(Source: Utah Children)
Shortly after the creation of the nation's first juvenile courts at the turn of the century, the breadth of that experiment was expanded in 1914 in Cincinnati, from a court with jurisdiction over the legal matters of children to one with jurisdiction over law pertaining to families and their children.
The idea of a family court spread through the 1950's to other urban jurisdictions across the nation. Following the drafting of proposed model family court legislation by national organizations in 1959, the first state systems of family courts were established in Rhode Island (1961), New York (1962), and Hawaii (1965). In the past decade, other states increasingly considered reorganizing their court systems to include family courts, particularly in light of recommendations for consolidation by such organizations as the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (1991), the American Bar Association (1993), and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (1995).
By 1997, 11 jurisdictions had family law courts within separate divisions or departments; 14 had separate family courts or divisions, but only in selected state areas (including New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma and Nevada); and nine were actively planning family court systems or running pilot family court projects. At that time, 17 jurisdictions had no separate or specialized family law systems (including Arizona, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and Montana).
Proponets Definition of and Rationale for Creating Family Courts
Although wide diversity and definition of family court models exist across the U.S., the basic model of a family court is considered to be that recommended by Utah's 1994 Task Force, a unified family court which consolidates all, or mostly all, categories of family-related legal matters into one court structure.
This essentially involves merging juvenile court and domestic relations courts, and sometimes other courts such as probate. Such structural reorganization must also be undergirded by supporting policies, case coordination, and procedures and services to allow realization of the goals underlying family court reforms.
Unlike the family court system proposed by the 1994 Task Force, family law matters in Utah are currently dealt with by two separate court systems. The juvenile court hears all cases involving juveniles, which primarily concern matters of abuse, neglect, dependency, and delinquency matters, and status offenses (such as truancy or possession of tobacco or alcohol). Other family law matters are dealt with by the district court as domestic relations or probate matters, along with its extensive docket of all other general jurisdiction matters. Domestic relations cases primarily concern divorce or other dissolution matters, domestic violence, custody and visitation, support, paternity, and adoption.
Three primary issues underlie the national impetus toward creating family courts; these were all recognized in the 1994 Task Force Report as supporting creation of a family court in Utah, although in a somewhat different format. These issues are (1) the problems created by jurisdictional confusion and overlap, (2) resource issues of the courts, and (3) difficulties in information coordination between courts. Each problem can tremendously affect the courts, attorneys, and all agencies or providers associated with the courts. Much more importantly, though, these problems can negatively affect individual families and children. Thus, the human, social, and economic cost to Utah of failing to mitigate whatever harm can feasibly be addressed by re-structuring or adapting its court system is immense.
Potential Benefits to Utah Through Creating Family Court System
Parties have cases heard by decision maker interested in or knowledgable about family law.
Judges who seek family law assignment are most often suited by temperment and training to work with children and families, and to promote their healing and protection through a judicial process which is not oriented toward the traditional adversarial model.
Specialization of judges and their staff saves time, creates efficiency for the court, and provides a better quality of service.
Closer coordination of multiple cases for individual families would help those families negotiate the system better and connect with necessary services which could be more consistently provided, while also allowing better decision making by the court, the most timely processing, and greater oversight of treatment providers.
Cautions About Family Courts Since 1994
Some now caution that existing justice systems should be analyzed closely before a jurisdiction attempts to implement a family court system, and that a good, specialized juvenile system that deals well with abuse/neglect cases should not be replaced until it is certain that the new family law court will as effectively protect the interests of children.
Other proponents recognize that such systems are resource intensive and high maintenance, but still assert that no other system can deal as effectively with the problems faced by courts dealing with families in conflict.
Some family court experts have recognized that no hard data exists to prove the effectiveness of family courts, only anecdotal evidence, and that evaluative systems need to be built into any new system to assess its effectiveness. They also recognize that some family court goals might be achieved without merging court systems, but by adapting family court features to existing systems; however, they still maintain that usually the best and most effective way to address families enmeshed in court conflict is through creation of family courts.
Implications For Utah
Proponents feel the following should be considered on deciding whether or not to implement a family court system in Utah:
After all factors are considered, if development of a family court system would produce sufficiently better results for children and families so as to warrant the cost and effort necessary to accomplish the change, then the design for a family court system in Utah should be identified.
The state must invest adequate resources if a family court system is created.
Pilot programs should be used before proceeding with full-scale change.
Public should be involved in studying the need for change in the court system.
