UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS

Much has been written about the potential success of unified family courts. Unified family court proponents share great optimism and enthusiasm for what they see as a solution to several of the problems facing court systems today. This enthusiasm should be applauded. As with any reform, however, unified family court advocates must stop to consider the possible drawbacks to the system that they propose; otherwise, they might end up with a system that is the same or worse than the one that they were attempting to fix. This article highlights several of the potential problems with unified family courts. It is not a condemnation of unified family courts per se; it is simply a suggestion that reformers proceed with their eyes open, taking time to consider the potential drawbacks of the unified family court system before using valuable resources for its implementation.     

UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS

Fragmented court systems are especially problematic for domestic violence victims because they typically are involved in more than one proceeding that stems from the same pattern of abuse. The proceedings are handled in different courts and before different judges, who are often unaware of these orders being issued in other proceedings. Consequently, conflicting orders are prevalent and the protection and needs of victims are often not met. A unified family court, on the other hand, provides one court with the subject-matter jurisdiction to handle all family-related matters and one judge to hear all cases that involve a single family, resulting in conflicting orders being issued less frequently. Additionally, the needs of victims are better served as a result of the services component. Given the fragmented state of the court systems in New York and Pennsylvania, United States; Alberta, Canada; and Australia, unified family courts should be implemented in each locality.     

A SURVEY OF UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS

The American Bar Association Coordinating Council on Unified Family Courts, with the assistance of Hofstra University's Center for Childre. Family and the Courts, recently conducted a survey of various courts and jurisdictions that either implemented or experimented with a unified family court structure. The purpose of the project was to get a sense of the state of unified family courts with the goal of building more support for the unified family court concept based on demonstrated effectiveness. The findings of the survey have been summarized in this article. The survey, survey data, and list of survey respondents can be found in the article's appendices.     

A PRACTITIONER'S PERSPECTIVE ON UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS: CASE STUDIES

As a summary of simple examples demonstrating practical advantages of a family court, this article relates a few experiences from the perspective of a family law attorney who practices regularly in the Fulton County Family Division in Atlanta.     

GUEST EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION TO SPECIAL ISSUE ON ATTACHMENT THEORY,SEPARATION, AND DIVORCE: FORGING COHERENT UNDERSTANDINGS FOR FAMILY LAW

Every day in family law courts and mediation rooms across the world, complex decisions are made about postseparation parenting that affect the developmental outcomes of countless children. Attorneys, judges, parents, and even mental health professionals are often poorly equipped to accurately apply developmental knowledge to these decisions, including knowledge from the vast field of attachment theory. A mounting body of research from developmental psychology and neuroscience confirms attachment relationships to be a central axis of the child's developmental pathway, in every family, in every culture throughout the world. The health of a child's attachments can influence multiple and far‐reaching outcomes. As such, attachment theory and knowledge deserve a place in the family court's deliberations and planning for children, but to date, that place remains ill defined. Inconsistencies and misunderstandings, conundrums and complexities of applying attachment knowledge to divorce and separation matters are evident throughout the field. This Special Issue went in search of a shared praxis of meaning about attachment. The resulting collection of papers and interviews documents the views of multiple, eminent attachment experts, who discuss advances in the theory and consider guidelines for legal and mental health practitioners in applying attachment concepts to post‐separation decision making. This opening paper charts the course of this project and summarizes the major points of convergence.     

SUMMIT ON UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS: SERVING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EFFICIENTLY,EFFECTIVELY, AND RESPONSIBLY

As president of the American Bar Association when the “Summit on Unified Family Courts” convened in May 2007, Karen J. Mathis welcomed summit attendees. Recounting the many reasons children wind up in court, Mathis observed that society is lucky if these problems even come before the courts. Too often, she said, the underlying problems of destructive behavior among youth are lost in the shuffle of too many lawyers, case workers, and judges. “Many times they’re ignored by the professionals among us who are not trained to be aware that the problems even exist,” she said. The solution to this fragmented approach is unified family courts, she concluded.     

FAMILY COURTS

Oregon has encouraged experimentation with family courts using the one family-one judge approach. At the First Annual Family Law Conference, sponsored by the Oregon Judical Department and the Oregon Family Law Advisory Committee, the author presented a keynote talk addressing the "ethical" issues raised by the use of comprehensive family courts. In this adaptation, the author places the concept of family courts in historical perspective and then assesses the rationale for them and the policy trade-offs involved, as well as possible procedural safeguards. Consolidated family courts using judical specialists dealing with multiple interrelated parties and integrating an array of social services appear to offer a better approach to related party cases. The author concludes that the benefits outweigh the speculative risks.