|
 |
|
|
|
The past few years have seen not only consolidation of administration and trial court funding statewide, but also an expanded role for the Judicial Council in court operations. Family and Juvenile Courts comprise much of statewide court operations. The Council has made access to the courts and a focus on children two of its highest priorities. As a result, the Advisory Committees to the Council also have an enlarged role and a broader purview. Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee member Joseph J. Bell describes these topics below. The Judicial Council of California was established in 1926 by article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. It consists of the Chief Justice and one other justice of the Supreme Court, 3 judges of the Courts of Appeal, 9 judges of the Superior Courts, one judge of the municipal [now also Superior] court, 2 nonvoting court administrators, four State Bar members appointed by the Board of Governors, one member of each house of the legislature and other nonvoting members as determined by the council The Council is charged to "improve the administration of justice" by surveying the courts, making recommendations to the legislature and the governor, adopting court rules and forms, and other functions provided by statute. In the area of family and juvenile law, there are few legislative enactments that do not include some requirement for Judicial Council action. For example, more than a dozen new statutes in the areas of family and juvenile law this year require the Judicial Council to amend or adopt forms, rules, or standards, to conduct studies, or to prepare reports to the legislature on the implementation of legislation. Most of this work is assigned to advisory committees of volunteer judicial officers and lawyers, aided by Judicial Council staff. There are 15 advisory committees to the Council. They make recommendations to the Council in all areas of court processes, procedures, rules, standards, forms, legislation, pilot projects, grants and other matters. The work of the Council and its committees may be viewed by visiting the Council and courts website at www.courtinfo.ca.gov. The easiest way to find useful links is to go to the site map (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/sitemap.htm) which has links to the Statewide Office of Family Court Services (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courtadmin/aoc/fcs) and the Center for Children and the Courts (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/childrenandthecourts), all of which contain many resources for the practitioner. The Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee is authorized by Government Code section 68501 and California Rules of Court, Rule 6.43. The Committee's grant administration authority is contained in Family Code sections 1850 and 1851. The committee's operation has evolved to the point where it now makes recommendations on any area of family and juvenile law or procedure that the Council may consider or the legislature may require. The committee is composed of two subcommittees of 15 persons each, mostly judicial officers and court administrators, with a number of practicing lawyers in family and juvenile law. The lawyers work in private practice as well as for governmental agencies and come from all over the state. Committee members are listed on the advisory committee page of the Council web site. Though the work of the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee is generally not well known, recent years have given it a higher profile, due to some of its projects, especially those designed to deal with pro per litigants in the family courts. Most well known, of course, was the "Family Court 2000" project which received initial criticism, but much of which is now being implemented in a low-profile way through the AB 1058 (commissioner and facilitator) program, and the pilot project for three Family Law Information Centers approved last year and now to be funded under an amendment to Family Code section 15010 (AB 874). Another "access" project is the new courts/legal services partnership grant program, for which the legislature appropriated $1 million for the year 2000. RFPs for those funds have just been distributed and the deadline for applications is December 17, 1999. The "partnership" grants being administered jointly with the State Bar IOLTA (Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts) Commission. Monitoring and preparing comments on pending legislation that might affect court operations and the work of the judiciary, as well as developing legislative proposals within the Council's purview is a significant aspect of the work of the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee. Limited resources, competing priorities and political realities impose practical limitations on the legislative activity of the Council and its committees. All legislative efforts are guided by the Long Range Strategic Plan and the Guidelines and Precedents adopted by the Council. An emergency form problem the Family Committee is dealing with at the moment is the replacement of the current wage assignment form (Rule 1285.70) to comply with PRWORA (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193) also known as the welfare reform act) and SB 542 (Burton). PRWORA required all states to adopt the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) by January 1, 1998 and to begin utilizing the standard Order/Notice to Withhold for all child support wage assignments for both intrastate and interstate cases, whether the support was being enforced pursuant to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, or not. The Burton bill enacted this requirement in Family Code section 5208(b). The standard (known as OMB 0970-0154) form had been adopted by the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement after years of lobbying by employers' groups and the payroll industry for a standardized form to replace multiple, and sometimes unintelligible forms then in use. For whatever reasons, California did not comply. In a letter to all State IV-D directors on February 8, 1999, David G. Ross, the Commissioner of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement affirmed that the federal form "must be used in all cases" after January 1, 1994. The Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee has drafted a revised Rule 1285.70 form that will cover only spousal support, to be adopted by the Council in December, for mandatory use. (The new form will be adopted without public comment, due to the urgency of this action.) Commencing January 1, 2000. All new orders for spousal support must use the revised form. The OMB 0970-0154 form will also be required for all child and family support assignment orders after January 1, 2000, despite the fact that it does not follow standard format for California form orders. There will be further information regarding this problem available at the Council website as actions are taken. In the coming year, the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee will be completing an evaluation of the AB 1058 commissioner/facilitator program, continuing its on-going rule and form simplification effort, and drafting of proposals for legislation and rule changes. Any practitioner with comments or concerns on any of these issues is encouraged to contact me or other committee members in the coming year. (Joseph J. Bell: phone: 530-272-7477, facsimile: 272-7340 or on line at attorney@bellslaw.com) |
| Home | News | Articles | Office FAQ | Resources | About Bellslaw |
