FAMILY COURTS BENEFIT FROM NEW GRANTS AND BUDGET INCREASES

 

The 2000-2001 total Judicial Branch allocations proposed by the Governor top $2.427 billion dollars, including $10 million to continue the Equal Access Fund,  first enacted and funded in 1999-2000, $10 million in additional Trial Court Funding for  family and children court services, and a one-time $22 million allocation to support case processing technology. Additionally, increased funding for the AB 1058 Facilitator/Commissioner system is continued and funds are presently being disbursed to three court information center pilot projects.  The future of family court operations is being re-defined by these new funding initiatives and concurrent changes in court rules and operations, as Joseph J. Bell, a member of the Judicial Council Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee, describes in the following report.

 

NEWS FROM CJAC - THE CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION CONFERENCE

 

California's judicial authority is statutorily vested by the State Constitution our familiar three part court system, composed of almost 1600 judges and justices of the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal and the trial courts. However, since the Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 (AB 233),  the actual operations of the courts are managed statewide by the Judicial Council through the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), its various subdivisions, committees and advisory committees and the standing Trial Court Budget Commission, which is appointed by the Judicial Council.  The counties presently retain the responsibility for court facilities and personnel, though the legislature has established two task forces to study and make recommendations regarding the statewide funding of these two remaining local responsibilities.

The annual Judicial Administration Conference (January 26-28, 2000) was addressed by a jubilant Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who reminded the assembled judges, court administrators and employees that February 2000 marks the 150th anniversary of the establishment of the California Supreme Court. Almost as significantly, Justice George also happily reported that the Los Angeles courts had finally implemented trial court unification, leaving Kern County courts as the sole, and wavering, opposition to unified municipal and superior state court operations.  "Only 31 municipal court judges serve in California today - a figure that may qualify them for endangered species status," he quipped. More importantly, Justice George pointed out that, in two short years since AB 233 was passed, the judicial branch "has demonstrated that it can obtain and effectively utilize funding to improve service in areas of concern that span county boundaries...areas as diverse as technology, security, and assisting pro per litigants. Speaking with a unified voice, our branch can effectively advocate for the needs of all courts, and work to ensure equal access to justice for all Californians."

 

NEW ROLES FOR THE JUDICIARY

                                                                             

And these were more than just words of inspiration and motivation.  The unification of California's courts, the implementation of trial court funding and the new court budget initiatives are creating a historic shift in the role of the courts, as well as the power of the judicial branch.

Family and juvenile courts, being the most heavily used and overtaxed, the most historically under-funded, and having been the least attractive assignments for many judges in the past, are now being accorded more priority for funding new programs to provide access and services to litigants.  The trial courts themselves are evolving new roles through local creative programs that are receiving the financial and administrative support of the Judicial Branch. Justice George characterizes these efforts as part of the court system being "vigorous in trying to identify and address all causes of any decrease in public confidence in the courts."

Correspondingly, the practice of family and juvenile law is also evolving.  Lawyers' work and our ability to solve our clients' problems and meet their needs through the court system will be affected. Of course, this is not big news.  The ACFLS Newsletter has tracked the evolution of family law in recent years.  A 1995 issue highlighted "New Age Family Law" - innovations which were "cropping up all over California."  Issues in 1996 discussed the "pro per crisis in family law" and "family court reform." Some of those reform proposals foundered on the perceived difficulties of implementing dramatic changes in hundreds of diverse trial courts.  Since then however, it has been the local courts which are leading the way to reform. While it is far too early to reach any conclusions, it appears that California's 21st Century Courts may be both and easier and better places to do business than they have been in the past.

 

CHANGES IN FAMILY AND JUVENILE COURT OPERATIONS

 

Some examples:

 

AB 1058 Facilitator/Commissioner System

Though initial skepticism and complicated state-federal requirements accompanied the passage of  AB 1058 (Speier) in 1996, every court in the state now provides court-based attorneys - family law facilitators - who assist families at no charge with information about child support, and in some courts, other family law matters (which must be funded by the local courts). All courts also now have commissioners whose primary duty must be to hear child support cases. The 1999 funding for the facilitator/commissioner programs to local courts was $8,700,000/$30,140,000,  respectively,  for a total of $38,840,000.

In fact, the facilitator/commissioner program has been a resounding success, according to reports received so far.  Not only have the proceedings to determine paternity and support been expedited, a new "helping" function of the family court has been legitimized and institutionalized. The concept that the court may not provide legal advice to litigants has been supplanted by the reality of the AB 1058 program and federal and state mandates to reduce the expense of child support litigation through standardization and simplification of court practices and procedures at all levels.

The program had bipartisan support in the legislature to begin with, but the glowing reports from around the state, during legislative hearings last year, of positive effect on court calendars, as well as on families involved in litigation, resulted in a 23% increase in funding for the current and next fiscal years.  The Judicial Council's Family and Juvenile  Law Advisory Committee is overseeing AB 1058 training programs, educational programs and implementation seminars,  as well as a legislatively mandated formal evaluation of the entire program that will be completed this year. The process of creating the evaluation in itself has resulted in a new impetus for more accurate record keeping and statistical reporting, standardized electronic data collection, and on-going analysis of family court operations at the local level. 

The effect on family courts: more judicial resources available for non-child support family and juvenile court matters and free legal services to child support litigants.

 

Family Law Information Centers

The next and obvious step from a service oriented family court operation is to create service centers within the courthouses.  In 1998, the legislature approved the concept of family law information center pilot projects [Family Code section 15000-15012], but provided no money to fund such projects.  Local courts got the word, however, and when the Budget Act of 1999 provided $300,000 in funding for the Judicial Council to establish three pilot projects, the applications rolled in.  A special Selection Review Committee of the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee was established to review applications for the pilot project funds from  courts around the state.  The Committee recommended, and the Judicial Council has now approved, funding for information centers in Los Angeles, Fresno and Sutter courts.

The Los Angeles Information Centers will be established at the Central and Nowalk branches of the Superior Court, which had 134,443 family law filings and 16,667 requests for pendente lite orders in fiscal year 1998-1999, the vast majority of which had at least one unrepresented party. The center will fund paralegals and a supervising attorney to provide general assistance to unrepresented litigants, develop a resource library, prepare orders after hearing, and perform community education and outreach.

In Fresno, the Information Center will work with the facilitator and assist with a new domestic violence project sponsored by Central California Legal Assistance, in seven outlying courts and the Fresno Civic Center.  The services will target low-income, traditionally under-represented litigants in family court. Brochures, hand outs, workshops,  as well as one-on-one services to non-English speaking litigants, will be provided.

The third Center will provide services to residents of Sutter, Yuba and Colusa counties, including one-on-one services, daily legal information clinics, computer work stations for pro per litigants, mediation facilities, and a pro per library. This program will also house a variety of other family conflict/transition services.

In addition to the Information Center funding, the Judicial Council is presently in the process of distributing an additional $250,000 from the court Modernization Fund to assist courts in developing self-help centers in conjunction with legal services providers.

The effect on family courts: too early to say, but the precedent is established for legal services offices operating in each courthouse, under jurisdiction of the local court, funded by the state. At a minimum, family court litigants may now come to some courts knowing they will get legal advice, as well as judicial decisions.

 

Equal Access Fund Grants

The 1999-2000 state budget created the Equal Access Fund, an outgrowth of the work of the  Access to Justice Commission, which was established by the State Bar several years ago.  The Commission issued a 1997 report which concluded that "the legal needs of three out of four poor Californians are not being met."  The Equal Access Fund budget allocation was the first ever funding of statewide legal services programs using general tax revenues in California.

 The initial allocation of $10,000,000 has been repeated in the Governor's 2000-2001 budget proposal.  The funds are given to the Judicial Council to be distributed through the State Bar's Legal Services Trust Fund Program. Of the $10 million, $8.5 million was distributed in 1999 to existing legal services providers, using the existing IOLTA [Interest On Lawyers' Trust Accounts] formula.  Of  the remaining funds, $950,000 was designated by the legislature "for joint projects of courts and legal services programs to make legal assistance available to pro per litigants."  All of the funds were to go to legal services programs qualified under Business and Professions Code sections 6213-6224, but the "partnership grant" funds were not bound by IOLTA formula.

The partnership grant selection criteria focused on projects at or near the courthouse, for indigent pro per litigants, and other considerations such as diverse locations, under-served communities, creative approaches to court-based services, collaboration with the court and other providers, and other financial support for the proposal.

At its meeting on January 14, 2000, the Legal Services Trust Fund Commission approved grants to 12 of 34 proposed partnership grant projects around the state, 10 of which involve domestic violence or family law related programs. Since another $10 million for continued Equal Access Fund grants has been included in the Governor's 2000 budget, a new grant application cycle for  2000-2001 will take place this year.

The effect on family courts: increased variety of legal services delivery in local courthouses, with greater emphasis on partnerships between the local courts and legal services providers, to deliver efficient and effective legal services.  Additional future effect: increased public perception of the court as a "help center" in areas other than just family and juvenile law.

 

Minimum Standards-New Rules in Family/Juvenile Courts

Over the past several years, the Judicial Council, largely at the behest of the legislature, has been developing rules and standards to guide the operations of family and juvenile courts.  These rules and standards seek to make the operations of the courts, the procedures of family court services and private providers, and the determinations and decisions of the court, more consistent around the state. A complete list of rules and standards passed during 1999 may be obtained at the Judicial Council website: www.courtinfo.ca.gov. Some of the more significant changes include the following:

Rule 1208: Minimum standards for the office of the Family Law Facilitator, including standards for experience, training, and delivery of services under Family Code section 10010;

Rule 1258: Amended standards for support software, providing that the certified programs may be used in any court;

Rule 1424: Amended guidelines for Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) programs, specifying the permitted relationship of the CASA organizations to other entities;

Uniform Standards for Court-Ordered Child Custody Evaluation, as set forth in Rule of Court 1257.3;

Uniform Standards of Practice for Court-connected Child Custody Mediation, proposed Rule 1257.1, now set for enactment on July 1, 2001;

Domestic Violence Training Standards for Court Appointed Child Custody Investigators and Evaluators, as set forth in Rule 1257.7;

Uniform Standards of Practice for Providers of Supervised Visitation, as set forth in section  26.2 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration.

The effect on family courts: While it is beyond the scope of this article to comment on these rules and standards in particular, together they also show a trend toward requiring consistent and coordinated  court operations in the family and juvenile courts, whatever the county.

 

CONCLUDING COMMENT

 

The unification of the superior and municipal courts, the securing of adequate, dependable and stable funding for the trial courts, the Judicial assumption of control over the budgets of the courts, the funding of legal services to pro per and indigent litigants, with delivery of those services in the courthouse, and the standardization of the operations of the family and juvenile courts with a trend toward unified or coordinated operations, all provide great hope for more efficient and effective court operations, especially for families and children.  For lawyers and other practitioners, the consistent and efficient handling of  routine matters also could result in increased accessibility to judges and courtrooms for matters that really require litigation.  Such consistency also may provide  reliability for  litigants, as well as presumptive fairness in court determinations. A 1997 informal survey of the courts indicated that 18 of the counties have unified or coordinated courts handling both family and juvenile matters. Some courts are building or have already occupied buildings where juvenile and family law matters are handled together.  The service delivery model of family/juvenile court operations will further spur the sharing of facilities, personnel and operations, and ultimately may help lawyers and litigants achieve higher levels of justice in individual cases, at less overall cost..