By the time you read this, the 2009 Superior Court budget will have been enacted by the King County Council. The long-anticipated county revenue shortfalls have come home to roost, exacerbated by the slowed economy. Whatever the Council has decided to do about the County Executive’s remarkable plan to furlough the justice system and shut the courthouse for 10 days in 2009, vital services for children and families will have been reduced.
Behind the 24 judges and commissioners who handle the more than 37,000 cases filed each year that affect children and families is Family Court Services, a safety net of dedicated employees, many with graduate degrees in law or social work, who provide domestic violence risk assessments, parenting evaluations, adoption services, mediation, case management and assistance for self-represented parties. In 2007, the program served 2,551 children — 80% of them under the age of 12.
Today, 62% of the families served make less than $35,000 per year. Many of our services charge fees on a sliding scale. For the $1,797,900 budget in 2007, $413,500 was offset by fees. Even with the stalwart volunteers from the Family Law Section of the King County Bar Association, the south county bar and a number of clinics and pro bono programs, legal help is beyond the reach of most FCS clients.
Some 87% of the parties in domestic cases will be self-represented at some point in the litigation. Litigation is just the tip of the iceberg; the work that Family Court Services performs is critical for informed judicial decisions. Parenting evaluations and domestic violence risk assessments are prime examples.
Without collateral reference inquiries and review of court history, police reports, and school and medical records, the factual basis for parenting plan restrictions, conditions for supervised visitation, child-safety plans or domestic violence protection orders often cannot be established. In other words, the mandates required by RCW § 26.09, 26.10 and 26.50 cannot be met.
In addition to the assessments and evaluations protecting the safety of children and domestic violence victims, Family Court Services provides significant access to justice programs, most notably the facilitators. Superior Court implemented this program for self-represented parties in 1993. In 2007, six facilitators assisted 10,469 walk-in clients, reviewed 2,800 files for the Ex Parte Department to finalize divorces, reviewed 5,565 files for the status/non-compliance calendars, and answered 6,325 phone calls — all with dignity, patience and courtesy. Assistance is provided for divorce, child support, petitions to establish a parenting plan, third-party custody petitions, petitions for invalidity, restraining orders and all types of motions on the commissioner calendars.
The facilitators answer questions about how to start a family law action, what forms are needed and where they can be found, and where to find court rules, procedures and case schedules. They answer questions about other community resources and review filled-out forms for completeness — no mean feat given that the state mandatory forms have some 50 changes annually. The budget for this program is $503,394, of which $168,972 is offset by filing fees and limited state funding for child support services.
Although county revenues are shrinking at an alarming rate, not all the court financing news is bad. Thanks to the tireless efforts of a number of judges from around the state, including our own Deborah Fleck and Mike Trickey, various trial court improvement funding streams are being developed by the Legislature.
The state Office of Public Defense has been able to take up a substantial share of the cost of public defenders in child welfare cases. Last year, Dependency CASA programs around the state received a much needed and appreciated infusion of state funds. Also last year, the Family and Juvenile Court Improvement Act, SHB 2822, became effective. One way Superior Court has used trial court improvement funds has benefited the family law facilitator program with the addition of an early resolution case manager.
In taking a look at court systems similar to ours in Arizona and California, we have come to what should have been the obvious realization that people don’t read instructions, especially self-represented people. I am confident that counsel read all six pages of the fine print that come with every case schedule issued at filing and enter all the deadlines into a tickle system, but the effective way to provide access for the self-represented is with the spoken not the written word.
In addition to enhanced facilitator services, other jurisdictions are utilizing a variety of devices, from visible signage and colored tracks on the floor and staffed self-help centers (such as the one at the Regional Justice Center), to entirely separate case tracks, schedules and calendars for the self-represented. Care must be taken in these approaches to avoid “fast tracks” that contribute to disproportionality and truncate due process.
Also around the country, bar groups and courts are developing unbundled legal service programs, such as collaborative law, and innovative techniques for judges to use from the bench to maintain fairness in those most dreaded of trials where counsel’s opponent is self-represented. An even-handed relaxing of the rules of evidence with an eye toward the purpose and construction provisions of ER 102 is proving effective. Of particular note in addressing the ever-increasing volume of self-represented parties are the Proposed Best Practices for Cases Involving Self Represented Litigants recently published by the National Association of Administrative Law Judges.
Go Back