SD42 - Implementation of the Family Court

  • Published: 1994
  • Author: Judicial Council of Virginia
  • Enabling Authority: Chapter 929 (Regular Session, 1993)

Executive Summary:
Introduction

During the 1993 Session of the General Assembly, the members acted upon the most important piece of legislation presented in this decade to assist Virginians involved in family-related issues in the courts. This legislation establishes a family court for Virginia to be effective January 1, 1995. This is accomplished by restructuring the juvenile and domestic relations district court and creating a family court. It is the culmination of years of study on how to best serve Virginia children and families who are in crisis and before the courts. The family court bill is the direct result of two years of pilot testing in ten urban and rural courts across the state during calendar years 1990 and 1991 through the Family Court Pilot Project.

The Judicial Council of Virginia is required by the family court legislation to oversee the implementation of the family court and to make recommendations to the 1994 Session of the General Assembly which support the financial and personnel requirements of the family court system. This report fulfills this statutory mandate.

Family Court Planning Advisory Committee

The Judicial Council has carried out its responsibilities for implementation of the family court with the assistance of the Family Court Planning Advisory Committee. This Committee was appointed by the Chief Justice of Virginia in the Spring of 1993. The 28 members of this Committee represent a wide array of constituencies interested in the court system. This Committee has considered, among other issues necessary amendments to Rules of the Supreme Court; procedures, forms and other relevant transition issues for the handling of cases in the family court; training for family court judges; and personnel and resources required for the family courts.

During the process of revising the Rules of the Supreme Court and developing family court procedures, several technical amendments to the statutes which govern the conduct of family court cases have been identified. This legislation is included in this report. The amendments intended to clarify the proper procedures attendant to family court cases and can generally be characterized as not proposing substantive changes in the law.

Local Planning Process

Each judicial district was mandated by the family court legislation to develop a local implementation plan for the family court by September 30, 1993. The development of these plans was led by the Chief Circuit Judge and Chief Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Judge in each circuit and district. The legislation required that the following individuals be involved in this planning process:

• Circuit Court Clerks
• Juvenile Court Clerks
• Juvenile Court Service Unit Directors
• Members of the local bar
• Affected local governing bodies

The plans addressed the need for new judges, court personnel, mediators, equipment and facilities, and other relevant issues identified at the local level in the transition to the restructured court. The identification of this need began with the number of judges, clerks and mediators allocated to each district in accordance with the methodologies approved by the Judicial Council and described in Senate Document No. 22 as reported to the 1993 Session of the Legislature. These plans and follow-up meetings with many of the local planning teams in the fall of 1993 served as the basis for the family court resource proposals in this report.

Recommendations for Family Court Resources

The guiding principle of the family court planning process has been to identify the resources necessary for family court judges and clerks to assume the cases transferred from the circuit court without their having to experience any increased workload burden. A total of 32 new family court judgeships, 111 court clerk personnel and 73 mediators are recommended for the 32 judicial districts. The total state cost of funding the judge and clerk positions and for purchasing the mediation services for fiscal year 1994-95 is $7,273,834 and for fiscal year 1995-96 is $9,596,554 for a total of $16,870,388 for the biennium.

Each local family court plan identified the impact on its court facilities and equipment which it anticipated from implementation of the family court. The Judicial Council estimate for these local costs is $5,096,047 on a statewide basis. If the four judicial districts with the most costly local impacts are set aside, the total local costs for the remaining 28 judicial districts are $1,614,656. The Council recommends the continuation of the current public policy in Virginia whereby localities are responsible for funding facilities and equipment for the court system in accordance with § 16.1-69.50 of the Code of Virginia.

Some local planning teams also identified a need for additional bailiffs for the family court. The Judicial Council believes that provision for security through bailiffs in the family court is an important resource to assure the proper functioning of this court.

Distribution of Judgeships

The allocation of new judgeships for the family court is based on the volume of family-related cases to be transferred from the circuit court. In some districts these caseloads do not justify an additional full-time judge. In order to implement the concept of a family court without building into the court system excess judicial capacity, sharing arrangements are proposed on an interim basis between certain adjoining districts. The legislation creating the new family court judgeships is included in this report and specifically incorporates these sharing arrangements.

Mediation Services in the Family Court

The family court legislation provides for the referral of litigants in the family court to mediation. The availability of this alternative to the traditional adversarial procedures of the court system is critical to the ultimate success of the family court. The Judicial Council is committed to providing the capacity to mediate every contested divorce case in the family courts when the litigating parties agree to mediation. Funds are included in the request for family court funding to assure the availability of this service across the Commonwealth. The Council recommends that mediation services to support the family court be provided through independent contractors rather than through hiring state employees. Through this mechanism of independent contracting, localities are not required to provide physical or personnel support for mediation services.

Recommendation for Funding the Family Court

The resources necessary to establish a family court system in Virginia will require a total of $16,870,388 in state funds for the 1994-96 biennium: $7,273,834 for fiscal year 1994-95 and $9,596,554 for fiscal year 1995-96. To generate the necessary revenue to fund the family court system, the Council recommends an increase of $3.00 in the processing fee in district court criminal and traffic cases and a $3.00 increase in civil fees in district courts. This approach is recommended because it can produce sufficient funds to pay for the changes with the smallest impact on the individual user of the court system. Because of the large volume of cases which go through these courts, a $3.00 increase in fees will produce the needed revenues. The Council recommends the continuation of the current state policy which provides that localities are responsible for funding facilities and equipment for the court system.

Conclusion

A firm foundation for implementation of a statewide family court system on January 1, 1995, is provided by the recent pilot project, action by the 1993 Session of the Legislature to establish the framework for the court and by the comprehensive local planning process. What remains to be done is to provide the necessary resources to operate this restructured system in an effective manner. Legislative action which funds the family court will accord the legal problems of Virginia's families and children the priority they deserve in our court system.