D.C. CODE ANN. § 11-1101 (1995), § 16-2301 to 16-2365 (1997); HAW. REV. STAT. §§ 571-11 to 571-14 (1993); NEV. REV. STAT. § 3.223 (Supp. 1995); N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2A:4A-24 (West 1987); R.I. GEN. LAWS § 8-10-3 (Supp. 1996); and S.C. CODE ANN. § 20-7-736 (Law Co-op 1985 & Supp. 1996).
2. H. TED RUBIN & VICTOR E. FLANGO, COURT COORDINATION OF FAMILY CASES 7 (1992); see also ST. JUSTICE INST., ST. CT. CASELOAD STAT. ANN. REP. 1992 (Feb. 1994), cited in Amy Stevens, The Business of Law: Lawyers and Clients; More Than Just Torts, WALL ST. J., July 1, 1994, at B6 (revealing that family law cases constitute about 35% of the total number of civil cases handled by the majority of our nation's courts, a percentage which constitutes "the largest and fastest growing part of the state civil caseload").
3. H. TED RUBIN & VICTOR E. FLANGO, COURT COORDINATION OF FAMILY CASES 7 (1992); see also ST. JUSTICE INST., ST. CT. CASELOAD STAT. ANN. REP. 1992 (Feb. 1994), cited in Amy Stevens, The Business of Law: Lawyers and Clients; More Than Just Torts, WALL ST. J., July 1, 1994, at B6 (revealing that family law cases constitute about 35% of the total number of civil cases handled by the majority of our nation's courts, a percentage which constitutes "the largest and fastest growing part of the state civil caseload").
4. H. TED RUBIN & VICTOR E. FLANGO, COURT COORDINATION OF FAMILY CASES 7 (1992); see also ST. JUSTICE INST., ST. CT. CASELOAD STAT. ANN. REP. 1992 (Feb. 1994), cited in Amy Stevens, The Business of Law: Lawyers and Clients; More Than Just Torts, WALL ST. J., July 1, 1994, at B6 (revealing that family law cases constitute about 35% of the total number of civil cases handled by the majority of our nation's courts, a percentage which constitutes "the largest and fastest growing part of the state civil caseload").
5. Paul A. Williams, A Unified Family Court for Missouri, 63 UMKC L. REV. 383, 383-84 (1995) (footnote omitted) (quoting Ann L. Milne, Family Law From a Family System Perspective-The Binary Equation, 21 PAC. L. J. 933, 934 (1990)) (detailing Missouri's recent legislative efforts to create a unified family court).
6. Paul A. Williams, A Unified Family Court for Missouri, 63 UMKC L. REV. 383, 383-84 (1995) (footnote omitted) (quoting Ann L. Milne, Family Law From a Family System Perspective-The Binary Equation, 21 PAC. L. J. 933, 934 (1990)) (detailing Missouri's recent legislative efforts to create a unified family court).
7. Jane C. Murphy, Access to Legal Remedies: The Crisis in Family Law, 8 BYU J. PUB. L. 123, 124 (1993)(footnote omitted); see ADVISORY COUNCIL ON FAMILY LEGAL NEEDS OF Low INCOME PERSONS, INCREASING ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR MARYLAND'S FAMILIES 49 (1992)(finding that in 1991, only about 11% of low-income litigants in family law cases were likely to have received legal assistance); see also Karen Czapanskiy, Domestic Violence, the Family, and the Lawyering Process: Lessons from Studies on Gender Bias in the Courts, 27 FAM. L.Q. 247, 273-74 (1993)(indicating that women comprise the majority of poor people); James Podgers, Chasing the Ideal, A.B.A. J., Aug. 1994, at 56, 58 (discussing lack of access to legal services and to the justice system for persons at and above the poverty line).
8. Jane C. Murphy, Access to Legal Remedies: The Crisis in Family Law, 8 BYU J. PUB. L. 123, 124 (1993)(footnote omitted); see ADVISORY COUNCIL ON FAMILY LEGAL NEEDS OF Low INCOME PERSONS, INCREASING ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR MARYLAND'S FAMILIES 49 (1992)(finding that in 1991, only about 11% of low-income litigants in family law cases were likely to have received legal assistance); see also Karen Czapanskiy, Domestic Violence, the Family, and the Lawyering Process: Lessons from Studies on Gender Bias in the Courts, 27 FAM. L.Q. 247, 273-74 (1993)(indicating that women comprise the majority of poor people); James Podgers, Chasing the Ideal, A.B.A. J., Aug. 1994, at 56, 58 (discussing lack of access to legal services and to the justice system for persons at and above the poverty line).
9. Jane C. Murphy, Access to Legal Remedies: The Crisis in Family Law, 8 BYU J. PUB. L. 123, 124 (1993)(footnote omitted); see ADVISORY COUNCIL ON FAMILY LEGAL NEEDS OF Low INCOME PERSONS, INCREASING ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR MARYLAND'S FAMILIES 49 (1992)(finding that in 1991, only about 11% of low-income litigants in family law cases were likely to have received legal assistance); see also Karen Czapanskiy, Domestic Violence, the Family, and the Lawyering Process: Lessons from Studies on Gender Bias in the Courts, 27 FAM. L.Q. 247, 273-74 (1993)(indicating that women comprise the majority of poor people); James Podgers, Chasing the Ideal, A.B.A. J., Aug. 1994, at 56, 58 (discussing lack of access to legal services and to the justice system for persons at and above the poverty line).
10. Jane C. Murphy, Access to Legal Remedies: The Crisis in Family Law, 8 BYU J. PUB. L. 123, 124 (1993)(footnote omitted); see ADVISORY COUNCIL ON FAMILY LEGAL NEEDS OF Low INCOME PERSONS, INCREASING ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR MARYLAND'S FAMILIES 49 (1992)(finding that in 1991, only about 11% of low-income litigants in family law cases were likely to have received legal assistance); see also Karen Czapanskiy, Domestic Violence, the Family, and the Lawyering Process: Lessons from Studies on Gender Bias in the Courts, 27 FAM. L.Q. 247, 273-74 (1993)(indicating that women comprise the majority of poor people); James Podgers, Chasing the Ideal, A.B.A. J., Aug. 1994, at 56, 58 (discussing lack of access to legal services and to the justice system for persons at and above the poverty line).
11. Murphy, supra note 4, at 123.
12. Id.; see also Richard L. Marcus, Of Babies and Bathwater: The Prospects for Procedural Progress, 59 BROOK. L. REV. 761, 762-67 (1993)(defining the court crisis rhetoric to include the litigation explosion image, the need for control over litigation by means of court rules, and the seeming indifference of the litigation process to the merits of a case); Donald B. King, Accentuate the Positive-Eliminate the Negative, 31 FAM. & CONCILIATION CTS. REV. 9 (1993).
13. Id.; see also Richard L. Marcus, Of Babies and Bathwater: The Prospects for Procedural Progress, 59 BROOK. L. REV. 761, 762-67 (1993)(defining the court crisis rhetoric to include the litigation explosion image, the need for control over litigation by means of court rules, and the seeming indifference of the litigation process to the merits of a case); Donald B. King, Accentuate the Positive-Eliminate the Negative, 31 FAM. & CONCILIATION CTS. REV. 9 (1993).
14. ABA PRESIDENTIAL WORKING GROUP ON THE UNMET LEGAL NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES, AMERICA'S CHILDREN AT RISK: A NATIONAL AGENDA FOR LEGAL ACTION 54 (1993)[hereinafter ABA PRESIDENTIAL WORKING GROUP]; see also Williams, supra note 3, at 384.
15. ABA PRESIDENTIAL WORKING GROUP ON THE UNMET LEGAL NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES, AMERICA'S CHILDREN AT RISK: A NATIONAL AGENDA FOR LEGAL ACTION 54 (1993)[hereinafter ABA PRESIDENTIAL WORKING GROUP]; see also Williams, supra note 3, at 384.
16. Williams, supra, note 3, at 384 (footnotes omitted).
17. R. William Ide III, ABA News Center - From the Chair, 1 UNIFIED FAM. CHRON., May 1997, at 2.
18. Unified Family Site Update, 1 UNIFIED FAM. CHRON., May 1997, at 1; see also Patricia G. Barnes, It May Take A Village. . .Or a Specialized Court to Address Family Problems, A.B.A. J., Dec. 1996, at 22.
19. Unified Family Site Update, 1 UNIFIED FAM. CHRON., May 1997, at 1; see also Patricia G. Barnes, It May Take A Village. . .Or a Specialized Court to Address Family Problems, A.B.A. J., Dec. 1996, at 22.
20. Mary Wechsler, Unified Family Courts, in 2 THE CONFERENCE CALL, Summer 1995, at 1.
21. See Jeffrey W. Stempel, Two Cheers for Specialization, 61 BROOK. L. REV. 67, 69-71 (1995)(defining specialized courts as courts with specialized, restricted subject-matter jurisdiction in a single area of law, even where the subject-matter jurisdiction is not exclusive, and advocating the benefits of specialized state courts in areas of excessive litigation).
22. See id.; Margaret M. Eckenbrecht, A Commercial Venture, A.B.A. J., Jan. 1996, at 35 (reporting that fifteen states have or plan to have business courts to handle complex commercial cases); Ad Hoc Committee on Business Courts, Business Courts: Towards a More Efficient Judiciary, 52 Bus. LAW. 947, 961 (1997)(reporting on the high success rate of established business courts and recommending the creation of such courts in jurisdictions with a high volume of complex commercial cases).
23. See id.; Margaret M. Eckenbrecht, A Commercial Venture, A.B.A. J., Jan. 1996, at 35 (reporting that fifteen states have or plan to have business courts to handle complex commercial cases); Ad Hoc Committee on Business Courts, Business Courts: Towards a More Efficient Judiciary, 52 Bus. LAW. 947, 961 (1997)(reporting on the high success rate of established business courts and recommending the creation of such courts in jurisdictions with a high volume of complex commercial cases).
24. See William D. McColl, Comment, Baltimore City's Drug Treatment Court: Theory and Practice in an Emerging Field, 55 MD. L. REV. 467, 468, 470 (1996)(reviewing a drug court operating in Baltimore, Maryland, one of at least thirty-five such courts operating in the United States whose purpose is to attempt to treat or rehabilitate addicts rather than to punish them, and finding that the guiding philosophy for drug treatment courts is primarily therapeutic or medical in nature); James R. Brown, Drug Division Courts: Are They Needed and Will They Succeed in Breaking the Cycle of Drug-Related Crime?, 23 NEW ENG. J. ON CRIM. & CIV. CONFINEMENT 63, 84, 93-98 (1997)(describing the goals of drug courts generally and the operations of drug courts in Miami, Florida, and Boston, Massachusetts); Michael J. Griffen, University Study Finds Drug Courts Working for Nonviolent Offenders, THE DAILY REC., May 10, 1996, at 10 (reporting that an American University study revealed a decreased recidivism rate of less than 4% for nonviolent drug offenders who were ordered into treatment for their addictions rather than incarcerated).
25. See William D. McColl, Comment, Baltimore City's Drug Treatment Court: Theory and Practice in an Emerging Field, 55 MD. L. REV. 467, 468, 470 (1996)(reviewing a drug court operating in Baltimore, Maryland, one of at least thirty-five such courts operating in the United States whose purpose is to attempt to treat or rehabilitate addicts rather than to punish them, and finding that the guiding philosophy for drug treatment courts is primarily therapeutic or medical in nature); James R. Brown, Drug Division Courts: Are They Needed and Will They Succeed in Breaking the Cycle of Drug-Related Crime?, 23 NEW ENG. J. ON CRIM. & CIV. CONFINEMENT 63, 84, 93-98 (1997)(describing the goals of drug courts generally and the operations of drug courts in Miami, Florida, and Boston, Massachusetts); Michael J. Griffen, University Study Finds Drug Courts Working for Nonviolent Offenders, THE DAILY REC., May 10, 1996, at 10 (reporting that an American University study revealed a decreased recidivism rate of less than 4% for nonviolent drug offenders who were ordered into treatment for their addictions rather than incarcerated).
26. See William D. McColl, Comment, Baltimore City's Drug Treatment Court: Theory and Practice in an Emerging Field, 55 MD. L. REV. 467, 468, 470 (1996)(reviewing a drug court operating in Baltimore, Maryland, one of at least thirty-five such courts operating in the United States whose purpose is to attempt to treat or rehabilitate addicts rather than to punish them, and finding that the guiding philosophy for drug treatment courts is primarily therapeutic or medical in nature); James R. Brown, Drug Division Courts: Are They Needed and Will They Succeed in Breaking the Cycle of Drug-Related Crime?, 23 NEW ENG. J. ON CRIM. & CIV. CONFINEMENT 63, 84, 93-98 (1997)(describing the goals of drug courts generally and the operations of drug courts in Miami, Florida, and Boston, Massachusetts); Michael J. Griffen, University Study Finds Drug Courts Working for Nonviolent Offenders, THE DAILY REC., May 10, 1996, at 10 (reporting that an American University study revealed a decreased recidivism rate of less than 4% for nonviolent drug offenders who were ordered into treatment for their addictions rather than incarcerated).
27. See Marilyn Roberts et al., The Juvenile Drug Court Movement, FACT SHEET #59, Office of Juv. Just, and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, D.C., Mar. 1997, at 1, 2 (discussing the development and operation of juvenile drug courts).
28. See Allison R. Shiff & David B. Wexler, Teen Court: A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Perspective, 4 CRIM. LAW BULL. 342, 343 (1996)(reporting that more than 150 teen courts exist nationwide where teens who commit their first misdemeanors appear in a court setting controlled by their peers as an alternative to juvenile court and with the goals of effective intervention and decreased recidivism).
29. See Christopher Downey, New Bronx Courtroom Seeks to Speed Resolution of Domestic Violence Cases, N.Y.L.J., Jan. 22, 1992, at 1 (describing a specialized court designed to process criminal domestic violence cases more quickly in an effort to assist victims); Art Barnum, DuPage Total Crimes Drop, But Robberies Increase, CHI. TRIB., Apr. 27, 1997, at 1 (referring to the opening of a special domestic violence courtroom due to an increase in the number of domestic violence cases); see also Brown, supra note 14, at 99 (arguing that drug courts can operate as prototypes for domestic violence courts, another form of specialty court offering intensive treatment of offenders).
30. See Christopher Downey, New Bronx Courtroom Seeks to Speed Resolution of Domestic Violence Cases, N.Y.L.J., Jan. 22, 1992, at 1 (describing a specialized court designed to process criminal domestic violence cases more quickly in an effort to assist victims); Art Barnum, DuPage Total Crimes Drop, But Robberies Increase, CHI. TRIB., Apr. 27, 1997, at 1 (referring to the opening of a special domestic violence courtroom due to an increase in the number of domestic violence cases); see also Brown, supra note 14, at 99 (arguing that drug courts can operate as prototypes for domestic violence courts, another form of specialty court offering intensive treatment of offenders).
31. See Christina P. Burnham, Connecticut's Child Custody Court, 18(4) FAM. ADVOC. 43, 43-45, 62 (1997) (detailing the recent creation and success of Connecticut's Regional Family Trial Docket as a potential settlement mechanism for the resolution of complex custody cases through full-day and interdisciplinary pretrial conferences with two special masters, including family law attorneys and family therapists).
32. Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-81 (1997)(describing systems analysis methodology and some examples of systems projects, particularly in the fields of debtor-creditor and bankruptcy law); see also Susan L. Brooks, A Family Systems Paradigm for Legal Decision Making Affecting Child Custody, 6 CORNELL J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 1 (1997)(advocating a systems approach to child custody decision making based upon a nonjudgmental consideration of the child in the context of the family and the family's interaction).
33. Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-81 (1997)(describing systems analysis methodology and some examples of systems projects, particularly in the fields of debtor-creditor and bankruptcy law); see also Susan L. Brooks, A Family Systems Paradigm for Legal Decision Making Affecting Child Custody, 6 CORNELL J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 1 (1997)(advocating a systems approach to child custody decision making based upon a nonjudgmental consideration of the child in the context of the family and the family's interaction).
34. LoPucki, supra note 19, at 487.
35. Brooks, supra note 19, at 5; see also Edward P. Mulvey, Family Courts: The Issue of Reasonable Goals, 6 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 49, 50 (1982)("[T]rue adoption of a family perspective by the legal system will involve more than a mere semantic shift.").
36. Brooks, supra note 19, at 5; see also Edward P. Mulvey, Family Courts: The Issue of Reasonable Goals, 6 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 49, 50 (1982)("[T]rue adoption of a family perspective by the legal system will involve more than a mere semantic shift.").
37. LINDA SZYMANSKI ET AL., POLICY ALTERNATIVES AND CURRENT COURT PRACTICE IN THE SPECIAL PROBLEM AREAS OF JURISDICTION OVER THE FAMILY 6 (1993). Accord Robert W. Page, Family Courts: An Effective Judicial Approach to the Resolution of Family Disputes, 44 JUV. & FAM. CT. J. 1, 7 (1993).
38. LINDA SZYMANSKI ET AL., POLICY ALTERNATIVES AND CURRENT COURT PRACTICE IN THE SPECIAL PROBLEM AREAS OF JURISDICTION OVER THE FAMILY 6 (1993). Accord Robert W. Page, Family Courts: An Effective Judicial Approach to the Resolution of Family Disputes, 44 JUV. & FAM. CT. J. 1, 7 (1993).
39. William C. Gordon, Establishing a Family Court System, 28 JUV. JUST. 9 (1977); see also Robert E. Shepherd, Jr., The Unified Family Court: An Idea Whose Time Has Finally Come, 8 CRIM. JUST. 37, 37-38 (1993)(discussing the variety among family courts regarding their subject-matter jurisdiction and indicating that the meaning of family court is unclear).
40. William C. Gordon, Establishing a Family Court System, 28 JUV. JUST. 9 (1977); see also Robert E. Shepherd, Jr., The Unified Family Court: An Idea Whose Time Has Finally Come, 8 CRIM. JUST. 37, 37-38 (1993)(discussing the variety among family courts regarding their subject-matter jurisdiction and indicating that the meaning of family court is unclear).
41. See generally supra note 1 (defining comprehensive jurisdiction).
42. See SANFORD N. KATZ & JEFFREY A. KUHN, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A MODEL FAMILY COURT 1 (1991).
43. SZYMANSKI ET AL., supra note 22, at 1.
44. Id. at 5.
45. Herma Hill Kay, A Family Court: The California Proposal, 56 CAL. L. REV. 1205 (1968); see RUBIN & FLANGO, supra note 2, at 63; see also Leonard P. Edwards, The Relationship of Family and Juvenile Courts in Child Abuse Cases, 27 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 201, 205-06 (1987)(distinguishing family courts, which provide primarily a private dispute resolution function for the litigants, from juvenile courts, which involve the court's child protection function through both child abuse and neglect and juvenile delinquency jurisdiction). While an analysis of the juvenile justice system is beyond the scope of this article, investigation and evaluation of that system abounds. See, e.g., Leonard P. Edwards, The Juvenile Court and the Role of the Juvenile Court Judge, 43 JUV. & FAM. CT. J. 1 (1992)(describing comprehensively the history and functions of the juvenile court and arguing for its continuation and improvement); Barry C. Feld, Violent Youth and Public Policy: A Case Study of Juvenile Justice Law Reform, 79 MINN. L. REV. 965 (1995)(providing through case studies an analysis of the juvenile court and analyzing proposed legislative initiatives representing states' responses to juvenile crime).
46. Herma Hill Kay, A Family Court: The California Proposal, 56 CAL. L. REV. 1205 (1968); see RUBIN & FLANGO, supra note 2, at 63; see also Leonard P. Edwards, The Relationship of Family and Juvenile Courts in Child Abuse Cases, 27 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 201, 205-06 (1987)(distinguishing family courts, which provide primarily a private dispute resolution function for the litigants, from juvenile courts, which involve the court's child protection function through both child abuse and neglect and juvenile delinquency jurisdiction). While an analysis of the juvenile justice system is beyond the scope of this article, investigation and evaluation of that system abounds. See, e.g., Leonard P. Edwards, The Juvenile Court and the Role of the Juvenile Court Judge, 43 JUV. & FAM. CT. J. 1 (1992)(describing comprehensively the history and functions of the juvenile court and arguing for its continuation and improvement); Barry C. Feld, Violent Youth and Public Policy: A Case Study of Juvenile Justice Law Reform, 79 MINN. L. REV. 965 (1995)(providing through case studies an analysis of the juvenile court and analyzing proposed legislative initiatives representing states' responses to juvenile crime).
47. Herma Hill Kay, A Family Court: The California Proposal, 56 CAL. L. REV. 1205 (1968); see RUBIN & FLANGO, supra note 2, at 63; see also Leonard P. Edwards, The Relationship of Family and Juvenile Courts in Child Abuse Cases, 27 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 201, 205-06 (1987)(distinguishing family courts, which provide primarily a private dispute resolution function for the litigants, from juvenile courts, which involve the court's child protection function through both child abuse and neglect and juvenile delinquency jurisdiction). While an analysis of the juvenile justice system is beyond the scope of this article, investigation and evaluation of that system abounds. See, e.g., Leonard P. Edwards, The Juvenile Court and the Role of the Juvenile Court Judge, 43 JUV. & FAM. CT. J. 1 (1992)(describing comprehensively the history and functions of the juvenile court and arguing for its continuation and improvement); Barry C. Feld, Violent Youth and Public Policy: A Case Study of Juvenile Justice Law Reform, 79 MINN. L. REV. 965 (1995)(providing through case studies an analysis of the juvenile court and analyzing proposed legislative initiatives representing states' responses to juvenile crime).
48. Herma Hill Kay, A Family Court: The California Proposal, 56 CAL. L. REV. 1205 (1968); see RUBIN & FLANGO, supra note 2, at 63; see also Leonard P. Edwards, The Relationship of Family and Juvenile Courts in Child Abuse Cases, 27 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 201, 205-06 (1987)(distinguishing family courts, which provide primarily a private dispute resolution function for the litigants, from juvenile courts, which involve the court's child protection function through both child abuse and neglect and juvenile delinquency jurisdiction). While an analysis of the juvenile justice system is beyond the scope of this article, investigation and evaluation of that system abounds. See, e.g., Leonard P. Edwards, The Juvenile Court and the Role of the Juvenile Court Judge, 43 JUV. & FAM. CT. J. 1 (1992)(describing comprehensively the history and functions of the juvenile court and arguing for its continuation and improvement); Barry C. Feld, Violent Youth and Public Policy: A Case Study of Juvenile Justice Law Reform, 79 MINN. L. REV. 965 (1995)(providing through case studies an analysis of the juvenile court and analyzing proposed legislative initiatives representing states' responses to juvenile crime).
49. Herma Hill Kay, A Family Court: The California Proposal, 56 CAL. L. REV. 1205 (1968); see RUBIN & FLANGO, supra note 2, at 63; see also Leonard P. Edwards, The Relationship of Family and Juvenile Courts in Child Abuse Cases, 27 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 201, 205-06 (1987)(distinguishing family courts, which provide primarily a private dispute resolution function for the litigants, from juvenile courts, which involve the court's child protection function through both child abuse and neglect and juvenile delinquency jurisdiction). While an analysis of the juvenile justice system is beyond the scope of this article, investigation and evaluation of that system abounds. See, e.g., Leonard P. Edwards, The Juvenile Court and the Role of the Juvenile Court Judge, 43 JUV. & FAM. CT. J. 1 (1992)(describing comprehensively the history and functions of the juvenile court and arguing for its continuation and improvement); Barry C. Feld, Violent Youth and Public Policy: A Case Study of Juvenile Justice Law Reform, 79 MINN. L. REV. 965 (1995)(providing through case studies an analysis of the juvenile court and analyzing proposed legislative initiatives representing states' responses to juvenile crime).
50. JOHN HUBNER & JILL WOLFSON, SOMEBODY ELSE'S CHILDREN: THE COURTS, THE KIDS, AND THE STRUGGLE TO SAVE AMERICA'S TROUBLED FAMILIES 5, 69 (1996).
51. SZYMANSKI ET AL., supra note 22, at 3.
52. RUBIN & FLANGO, supra note 2, at 63.
53. Id.
54. Committee on the Standard Family Court Act of the National Probation and Parole Association, Standard Family Court Act - Text and Commentary, 5 NAT'L PROBATION & PAROLE ASS'N J. 99,104 (1959) [hereinafter Standard Family Court Act].
55. RUBIN & FLANGO, supra note 2, at 64.
56. Id. at 65; see also Roscoe Pound, The Place of the Family Court in the Judicial System, 5 NAT'L PROBATION & PAROLE ASS'N J. 161, 164 (1959).
57. RUBIN & FLANGO, supra note 2, at 65.
58. Pound, supra note 35, at 164.
59. Id. See, e.g., SZYMANSKJ ET AL., supra note 22, at 11. The authors discuss FACTS (Family Automated Case Tracking System), a modern, computerized statewide case management system operating in New Jersey: [This case tracking system is] designed to be easily accessible to judges and staff, as well as court and non-court agencies, by remote terminals tied into the computer-based system. This system contains a family file of all information developed as a result of previous and pending court appearances of each family member. This file provides the court with information about the strengths, weaknesses, and capabilities of the family as a unit. Id. (footnote omitted); RUBIN & FLANGO, supra note 2, at 11-12, 36 (discussing specifically the operation of the Family Automated Case Tracking System).
60. RUBIN & FLANGO, supra note 2, at 63-64; see Appendix A; see also Kay, supra note 28, at 1225-32 (detailing an early family court proposal for California emanating from the California Governor's Commission on the Family).
61. RUBIN & FLANGO, supra note 2, at 64; see Appendix A.
62. Id.
63. Shepherd, supra note 23, at 37.
64. LoPucki, supra note 19, at 497-505 (1997)(explaining in detail each step of a multi-step process of systems analysis methodology as applied to legal systems).
65. See, e.g., Naomi R. Cahn, Family Law, Federalism, and the Federal Courts, 79 IOWA L. REV. 1073, 1097 (1994) (commenting, "Family law has a comparatively low status in the hierarchy of cases, in both federal and state courts, and domestic relations cases are perceived as involving 'burdensome, fact-bound and often protracted . . . disputes.' ").
66. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, §§ 901-1077 (1974 & Supp. 1996); D.C. CODE ANN. § 11-902 (1995); In re Report of Commission of Family Courts, 588 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1991); HAW. REV. STAT. §§ 571-1 to 571-86 (1993 & Supp.II 1996); MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 215, §§ 1-63 (1989 & Supp. 1996); N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 2A:4A-20 to 2B:5-3 (West 1987 & Supp. 1997); N.Y. FAM. CT. ACT §§ 111-1121 (McKinney 1988 & Supp. 1997); R.I. GEN. LAWS §§ 8-10-1 to 8-10-45 (1985 & Supp. 1996); S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 20-7-736 to 20-7-780 (Law Co-op. 1985 & Supp. 1996); VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 4, §§ 451-467 (Supp. 1996); WASH. REV. CODE ANN. §§ 26.12.010-26.12.240 (West 1997); see Appendix A.
67. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, §§ 901-973 (Supp. 1996); N.Y. FAM. CT. ACT § 111-1120 (McKinney 1988 & Supp. 1997); R.I. GEN. LAWS §§ 8-10-1 to 8-10-45 (1985 & Supp. 1996); S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 20-7-736 to 20-7-780 (Law Co-op. 1985 & Supp. 1996); VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 4, §§ 451-467 (Supp. 1996).
68. D.C. CODE ANN. § 11-902 (1995); In re Report of Commission of Family Courts, 588 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1991); HAW. REV. STAT. §§ 571-1 to 571-86 (1993); N.J. REV. STAT. §§ 2A:4A-20 to 2A:4A-91 (West 1987); WASH. REV. CODE §§ 26.12.010 to 26.12.220 (West 1997).
69. MASS. GEN. LAWS. ch. 211B, § 1 (Supp. 1996).
70. ALA. CODE § 12-17-24.1 (1995); Telephone Interview with Cheri Kester, Office of the Colorado State Court Administrator (Apr. 10, 1997); KAN. STAT. ANN. § 20-438 (1995); LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 13:1401 to 13:1415 (West 1983 & Supp. 1997); Miss. CODE ANN. §§ 43-23-1 to 43-23-55 (1993); Mo. REV. STAT. §§ 487.010-487.190 (Supp. 1997); NEV. REV. STAT. §§ 3.0105-3.5000 (Supp. 1995); Telephone Interviews with Delores Saavedra, Clerk of the New Mexico Court (May 7, 1996), and Fern Goodman, Staff Attorney, Administrative Office of the New Mexico Courts (Mar. 27, 1997); Telephone Interviews with Doug Stephens, Project Manager of Ohio Family Court Feasibility Study (May 8, 1996; Apr. 24, 1997); Telephone Interviews with Sheila Sewell, Deputy Director of the Oklahoma Administrative Office of the Courts (May 7, 1996; Mar. 27, 1997); OR. REV. STAT. § 3.405 (1995); 42 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 951 (West 1981); TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 24.601 (West 1988); Telephone Interviews with Ron Witkowiak, Wisconsin District Court Administrator (Aug. 28, 1995), and Cindy Hapka, Office of Wisconsin District Court Administrator (Mar. 20, 1997); see Appendix A.
71. LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 13:1407 (West Supp. 1997); MISS. CODE ANN. § 43-23-1 (1993).
72. ALA. CODE § 12-17-24.1 (1995); Telephone Interview with Cheri Kester, Office of the Colorado State Court Administrator (Apr. 10, 1997); Mo. REV. STAT. § 487.010 (Supp. 1997); NEV. REV. STAT. § 3.0105 (Supp. 1995); Telephone Interviews with Fern Goodman, Staff Attorney, Administrative Office of the New Mexico Courts (June 5, 1996; Mar. 27, 1997; Apr. 24, 1997); OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 3105.011 (Banks-Baldwin 1995 & Supp. 1997); Telephone Interview with Sheila Sewell, Deputy Director of the Administrative Office of the Oklahoma Courts (Mar. 27, 1997); 42 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 951 (1981); Telephone Interviews with Ron Witkowiak, Wisconsin District Court Administrator (Aug. 28, 1995), and Cindy Hapka, Office of Wisconsin District Court Administrator (Mar. 20, 1997).
73. KAN. STAT. ANN. § 20-438 (1995); OR. REV. STAT. § 3.405 (1993).
74. Telephone Interview with Jim Hutchinson, Texas Supreme Court Administration (Mar. 27, 1997).
75. CAL. FAM. CODE §§ 20000-20043 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997); STATE BAR OF GEORGIA COMMISSION ON FAMILY COURTS, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (1995); Telephone Interview with Joy L. Lee, Court Administrator, Sixth Municipal District, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (Aug. 1, 1997); Kuprion v. Fitzgerald, 888 S.W. 2d 679 (Ky. Ct. App. 1994); ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 4, § 451 (West Supp. 1995); 1993 Md. Laws ch. 198, 1996 Md. Laws ch. 13, 1997 Md. Laws ch. 3, MD. CT. RULE 16-204 (effective July 1, 1998); MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. §§ 600.1001-600.1043 (West Supp. 1997), effective January 1, 1998; 1995 N.H. Laws 152; VA. CODE ANN. §§ 16.1-226 to 16.1-348 (Michie 1996 & Supp. 1997); see Appendix A.
76. CAL. FAM. CODE §§ 20000-20043 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997); GA. CODE ANN. § 15-5-26 (1996); Telephone Interview with Joy L. Lee, Court Administrator, Sixth Municipal District, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (Aug. 1, 1997); Kuprion v. Fitzgerald, 888 S.W. 2d 679 (Ky. 1994); ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 4, §§ 1, 451 (West Supp. 1995); 1993 Md. Laws ch. 198, MD. CT. RULE 16-204 (effective July 1,1998); 1995 N.H. Laws 152:2.
77. 1995 N.H. Laws 152:2.
78. MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 600.1001 (West Supp. 1997); Telephone Interview with Lelia Hooper, Director, Virginia Family Court Project (May 29, 1997).
79. MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 600.1003 (West Supp. 1997).
80. VA. CODE ANN. § 16.1-241 (Michie Supp. 1997).
81. ALASKA STAT. §§ 22.10.020, 22.15.030 (Michie 1988), ALASKA STAT. § 47.10.65 (Michie 1995), Telephone Interviews with Stephanie Cole, Deputy Director, Administrative Office of the Alaska Courts (July 11, 1995; Mar. 5, 1997); ARIZ. CONST, art. 6, §§ 14, 15, ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 25-311 (West Supp. 1996), ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 8-202 (West Supp. 1996), ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 8-102.1 (1989), Telephone Interviews with Mary Lou Quintana, Arizona Division Director (July 11, 1995), and Agnes Felton, Division Director of Arizona Court Services (Mar. 5, 1997); ARK. CODE ANN. § 16-13-201 (Michie 1994), ARK. CODE ANN. § 9-12-301 (Michie 1993), ARK. CODE ANN. § 28-1-104 (Michie 1987), ARK. CODE ANN. § 9-27-306 (Michie Supp. 1995), Telephone Interviews with James D. Gingerich, Director of Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts (June 23, 1995), and Leslie Steen, Clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Court (Mar. 5,1997); CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN. § 51-164 (West 1985), CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN. §§ 46b-174, 46b-180, 46b-121, 46b-42, 46b-93 (West 1993), Telephone Interviews with Robert Tompkins, Deputy Director of the Family Division, which is only a social services arm of the Superior Court in Connecticut (Aug. 16, 1995), and Paula Campo, Connecticut Family Division Administrator (Mar. 5, 1997); IDAHO CODE §32-715 (1996), IDAHO CODE §§ 16-1602, 16-1603 (Supp. 1996), IDAHO CODE §§ 20-502, 20-503 (Supp. 1996), IDAHO CODE § 16-2002(a) (Supp. 1996), Telephone Interviews with Thomas Frost, Legal Counsel, Administrative Office of the Idaho Courts (July 7, 1995), and Jana Saxton, Assistant to Mr. Frost (Mar. 20, 1997); IND. CODE ANN. § 33-4-4-3 (Michie 1992), IND. CODE ANN. §§ 33-5-4.5-1 to 33-5-50-11 (Michie 1992 & Supp. 1996), IND. CODE ANN. § 31-6-2-1.1 (Michie Supp. 1996), IND. CODE ANN. § 33-8-2-10 (Michie 1992), IND. CODE ANN. § 33-8-2-9 (Michie 1992), Telephone Interviews with Jack Stark, Staff Attorney, Division of Indiana State Court Administration (July 17, 1995; Mar. 27, 1997), and Jeff Berkovitz, Director of Indiana Probate and Juvenile Services (July 3, 1997); IOWA CODE ANN. §§ 232.61, 232.109 (West 1994), IOWA CODE ANN. §§ 602.7101, 600.3, 598.2 (West 1996), Telephone Interviews with David Ewert, Director of Iowa Appellate Screening (July 7, 1995; Mar. 20, 1997); MINN. STAT. ANN. §§ 260.019, 260.021 (West 1992), MINN. STAT. ANN. § 260.111 (West Supp. 1996), MINN. STAT. ANN. §§ 518.002-518.66 (West 1990 & Supp. 1997), Telephone Interviews with Steve Forestell, Director of Minnesota Judicial Advisory Service (July 27, 1995; Apr. 3, 1997); MONT. CODE ANN. §§ 40-4-104, 40-6-109, 41-3-103, 41-5-203 (1995), Telephone Interviews with Chris Wethern, Staff Attorney, Administrative Office of the Montana Courts (June 29, 1995; Mar. 20, 1997); NEB. REV. STAT. §§ 24-517, 43-247, 42-348 (Supp. 1996), Telephone Interviews with Joseph C. Steele, Nebraska Court Administrator (June 29, 1995), and Sherry Lampe, Assistant Nebraska Court Administrator (Mar. 27, 1997); N.C. Const, art. 6, § 1, N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 7A-517(9), 7A-523, 50-4 (1995), Telephone Interviews with Fred M. Morelock, North Carolina District Court Judge (June 29, 1995), and Betty Wall, Assistant Clerk of the North Carolina Supreme Court (Mar. 20, 1997); N.D. CENT. CODE § 27-20-03 (1974), N.D. CENT. CODE § 27-20-04 (1989), N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 14-12.1-02, 14-15-01 (1981), Telephone Interview with Sherry Mills Moore, Chair of Ad Hoc Commission on North Dakota Family Law (Aug. 30, 1995), and Keithe Nelson, North Dakota Courts Administrator (Mar. 27, 1997); S.D. CODIFIED LAWS §§ 26-7A-2, 25-3-1, 25-5A-5, 25-6-6 (Michie 1992), S.D. CODIFIED LAWS §§ 26-7A-1, 25-10-2 (Michie 1997), Telephone Interviews with Michael Buenger, South Dakota State Court Administrator (Aug. 30, 1995), and Ken Olander, South Dakota State Court Administrator's Office (Apr. 3, 1997); TENN. CODE ANN. §§ 37-1-103, 37-1-104, 37-1-203, 37-1-205 (1996), TENN. CODE ANN. § 16-15-406 (1994), Telephone Interviews with Jean Stone, Staff Attorney, Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts (June 29, 1995), and Jona Coppola, Assistant to Director of Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts (Mar. 20, 1997); UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 78-3a-16, 78-3a-17 (1996), UTAH CODE ANN. § 30-3-16.1 (1995), Telephone Interviews with Brant Johnson, Acting General Counsel, Utah Administrative Office of the Courts (July 27, 1995), and Cheryll May, Utah Public Information Officer (Mar. 20, 1997); W.VA. CODE §§ 49-5-2, 48-4-14, 48-2-5 (1996), Telephone Interviews with Penny Crandall, Assistant Director for West Virginia Family Law Master Program (Aug. 17, 1995; Mar. 21, 1997); WYO. STAT. ANN.
82. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10 §§ 921-928 (Supp. 1996); D.C. CODE ANN. § 11-1101 (1995); D.C. CODE ANN. §§ 16-2301 to 16-2365 (1989 & Supp. 1996); HAW. REV. STAT. §§ 571-11 to 571-14 (1993); N.J. REV. STAT. ANN. § 2A:4A-24 (West 1987); R.I. GEN. LAWS § 8-10-3 (Supp. 1996); S.C. CODE ANN. § 20-7-736 (Law Co-op. 1985 & Supp. 1996); see Appendix B.
83. See supra note 1 (defining comprehensive jurisdiction).
84. In re Report of Commission of Family Courts, 588 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1991); MASS. GEN. LAWS. ch. 215 § 3 (1989); N.Y. FAM. CT. ACT § 115 (McKinney 1988 & Supp. 1997); VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 4, § 454 (Supp. 1996); WASH. REV. CODE § 26.12.010 (1997); see Appendix B.
85. The New York Family Court has jurisdiction over child abuse and neglect proceedings; support proceedings; child custody; distribution of marital property; conciliation; proceedings concerning physically handicapped and mentally defective or retarded children; paternity; termination of custody based on neglect; proceedings concerning whether a person is in need of supervision; and proceedings concerning juvenile delinquency. N.Y. FAM. CT. ACT § 115 (McKinney 1988 & Supp. 1997).
86. NEV. REV. STAT. § 3.223 (Supp. 1995).
87. STATE BAR OF GEORGIA COMMISSION ON FAMILY COURTS, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 5-6 (1995); 1993 Md. Laws ch. 198, MD. CT. RULE 16-204 (effective July 1, 1998); MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 600.1021 (West Supp. 1997)(effective Jan. 1, 1998); VA. CODE ANN. § 16.1-241 (Michie Supp. 1997); see Appendix B.
88. CAL. FAM. CODE § 20010 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), CAL. FAM. CODE § 20031 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997); John Flynn Rooney, 5th Municipal District Opens Unified Family Court Project, DAILY L. BULL., July 22, 1997, at 1; Telephone Interviews with Jim Birmingham, Kentucky Family Court Administrator (May 8, 1996), and Carla Prather, General Counsel for the Jefferson County, Kentucky, Family Court (Apr. 24, 1997); Telephone Interviews with Judge Joyce A. Wheeler, Director of Maine Family Court Pilot Project (Aug. 18, 1995; Apr. 3, 1997); 1995 N.H. Laws 152:2; see Appendix B.
89. Within the Family Division, judges hear particular types of cases, with assignments made by the Chief Judge and ranging from ninety days to nine months. Telephone Interview with Edward Ricks, Director of the District of Columbia Family Division (June 27, 1997); see Appendix C.
90. Telephone Interview with William F. Ryan, Jr., Assistant Court Administrator, Probate and Family Court of the State of Massachusetts (May 7, 1997); R.I. GEN. LAWS § 8-16.1-7 (Supp. 1996); see Appendix C.
91. Telephone Interview with Richelle Kawasaki, Clerk to Judge Michael Town in Hawaii (Aug. 2, 1995); Telephone Interview with Marie Pirog, Staff Attorney for the New Jersey Family Law Division (May 19, 1997)(In the smallest counties in New Jersey, one judge hears all cases; thus, the one judge/one family model applies. In slightly larger counties, one judge is assigned specifically to the Family Division, and that judge hears all family law cases, again corresponding to the one judge/one family model. In the larger counties, the systems vary. In some counties, individual judges specialize in one aspect of family law and only hear cases on that particular issue, suggesting a one judge/one case approach. In other counties, the cases are assigned on a rotational basis, corresponding to a traditional calendar assignment.). Telephone Interview with Andrea Hoyt, Court Analyst for the New York Office of Court Administration (May 7, 1997); Telephone Interview with Anthony Panichas, Deputy Administrator for the Rhode Island Family Court (May 19,1997); Telephone Interview with Lee Suskin, Vermont State Court Administrator (May 23, 1997); see Appendix D.
92. See Joseph A. Trotter, Jr. & Caroline S. Cooper, State Trial Court Delay: Efforts at Reform, 31 AM. U. L. REV. 213, 223, 223 n.5 (1982)(describing this type of case assignment as an "'individual' system," a type of assignment that calls for more accountability for each case by the particular judge to whom the case is assigned).
93. Telephone Interview with Michael Arrington, Director of Delaware Special Court Services (June 26, 1997); see Appendix D.
94. The Supreme Court of Florida strongly suggests one judge/one family. See In re Report of Commission of Family Courts, 633 So. 2d 14, 17 (Fla. 1994). Each judicial circuit may adopt its own case assignment method, however. Telephone Interview with Gwen Stewart, Senior Attorney for the Florida Family Court (Apr. 11, 1997); see Appendix D.
95. Telephone Interview with Christopher Brown, Clerk to Judge George Mitchell in the District of Columbia (July 1, 1996); Telephone Interview with William F. Ryan, Jr., Assistant Court Administrator, Probate and Family Court of the State of Massachusetts (May 7, 1997); Telephone Interview with Mary Schroeder, Deputy Director of South Carolina Court Administration (May 19, 1997); WASH. REV. CODE ANN. §§ 2.08.060-2.08.064 (West 1988 & Supp. 1997); see Appendix D.
96. See Trotter & Cooper, supra note 71, at 223, 223 n.54 (terming this type of case assignment the "'master' system," with advantages such as "maximum use of available judge time; uniform application of policies; [and] development by judges of specialization in particular departments, i.e., settlement conferences, complex motions, juvenile matters, etc.").
97. Telephone Interview with Fern Goodman, Staff Attorney, Administrative Office of the New Mexico Courts (June 5, 1996); see Appendix C.
98. At present, the one judge appointed to the Family Department of the District Court in Douglas County, Kansas, can serve as the Family Department judge as long as she pleases. Telephone Interview with Kathy Kirk, Kansas Judicial Center (Aug. 4, 1997); see Appendix C.
99. Telephone Interview with Julie Ray, Family Court Administrator for East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana (May 20, 1997); Telephone Interview with Kathy Harrington, Assistant Law Librarian, Office of Washoe County, Nevada, Family Court Judge Scott Jordan (Apr. 10, 1997); Telephone Interview with Doug Stephens, Project Manager of Ohio Family Court Feasibility Study (May 27, 1997); Telephone Interviews with Susanne Kolar, Lead Worker for Oregon Family Law Domestic Relations Department (May 21, 1997; June 26, 1997); see Appendix D.
100. Telephone Interviews with Kathy Kirk, Kansas Judicial Center (May 7, 1996; Apr. 3, 1997); Miss. CODE ANN. § 4302301 (1993); Telephone Interviews with Dave Hill, Court Administrator for Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and Robert Martin, Trial Court Administrator for Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, District Court (May 27, 1997); Telephone Interview with Don Harris, Director of Policy, Research and Statistics for the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (May 28, 1997); see Appendix D.
101. In Colorado, Colorado Springs County follows the one judge/one family method of case assignment, if possible, and Denver County follows the traditional calendar method. Telephone Interview with Cheri Kester, Office of the Colorado State Court Administrator (Apr. 10, 1997). In Missouri, case assignment varies by circuit. Telephone Interview with Gary Waint, Director of Missouri Juvenile and Family Court Programs (May 20, 1997). In Texas, assignment of cases occurs by individual counties. Thus, courts use both one judge/one family and traditional calendar assignment. Telephone Interview with Jim Hutchinson, General Counsel, Office of the Texas Court Administrator (May 28, 1997); see Appendix C.
102. Telephone Interview with Peg Walker, Director of Research and Planning at the Alabama Administrative Office of Courts (May 20, 1997); Telephone Interview with Belinda Demaree, Office of Judge Anne Kass, Presiding New Mexico Family Court Judge, 2d Judicial District (May 27, 1997); Telephone Interview with Cindy Hapka, Office of Wisconsin District Court Administrator (May 27, 1997); see Appendix D.
103. In Maine, only one judge for each pilot project site sits primarily in the Family Court Pilot Project; other judges usually sit from one to several days at a time. Telephone Interviews with Judge Joyce A. Wheeler, Director of Family Court Pilot Project (Aug. 18, 1995; Apr. 3, 1997); see Appendix C.
104. In Kentucky, there are nine judges assigned to the Jefferson County Family Court Pilot Project. Four of these positions are permanent assignments to the Family Court Pilot Project. The remaining five judges can rotate out of the Family Court Pilot Project; only one judge has made such a choice since the inception of the project in 1991. Telephone Interview with Carla Prather, General Counsel for Jefferson County Family Court (Apr. 24, 1997); see Appendix C.
105. Telephone Interview with Julie Lara, Legal Clerk, Santa Clara County, California, Clerk's Office (June 4, 1997); Telephone Interview with Joy L. Lee, Court Administrator, Sixth Municipal District, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (Aug. 1, 1997); FAMILY CT. NEWSLETTER: JEFFERSON COUNTY, PILOT PROJECT (Jefferson County, Ky., Family Court), Mar. 8, 1991, at 4. Telephone Interview with Craig Briggs, Administrator of New Hampshire Family Division Project (June 2, 1997); see Appendix D.
106. Telephone Interview with Diane Harvey, Clerk of Administrative Court and Clerk of Maine Family Court Pilot Project (May 28, 1997); see Appendix D.
107. STATE BAR OF GEORGIA COMMISSION ON FAMILY COURTS, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 5-6 (1995); Telephone Interview with Judith Moran, Baltimore City, Maryland, Family Division Case Coordinator (May 1, 1997); see Appendix D.
108. MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 600.1023 (West Supp. 1997), effective January 1, 1998; Telephone Interview with Lelia Hooper, Director, Virginia Family Court Project (May 29, 1997); see Appendix D.
109. See supra note 38; see also Appendix A.
110. In Indiana, for example, the Circuit Court, Superior Court, Municipal Court, and County Court all possess family law subject-matter jurisdiction. Telephone Interviews with Jack Stark, Staff Attorney, Division of Indiana State Court Administration (July 17, 1995), and Jeff Berkovitz, Director of Indiana Probate and Juvenile Services (July 3, 1997); see Appendix A.
111. See Appendix A.
112. See STEPHEN P. JOHNSON, JUST SOLUTIONS: SEEKING INNOVATION AND CHANGE IN THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM (1994)(reporting on the American Bar Association's national conference in 1994 to encourage dialogue among lawyers, judges, and the public regarding needed justice system improvements); CALIFORNIA SENATE TASK FORCE ON FAMILY RELATIONS COURT, SENATE TASK FORCE ON FAMILY RELATIONS COURT: FINAL REPORT 1-6 (1990)(describing problems for family law litigants within California's court system as multiple hearings, conflicting orders, unrealistic expectations, delay in receiving services, and inadequate allocation of court resources); GOVERNOR'S CONSTITUENCY FOR CHILDREN, A FAMILY COURT FOR FLORIDA 10-11 (1988) (defining high volume, delay, lack of coordination, and inconsistency as issues in Florida's handling of family law matters); STATE BAR OF GEORGIA COMMISSION ON FAMILY COURTS, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13-14 (1995)(summarizing problems of confusion, inefficiency, unnecessary adversarialism, delay, conflicting rulings, extended appeals, lack of services, and untrained or unqualified court personnel regarding the Georgia court system's handling of family law matters); E. HUNTER HURST & JEFFREY A. KUHN, A FAMILY DEPARTMENT FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF KANSAS 5-6 (1993) (identifying the excessive volume of juvenile and family legal matters, the need for a coordinated approach for the same child or children, and a lack of justice system resources for family law cases as the major problems plaguing Kansas' court system); JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, INTERIM REPORT TO THE COURT: JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT 10 (1992-93)(describing the Kentucky court system's treatment of family law matters as uncoordinated with overlapping jurisdiction and piecemeal decision making); RHODE ISLAND FAMILY COURT STUDY COMMITTEE, REPORT OF THE FAMILY COURT STUDY COMMITTEE 2-3, 5 (1957)(documenting Rhode Island's system of overlapping jurisdiction, inadequate court personnel, and lack of coordination in handling family law matters); VIRGINIA FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, REPORT ON THE FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT 21, 28 (1992)(finding that Virginia's court system is inconvenient, inefficient, uncoordinated, backlogged, and unpredictable for family law litigants); KING COUNTY BENCH/BAR TASK FORCE, UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 8 (1995)(summarizing problems within the court system of King County, Washington, as barriers to access the system, lack of case finality, lack of specialized family law training for court staff, and ineffective coordination and sharing of information among court agencies and with outside agencies).
113. See STEPHEN P. JOHNSON, JUST SOLUTIONS: SEEKING INNOVATION AND CHANGE IN THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM (1994)(reporting on the American Bar Association's national conference in 1994 to encourage dialogue among lawyers, judges, and the public regarding needed justice system improvements); CALIFORNIA SENATE TASK FORCE ON FAMILY RELATIONS COURT, SENATE TASK FORCE ON FAMILY RELATIONS COURT: FINAL REPORT 1-6 (1990)(describing problems for family law litigants within California's court system as multiple hearings, conflicting orders, unrealistic expectations, delay in receiving services, and inadequate allocation of court resources); GOVERNOR'S CONSTITUENCY FOR CHILDREN, A FAMILY COURT FOR FLORIDA 10-11 (1988) (defining high volume, delay, lack of coordination, and inconsistency as issues in Florida's handling of family law matters); STATE BAR OF GEORGIA COMMISSION ON FAMILY COURTS, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13-14 (1995)(summarizing problems of confusion, inefficiency, unnecessary adversarialism, delay, conflicting rulings, extended appeals, lack of services, and untrained or unqualified court personnel regarding the Georgia court system's handling of family law matters); E. HUNTER HURST & JEFFREY A. KUHN, A FAMILY DEPARTMENT FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF KANSAS 5-6 (1993) (identifying the excessive volume of juvenile and family legal matters, the need for a coordinated approach for the same child or children, and a lack of justice system resources for family law cases as the major problems plaguing Kansas' court system); JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, INTERIM REPORT TO THE COURT: JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT 10 (1992-93)(describing the Kentucky court system's treatment of family law matters as uncoordinated with overlapping jurisdiction and piecemeal decision making); RHODE ISLAND FAMILY COURT STUDY COMMITTEE, REPORT OF THE FAMILY COURT STUDY COMMITTEE 2-3, 5 (1957)(documenting Rhode Island's system of overlapping jurisdiction, inadequate court personnel, and lack of coordination in handling family law matters); VIRGINIA FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, REPORT ON THE FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT 21, 28 (1992)(finding that Virginia's court system is inconvenient, inefficient, uncoordinated, backlogged, and unpredictable for family law litigants); KING COUNTY BENCH/BAR TASK FORCE, UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 8 (1995)(summarizing problems within the court system of King County, Washington, as barriers to access the system, lack of case finality, lack of specialized family law training for court staff, and ineffective coordination and sharing of information among court agencies and with outside agencies).
114. See STEPHEN P. JOHNSON, JUST SOLUTIONS: SEEKING INNOVATION AND CHANGE IN THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM (1994)(reporting on the American Bar Association's national conference in 1994 to encourage dialogue among lawyers, judges, and the public regarding needed justice system improvements); CALIFORNIA SENATE TASK FORCE ON FAMILY RELATIONS COURT, SENATE TASK FORCE ON FAMILY RELATIONS COURT: FINAL REPORT 1-6 (1990)(describing problems for family law litigants within California's court system as multiple hearings, conflicting orders, unrealistic expectations, delay in receiving services, and inadequate allocation of court resources); GOVERNOR'S CONSTITUENCY FOR CHILDREN, A FAMILY COURT FOR FLORIDA 10-11 (1988) (defining high volume, delay, lack of coordination, and inconsistency as issues in Florida's handling of family law matters); STATE BAR OF GEORGIA COMMISSION ON FAMILY COURTS, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13-14 (1995)(summarizing problems of confusion, inefficiency, unnecessary adversarialism, delay, conflicting rulings, extended appeals, lack of services, and untrained or unqualified court personnel regarding the Georgia court system's handling of family law matters); E. HUNTER HURST & JEFFREY A. KUHN, A FAMILY DEPARTMENT FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF KANSAS 5-6 (1993) (identifying the excessive volume of juvenile and family legal matters, the need for a coordinated approach for the same child or children, and a lack of justice system resources for family law cases as the major problems plaguing Kansas' court system); JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, INTERIM REPORT TO THE COURT: JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT 10 (1992-93)(describing the Kentucky court system's treatment of family law matters as uncoordinated with overlapping jurisdiction and piecemeal decision making); RHODE ISLAND FAMILY COURT STUDY COMMITTEE, REPORT OF THE FAMILY COURT STUDY COMMITTEE 2-3, 5 (1957)(documenting Rhode Island's system of overlapping jurisdiction, inadequate court personnel, and lack of coordination in handling family law matters); VIRGINIA FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, REPORT ON THE FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT 21, 28 (1992)(finding that Virginia's court system is inconvenient, inefficient, uncoordinated, backlogged, and unpredictable for family law litigants); KING COUNTY BENCH/BAR TASK FORCE, UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 8 (1995)(summarizing problems within the court system of King County, Washington, as barriers to access the system, lack of case finality, lack of specialized family law training for court staff, and ineffective coordination and sharing of information among court agencies and with outside agencies).
115. See STEPHEN P. JOHNSON, JUST SOLUTIONS: SEEKING INNOVATION AND CHANGE IN THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM (1994)(reporting on the American Bar Association's
116. See STEPHEN P. JOHNSON, JUST SOLUTIONS: SEEKING INNOVATION AND CHANGE IN THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM (1994)(reporting on the American Bar Association's national conference in 1994 to encourage dialogue among lawyers, judges, and the public regarding needed justice system improvements); CALIFORNIA SENATE TASK FORCE ON FAMILY RELATIONS COURT, SENATE TASK FORCE ON FAMILY RELATIONS COURT: FINAL REPORT 1-6 (1990)(describing problems for family law litigants within California's court system as multiple hearings, conflicting orders, unrealistic expectations, delay in receiving services, and inadequate allocation of court resources); GOVERNOR'S CONSTITUENCY FOR CHILDREN, A FAMILY COURT FOR FLORIDA 10-11 (1988) (defining high volume, delay, lack of coordination, and inconsistency as issues in Florida's handling of family law matters); STATE BAR OF GEORGIA COMMISSION ON FAMILY COURTS, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13-14 (1995)(summarizing problems of confusion, inefficiency, unnecessary adversarialism, delay, conflicting rulings, extended appeals, lack of services, and untrained or unqualified court personnel regarding the Georgia court system's handling of family law matters); E. HUNTER HURST & JEFFREY A. KUHN, A FAMILY DEPARTMENT FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF KANSAS 5-6 (1993) (identifying the excessive volume of juvenile and family legal matters, the need for a coordinated approach for the same child or children, and a lack of justice system resources for family law cases as the major problems plaguing Kansas' court system); JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, INTERIM REPORT TO THE COURT: JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT 10 (1992-93)(describing the Kentucky court system's treatment of family law matters as uncoordinated with overlapping jurisdiction and piecemeal decision making); RHODE ISLAND FAMILY COURT STUDY COMMITTEE, REPORT OF THE FAMILY COURT STUDY COMMITTEE 2-3, 5 (1957)(documenting Rhode Island's system of overlapping jurisdiction, inadequate court personnel, and lack of coordination in handling family law matters); VIRGINIA FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, REPORT ON THE FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT 21, 28 (1992)(finding that Virginia's court system is inconvenient, inefficient, uncoordinated, backlogged, and unpredictable for family law litigants); KING COUNTY BENCH/BAR TASK FORCE, UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 8 (1995)(summarizing problems within the court system of King County, Washington, as barriers to access the system, lack of case finality, lack of specialized family law training for court staff, and ineffective coordination and sharing of information among court agencies and with outside agencies).
117. See STEPHEN P. JOHNSON, JUST SOLUTIONS: SEEKING INNOVATION AND CHANGE IN THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM (1994)(reporting on the American Bar Association's national conference in 1994 to encourage dialogue among lawyers, judges, and the public regarding needed justice system improvements); CALIFORNIA SENATE TASK FORCE ON FAMILY RELATIONS COURT, SENATE TASK FORCE ON FAMILY RELATIONS COURT: FINAL REPORT 1-6 (1990)(describing problems for family law litigants within California's court system as multiple hearings, conflicting orders, unrealistic expectations, delay in receiving services, and inadequate allocation of court resources); GOVERNOR'S CONSTITUENCY FOR CHILDREN, A FAMILY COURT FOR FLORIDA 10-11 (1988) (defining high volume, delay, lack of coordination, and inconsistency as issues in Florida's handling of family law matters); STATE BAR OF GEORGIA COMMISSION ON FAMILY COURTS, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13-14 (1995)(summarizing problems of confusion, inefficiency, unnecessary adversarialism, delay, conflicting rulings, extended appeals, lack of services, and untrained or unqualified court personnel regarding the Georgia court system's handling of family law matters); E. HUNTER HURST & JEFFREY A. KUHN, A FAMILY DEPARTMENT FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF KANSAS 5-6 (1993) (identifying the excessive volume of juvenile and family legal matters, the need for a coordinated approach for the same child or children, and a lack of justice system resources for family law cases as the major problems plaguing Kansas' court system); JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, INTERIM REPORT TO THE COURT: JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT 10 (1992-93)(describing the Kentucky court system's treatment of family law matters as uncoordinated with overlapping jurisdiction and piecemeal decision making); RHODE ISLAND FAMILY COURT STUDY COMMITTEE, REPORT OF THE FAMILY COURT STUDY COMMITTEE 2-3, 5 (1957)(documenting Rhode Island's system of overlapping jurisdiction, inadequate court personnel, and lack of coordination in handling family law matters); VIRGINIA FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, REPORT ON THE FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT 21, 28 (1992)(finding that Virginia's court system is inconvenient, inefficient, uncoordinated, backlogged, and unpredictable for family law litigants); KING COUNTY BENCH/BAR TASK FORCE, UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 8 (1995)(summarizing problems within the court system of King County, Washington, as barriers to access the system, lack of case finality, lack of specialized family law training for court staff, and ineffective coordination and sharing of information among court agencies and with outside agencies).
118. See STEPHEN P. JOHNSON, JUST SOLUTIONS: SEEKING INNOVATION AND CHANGE IN THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM (1994)(reporting on the American Bar Association's national conference in 1994 to encourage dialogue among lawyers, judges, and the public regarding needed justice system improvements); CALIFORNIA SENATE TASK FORCE ON FAMILY RELATIONS COURT, SENATE TASK FORCE ON FAMILY RELATIONS COURT: FINAL REPORT 1-6 (1990)(describing problems for family law litigants within California's court system as multiple hearings, conflicting orders, unrealistic expectations, delay in receiving services, and inadequate allocation of court resources); GOVERNOR'S CONSTITUENCY FOR CHILDREN, A FAMILY COURT FOR FLORIDA 10-11 (1988) (defining high volume, delay, lack of coordination, and inconsistency as issues in Florida's handling of family law matters); STATE BAR OF GEORGIA COMMISSION ON FAMILY COURTS, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13-14 (1995)(summarizing problems of confusion, inefficiency, unnecessary adversarialism, delay, conflicting rulings, extended appeals, lack of services, and untrained or unqualified court personnel regarding the Georgia court system's handling of family law matters); E. HUNTER HURST & JEFFREY A. KUHN, A FAMILY DEPARTMENT FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF KANSAS 5-6 (1993) (identifying the excessive volume of juvenile and family legal matters, the need for a coordinated approach for the same child or children, and a lack of justice system resources for family law cases as the major problems plaguing Kansas' court system); JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, INTERIM REPORT TO THE COURT: JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT 10 (1992-93)(describing the Kentucky court system's treatment of family law matters as uncoordinated with overlapping jurisdiction and piecemeal decision making); RHODE ISLAND FAMILY COURT STUDY COMMITTEE, REPORT OF THE FAMILY COURT STUDY COMMITTEE 2-3, 5 (1957)(documenting Rhode Island's system of overlapping jurisdiction, inadequate court personnel, and lack of coordination in handling family law matters); VIRGINIA FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, REPORT ON THE FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT 21, 28 (1992)(finding that Virginia's court system is inconvenient, inefficient, uncoordinated, backlogged, and unpredictable for family law litigants); KING COUNTY BENCH/BAR TASK FORCE, UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 8 (1995)(summarizing problems within the court system of King County, Washington, as barriers to access the system, lack of case finality, lack of specialized family law training for court staff, and ineffective coordination and sharing of information among court agencies and with outside agencies).
119. See STEPHEN P. JOHNSON, JUST SOLUTIONS: SEEKING INNOVATION AND CHANGE IN THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM (1994)(reporting on the American Bar Association's national conference in 1994 to encourage dialogue among lawyers, judges, and the public regarding needed justice system improvements); CALIFORNIA SENATE TASK FORCE ON FAMILY RELATIONS COURT, SENATE TASK FORCE ON FAMILY RELATIONS COURT: FINAL REPORT 1-6 (1990)(describing problems for family law litigants within California's court system as multiple hearings, conflicting orders, unrealistic expectations, delay in receiving services, and inadequate allocation of court resources); GOVERNOR'S CONSTITUENCY FOR CHILDREN, A FAMILY COURT FOR FLORIDA 10-11 (1988) (defining high volume, delay, lack of coordination, and inconsistency as issues in Florida's handling of family law matters); STATE BAR OF GEORGIA COMMISSION ON FAMILY COURTS, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13-14 (1995)(summarizing problems of confusion, inefficiency, unnecessary adversarialism, delay, conflicting rulings, extended appeals, lack of services, and untrained or unqualified court personnel regarding the Georgia court system's handling of family law matters); E. HUNTER HURST & JEFFREY A. KUHN, A FAMILY DEPARTMENT FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF KANSAS 5-6 (1993) (identifying the excessive volume of juvenile and family legal matters, the need for a coordinated approach for the same child or children, and a lack of justice system resources for family law cases as the major problems plaguing Kansas' court system); JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, INTERIM REPORT TO THE COURT: JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT 10 (1992-93)(describing the Kentucky court system's treatment of family law matters as uncoordinated with overlapping jurisdiction and piecemeal decision making); RHODE ISLAND FAMILY COURT STUDY COMMITTEE, REPORT OF THE FAMILY COURT STUDY COMMITTEE 2-3, 5 (1957)(documenting Rhode Island's system of overlapping jurisdiction, inadequate court personnel, and lack of coordination in handling family law matters); VIRGINIA FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, REPORT ON THE FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT 21, 28 (1992)(finding that Virginia's court system is inconvenient, inefficient, uncoordinated, backlogged, and unpredictable for family law litigants); KING COUNTY BENCH/BAR TASK FORCE, UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 8 (1995)(summarizing problems within the court system of King County, Washington, as barriers to access the system, lack of case finality, lack of specialized family law training for court staff, and ineffective coordination and sharing of information among court agencies and with outside agencies).
120. See STEPHEN P. JOHNSON, JUST SOLUTIONS: SEEKING INNOVATION AND CHANGE IN THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM (1994)(reporting on the American Bar Association's national conference in 1994 to encourage dialogue among lawyers, judges, and the public regarding needed justice system improvements); CALIFORNIA SENATE TASK FORCE ON FAMILY RELATIONS COURT, SENATE TASK FORCE ON FAMILY RELATIONS COURT: FINAL REPORT 1-6 (1990)(describing problems for family law litigants within California's court system as multiple hearings, conflicting orders, unrealistic expectations, delay in receiving services, and inadequate allocation of court resources); GOVERNOR'S CONSTITUENCY FOR CHILDREN, A FAMILY COURT FOR FLORIDA 10-11 (1988) (defining high volume, delay, lack of coordination, and inconsistency as issues in Florida's handling of family law matters); STATE BAR OF GEORGIA COMMISSION ON FAMILY COURTS, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13-14 (1995)(summarizing problems of confusion, inefficiency, unnecessary adversarialism, delay, conflicting rulings, extended appeals, lack of services, and untrained or unqualified court personnel regarding the Georgia court system's handling of family law matters); E. HUNTER HURST & JEFFREY A. KUHN, A FAMILY DEPARTMENT FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF KANSAS 5-6 (1993) (identifying the excessive volume of juvenile and family legal matters, the need for a coordinated approach for the same child or children, and a lack of justice system resources for family law cases as the major problems plaguing Kansas' court system); JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, INTERIM REPORT TO THE COURT: JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT 10 (1992-93)(describing the Kentucky court system's treatment of family law matters as uncoordinated with overlapping jurisdiction and piecemeal decision making); RHODE ISLAND FAMILY COURT STUDY COMMITTEE, REPORT OF THE FAMILY COURT STUDY COMMITTEE 2-3, 5 (1957)(documenting Rhode Island's system of overlapping jurisdiction, inadequate court personnel, and lack of coordination in handling family law matters); VIRGINIA FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, REPORT ON THE FAMILY COURT PILOT PROJECT 21, 28 (1992)(finding that Virginia's court system is inconvenient, inefficient, uncoordinated, backlogged, and unpredictable for family law litigants); KING COUNTY BENCH/BAR TASK FORCE, UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 8 (1995)(summarizing problems within the court system of King County, Washington, as barriers to access the system, lack of case finality, lack of specialized family law training for court staff, and ineffective coordination and sharing of information among court agencies and with outside agencies).
121. Williams, supra note 3, at 385.
122. Pound, supra note 35, at 162; see also MAXINE BOORD VIRTUE, FAMILY CASES IN COURT (1956)(discussing an early comprehensive study of family law case handling by court systems in Chicago, Illinois; Indianapolis, Indiana; San Francisco, California; and Toledo, Ohio).
123. ABA PRESIDENTIAL WORKING GROUP, supra note 7, at 53-54; see also Williams, supra note 3, at 388.
124. Williams, supra, note 3, at 388 (footnote omitted).
125. See supra note 91.
126. ROBERT C. MURPHY, REPORT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION REVIEW COMMITTEE 6-7 (1993)(emphasis in original)(reporting results of a legislatively mandated study summarizing two in-depth reports about Maryland's family law adjudicatory system).
127. See Dunn v. Wescott, 366 N.Y.S.2d 291, 296 (Fam. Ct. Erie Co. 1975).
128. Williams, supra note 3, at 388 (suggesting that unhappy litigants can file successive actions in different courts in systems where fragmentation exists).
129. Id.
130. Jana B. Singer, The Privatization of Family Law, 1992 WIS. L. REV. 1443, 1562-63.
131. Barnes, supra note 10, at 22.
132. Singer, supra note 101, at 1563.
133. Page, supra note 22, at 21 (footnote omitted). See also Barbara A. Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law: A Blueprint to Construct a Unified Family Court, 71 S. CAL. L. REV. 469 (1998).
134. H. Ted Rubin & Geoff Gallas, Child and Family Legal Proceedings: Court Structure, Statutes and Rules, in FAMILIES IN COURT 25,26 (Meredith Hofford ed., 1989).
135. See Page, supra note 22, at 11 (suggesting that the volume of post-judgment motions or applications and enforcement proceedings best indicates the effectiveness of court orders).
136. Rubin & Gallas, supra note 104, at 9.
137. FAMILIES IN COURT: RECOMMENDATIONS FROM A NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM 1 (1989).
138. Family Law matters are defined to include divorce, annulment, and property distribution; child custody and visitation; alimony and child support; paternity, adoption, and termination of parental rights; juvenile causes (juvenile delinquency, child abuse, and child neglect); domestic violence; criminal non-support; name change; guardianship of minors and disabled persons; and withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining medical procedures, involuntary admissions, and emergency evaluations. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, §§ 921-928 (Supp. 1996).
139. Local legislative acts establish Family Court Divisions. Family Court Divisions exist in the larger judicial circuits, in areas where the population is large enough to support such divisions. ALA. CODE § 12-17-24.1 (1995); Telephone Interview with Robert Maddox, Staff Attorney, Administrative Office of Courts (Mar. 5, 1997).
140. The Superior Court, District Court, and/or Youth Court hear family law cases. ALASKA STAT. §§ 22.10.020, 22.15.030 (Michie 1988); ALASKA STAT. ANN. § 47.10.65 (Michie 1995); Telephone Interviews with Stephanie Cole, Deputy Director, Administrative Office of the Courts (July 11, 1995; Mar. 5, 1997).
141. The Juvenile, Domestic Relations, and County Divisions, which are three of the five divisions of the Superior Court, hear family law cases. ARIZ. CONST. art. 6, §§ 14, 15; ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 25-311 (West Supp. 1996); ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 8-202 (West Supp. 1996); ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. 8-102.1 (1989); Telephone Interviews with Mary Lou Quintana, Division Director (July 11, 1995); Agnes Felton, Division Director of Court Services (Mar. 5, 1997).
142. ARK. CODE ANN. § 16-13-201 (Michie 1994); ARK. CODE ANN. § 9-12-301; ARK. CODE ANN. § 28-1-104 (Michie 1987); ARK. CODE ANN. § 9-27-306 (Michie Supp. 1995); Telephone Interviews with James D. Gingerich, Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts (June 23, 1995); Leslie Steen, Clerk of the Supreme Court (Mar. 5, 1997).
143. CAL. FAM. CODE §§ 20000 - 20043 (West 1994).
144. Colorado has established Family Law Divisions internally in Colorado Springs, Denver, and Arapahoe County. Telephone Interview with Cheri Kester, Office of the State Court Administrator (Apr. 10, 1997).
145. The Superior Court hears all cases. CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN. § 51-164 (West 1985); CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN. §§ 46b-174, 46b-180, 46b-121, 46b-42, 46b-93 (West 1993); Telephone Interviews with Robert Tompkins, Deputy Director of the Family Division (which is only a social services arm of the Superior Court) (Aug. 16, 1995); Paula Campo, Family Division Administrator (Mar. 5, 1997).
146. Delaware established its Family Court in 1971. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, §§ 921-928 (Supp. 1996).
147. The District of Columbia established its Family Court in 1970. D.C. CODE ANN. § 11-902 (1995).
148. Either local rules or administrative orders expressly approved by the Supreme Court control implementation of Family Divisions in Circuit Courts. Telephone Interview with with Gwen Stewart, Senior Attorney for Family Court (Apr. 11, 1997). See also In re Report of Commission on Family Courts, 588 So. 2d 586, 591 (1991).
149. Georgia has enacted enabling legislation for pilot programs, GA. CODE ANN. § 15-5-26 (1996), but the Judicial Council has yet to approve any pilot projects. Two judicial circuits have pilot proposals pending before the Council: Tallapoosa Judicial Circuit in northwest Georgia and Tifton Judicial Circuit in south Georgia. Letter from Quintus W. Sibley, Reporter, State Bar of Georgia Commission on Family Courts (Apr. 11, 1997).
150. Hawaii established its Family Court in 1965. HAW. REV. STAT. §§ 571-3 (1993).
151. The District Court and Magistrate's Division hear family law cases. IDAHO CODE §32-715 (1996); IDAHO CODE §§ 16-1602, 16-1603 (Supp. 1996); IDAHO CODE §§ 20-502, 20-503 (Supp. 1996); IDAHO CODE § 16-2002(a) (Supp. 1996); Telephone Interviews with Thomas Frost, Legal Counsel, Administrative Office of the Courts (July 7, 1995); Jana Saxton, Assistant to Mr. Frost (Mar. 20, 1997).
152. A Family Court currently operates in the Fifth Municipal District. John Flynn Rooney, 5th Municipal District Opens Unified Family Court Project, DAILY L. BULL. July 22, 1997, at 1. Projects are currently planned for the Sixth Municipal District and the Eighteenth Judicial District. Telephone Interview with, and Facsimilie Transmission from, Joy L. Lee, Court Administrator, Sixth Municipal Distict, Circuit Court of Cook County (Aug. 1, 1997).
153. The Circuit Court, Superior Court, County Court, and Probate Court hear family law cases. IND. CODE ANN. § 33-4-4-3 (Michie 1992); IND. CODE ANN. §§ 33-5-4.5-1 to 33-5-50-11 (Michie 1992 & Supp. 1996); IND. CODE ANN. § 31-6-2-1.1 (Michie Supp. 1996); IND. CODE ANN.. § 33-8-2-10 (Michie 1992); IND. CODE ANN. § 33-8-2-9 (Michie 1992); Telephone Interviews with Jack Stark, Staff Attorney, Division of State Court Administration (July 17, 1995; Mar. 27, 1997); Telephone Interview with Jeff Berkovitz, Director of Probate and Juvenile Services (July 3, 1997).
154. The District Court and Juvenile Court hear family law cases. Iowa Code Ann. §§ 232.61, 232.109 (West 1994); IOWA CODE ANN. §§ 602.7101, 600.3, 598.2 (West 1996); Telephone Interviews with David Ewert, Director of Appellate Screening (July 7, 1995; Mar. 20, 1997).
155. In 1977, the Kansas legislature authorized the creation of specialized divisions of the District Court whenever the judges of the District Court deem it necessary and with approval of the Supreme Court. KAN. STAT. ANN. § 20-438 (1995). Douglas County established its Family Department under this statute. Telephone Interviews with Kathy Kirk, Kansas Judicial Center (May 7, 1996; Apr. 3, 1997).
156. FAMILY CT. NEWSLETTER: JEFFERSON COUNTY, PILOT PROJECT (Jefferson County, Ky., Family Court), Mar. 8, 1991 at 4.
157. The Family Court for East Baton Rouge Parish shall convene in quarters which the governing authorities of the city of Baton Rouge and East Baton Rouge Parish shall provide. LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 13:1407 (West Supp. 1997).
158. The legislature authorized the creation of the pilot project in 1990 to handle family law cases. In 1993, the legislature extended the pilot project until January 15, 1999. ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 4, §§ 1, 451 (West Supp. 1995).
159. 1993 Md. Laws ch. 198 and MD. CT. RULE 16-204 (effective July 1, 1998).
160. Massachusetts established its Probate and Family Court Department in 1978. The Massachusetts Trial Court consists of the following departments: the Superior Court Department, the Housing Court Department, the Land Court Department, the Probate and Family Court Department, the Boston Municipal Court Department, the Juvenile Court Department, and the District Court Department. MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 211B, § 1 (Supp. 1996).
161. MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 600.1001 (West Supp. 1997); effective January 1, 1998.
162. The District Court hears all cases. MINN. STAT. ANN. §§ 260.019, 260.021 (West 1992); MINN. STAT. ANN. § 260.111 (West Supp. 1996); MINN. STAT. ANN. §§ 518.002-518.66 (West 1990 & Supp. 1997); Telephone Interviews with Steve Forestell, Director of Judicial Advisory Service (July 27, 1995; Apr. 3, 1997).
163. Harrison County is the only county in Mississippi that has a Family Court. Only counties which meet certain requirements, namely, counties that are heavily populated, can establish Family Courts. Miss. CODE ANN. § 43-23-1 (1993).
164. There are presently seven Family Courts throughout the state of Missouri. Six of these courts, specifically created by statute, exist in the larger metropolitan areas. Other circuits can choose, by local court rule, to establish a Family Court in their circuit. Mo. REV. STAT. § 487.010 (Supp. 1997). Telephone Interview with Gary Waint, Director of Juvenile and Family Court Programs (May 20, 1997).
165. The District Court and the Youth Court hear family law cases. MONT. CODE ANN. §§ 40-4-104, 40-6-109, 41-3-103, 41-5-203 (1995); Telephone Interviews with Chris Wethern, Staff Attorney, Administrative Office of the Courts (June 29, 1995; Mar. 20, 1997).
166. The District Court, County Court, and Juvenile Court hear family law cases. NEB. REV. STAT. §§ 24-517, 43-247, 42-348 (Supp. 1996); Telephone Interviews with Joseph C. Steele, Court Administrator (June 29, 1995); Sherry Lampe, Assistant Court Administrator (Mar. 27, 1997).
167. Family Courts are authorized in counties with population greater than 100,000. Currently two counties, Clark and Washoe, have Family Courts. NEV. REV. STAT. § 3.0105 (Supp. 1995); Telephone Interview with Kathy Harrington, Assistant Law Librarian, Office of Washoe County Family Court Judge Scott Jordan (Apr. 10, 1997).
168. The pilot project has operated since July, 1996. Telephone Interview with Craig Briggs, Administrator of Family Division Project (June 2, 1997).
169. New Jersey established its Family Division by Constitutional Amendment in 1983 (N.J. CONST. art. 6, § 3, para. 3). N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2A:4-3 (West 1987) addressed court personnel conditions, qualifications and requirements. It was repealed in 1991 by N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 2B:3-1 to 5-3 (Supp. 1997), upgrading certain court employee conditions, qualifications and requirements; the constitutional provision establishing the Family Division remains effective. Letter from Jeffrey A. Kuhn, Assistant Director for the Family Division of the Courts of New Jersey (Apr. 28, 1997).
170. Family Court divisions of the District Court, created by District Court rule, only exist in the larger districts where the population creates the need for such a division. Presently there are two Family Courts. Telephone Interviews with Fern Goodman, Staff Attorney, Administrative Office of the Courts (June 5, 1996; Mar. 27, 1997; Apr. 24, 1997).
171. New York established its Family Court in 1962. N.Y. FAM. CT. ACT § 113 (McKinney 1988 & Supp. 1997).
172. The District Court and the Juvenile Court hear family law cases. N.C. Const. art. 6, § 1; N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 7A-517(9), 7A-523, 50-4 (1995); Telephone Interviews with Fred M. Morelock, District Court Judge (June 29, 1995); Betty Wall, Assistant Clerk of the Supreme Court (Mar. 20, 1997).
173. North Dakota has a Unified Court System (only one trial court statewide). N.D. CENT. CODE § 27-20-03 (1974); N.D. CENT. CODE § 27-20-04 (1989); N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 14-12.1-02, 14-15-01 (1981); Telephone Interview with Sherry Mills Moore, Chair of Ad Hoc Commission on Family Law (Aug. 30, 1995); Keithe Nelson, North Dakota Courts Administrator (Mar. 27, 1997).
174. OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 3105.011 (Banks-Baldwin 1995 & Supp. 1997).
175. Family Law Divisions exist in two counties: Tulsa and Oklahoma. Telephone Interview with Sheila Sewell, Deputy Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts (Mar. 27, 1997).
176. Family Court Domestic Relations Departments exist in at least Marion, Multnomah, Clackamas, Deschuts, and Lane Counties. Telephone Interview with Sue Gerhardt, Office of Hugh McIsaac, Director of Family Court Services (Apr. 10, 1997).
177. Family Court Divisions only exist in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties. 42 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 951 (West 1981). Each Court of Common Pleas has a Domestic Relations services section, which consists of probation officers and other court staff. 42 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 961 (West 1981).
178. Rhode Island established its Family Court in 1961. R.I. GEN. LAWS § 8-10-3 (Supp. 1996).
179. South Carolina established its Family Court in 1977. S.C. CODE ANN. § 14-2-10 (Law Co-op. 1985 & Supp. 1996).
180. South Dakota's Circuit Court is the only court of general jurisdiction; therefore, the Circuit Court hears all family law cases. S.D. CODIFIED LAWS §§ 26-7A-2, 25-3-1, 25-5A-5, 25-6-6 (Michie 1992); S.D. CODIFIED LAWS §§ 26-7A-1, 25-10-2 (Michie 1997); Telephone Interviews with Michael Buenger, State Court Administrator (Aug. 30, 1995); Ken Olander, State Court Administrator's Office (Apr. 3, 1997).
181. The General Session, Circuit Court, and Juvenile Court hear family law cases. TENN. CODE ANN. §§ 37-1-103, 37-1-104, 37-1-203, 37-1-205 (1996); TENN. CODE ANN. § 16-15-406 (1994); Telephone Interviews with Jean Stone, Staff Attorney, Administrative Office of the Courts (June 29, 1995); Jona Coppola, Assistant to Director of Administrative Office of the Courts (Mar. 20, 1997).
182. In the larger counties, the Family District Courts are separate courts; however, in the smaller counties, the Family District Courts are merely divisions of the District Courts. Telephone Interview with Jim Hutchinson, General Counsel, Office of the Court Administrator (Mar. 27, 1997).
183. The District Court and Juvenile Court hear family law cases. UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 78-3a-16, 78-3a-17 (1996); UTAH CODE ANN. § 30-3-16.1 (1995); Telephone Interviews with Brant Johnson, Acting General Counsel, Administrative Office of the Courts (July 27, 1995); Cheryll May, Public Information Officer (Mar. 20, 1997).
184. Vermont established its Family Court in 1990. VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 4, § 451 (Supp. 1996).
185. Virginia's Family Court Project is presently on hold. Legislation creating the project passed in 1993 and remains in effect until June 1, 1998. The Legislature has not funded the project, however; thus, the Family Court presently does not exist. Telephone Interview with Lelia Hooper, Director, Family Court Project (May 29, 1997).
186. Washington established its Family Court in 1949. WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 26.12.010 (West 1997).
187. The Magistrate Court and Circuit Court hear family law cases. W. VA. CODE §§ 49-5-2, 48-4-14, 48-2-5 (1996); Telephone Interviews with Penny Crandall, Assistant Director for Family Law Master Program (Aug. 17, 1995; Mar. 21, 1997).
188. The only Family Division, established by local rule, exists in Milwaukee. Telephone Interviews with Cindy Hapka, Office of Wisconsin District Court Administrator (Mar. 20, 1997; Apr. 10, 1997).
189. The County Court and District/Juvenile Court hear family law cases. WYO. STAT. ANN. §§ 1-22-104, 14-6-203, 14-1-203, 14-2-106, 20-2-104, 5-5-135 (1997); Telephone Interviews with Allen Johnson, Senior Staff Attorney, Administrative Office of the Courts (July 27, 1995); Elaine Kirby, Fiscal Specialist for Administrative Office of the Courts (Mar. 20, 1997).