U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

99–010

" ! SENATE 107TH CONGRESS

1st Session

REPORT

2001

107–108

Calendar No. 258

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FAMILY COURT

ACT OF 2001

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

TO ACCOMPANY

H.R. 2657

TO AMEND TITLE 11, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE, TO REDESIGNATE THE FAMILY DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN TRAINED AND EXPERIENCED JUDGES TO SERVE IN THE FAMILY COURT, TO PROMOTE

CONSISTENCY AND EFFICIENCY IN THE ASSIGNMENT OF

JUDGES TO THE FAMILY COURT AND IN THE CONSIDERATION

OF ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE FAMILY COURT, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSES

DECEMBER 5, 2001.—Ordered to be printed

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman

CARL LEVIN, Michigan

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

MAX CLELAND, Georgia

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota

FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee

TED STEVENS, Alaska

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Staff Director and Counsel

CYNTHIA GOOEN LESSER, Counsel

MARIANNE CLIFFORD UPTON, Staff Director and Chief Counsel, Oversight of Government

Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia

HANNAH S. SISTARE, Minority Staff Director and Counsel

JOHANNA L. HARDY, Minority Counsel

MASON C. ALINGER, Minority Professional Staff Member, Oversight of Government

Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia

DARLA D. CASSELL, Chief Clerk

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1

II. Background .................................................................................................... 1

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 10

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 11

V. Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office ..................................... 16

VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 21

VII. Changes to Existing Law .............................................................................. 21

VIII. Appendix ......................................................................................................... 37

Calendar No. 258

107TH CONGRESS REPORT

1st Session " ! SENATE 107–108

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FAMILY COURT ACT OF 2001

DECEMBER 5, 2001.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs,

submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H.R. 2657]

The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was referred

the bill (H.R. 2657) to amend title 11, District of Columbia Code,

to redesignate the Family Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia as the Family Court of the Superior Court, to recruit and retain trained and experienced judges to serve in the

Family Court, to promote consistency and efficiency in the assignment of judges to the Family Court and in the consideration of actions and proceedings in the Family Court, and for other purposes,

reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that

the bill as amended do pass.

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 2657, the District of Columbia Family Court

Act of 2001, is to amend title 11, District of Columbia Code, to redesignate the Family Division of the Superior Court of the District

of Columbia as the Family Court of the Superior Court, to recruit

and retain trained and experienced judges to serve in the Family

Court, to promote consistency and efficiency in the assignment of

judges to the Family Court and in the consideration of actions and

proceedings in the Family Court, and for other purposes.

II. BACKGROUND

CRISIS OF ABUSED AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN IN THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

The crisis of abused and neglected children has challenged the

District of Columbia for many years. The Washington Post reported

recently that 229 children died between 1993 and 2000 while under

2

1 ‘‘ ‘Protected’ Children Died as Government Did Little; Critical Errors by City’s Network

Found in 40 Fatalities; Confidential Files Show Wide Patterns of Official Neglect,’’ Washington

Post, September 9, 2001. 2 ‘‘ ‘Failure After Failure’; Foster System Betrayed Brianna,’’ Washington Post, February 21,

2000. 3 ‘‘Report of Investigation Into the Role of the Child and Family Services Agency and the Circumstances Leading to the Death of BB,’’ District of Columbia Office of the Inspector General,

April 30, 2001 (OIG No. 2000–0227 (S)), pp. 6–7. 4 ‘‘Child Neglect, Abuse Up 60% in D.C.; Sharp Increase in Court Cases Linked to Crack Cocaine, Recession,’’ Washington Post, May 20, 1992. 5 ‘‘For D.C. Child Abuse Caseload, a Troubling Milestone,’’ Washington Post, September 24,

1992. 6 ‘‘District Child Abuse Reports Arriving in Record Numbers,’’ Washington Post, April 11,

1994. 7 ‘‘District Child Abuse Reports Arriving in Record Numbers,’’ Washington Post, April 11,

1994. 8 ‘‘D.C. Court Workers Shocked by Child Sex-Abuse Case,’’ Washington Post, April 25, 1994. 9 ‘‘D.C. Judges Try to Raise 3,200 Abused or Neglected Children,’’ Washington Post, January

9, 1994. 10 ‘‘Abuse and Neglect Caseload Data,’’ District of Columbia Superior Court (unpublished),

July 2001, p. 1. 11 ‘‘Abuse and Neglect Caseload Data,’’ District of Colubmia Superior Court (unpublished),

July 2001, p. 2 (based on an internal survey of the judges handling the outstanding cases.)

the watch of the city’s child protective services agency, Child and

Family Services Agency (CFSA).1 The role of the District of Columbia Superior Court in handling abused and neglected children attracted heightened scrutiny after 23-month-old Brianna

Blackmond, a child under court supervision, died in January 2000

at the hands of her mother’s housemate only two weeks after a Superior Court judge returned the child to her troubled home without

conducting a formal hearing.2 Although the District of Columbia

Inspector General found in an April 30, 2001 report that Brianna’s

death could be traced to errors and omissions by officials throughout the District of Columbia government—not only the judge who

handled the case—including CFSA,3 the case raised concerns about

how the Superior Court handled its abuse and neglect cases.

Abuse and neglect cases had been posing a serious challenge to

the court for some time before Brianna’s death. The sheer number

of the cases had been steadily growing in number since the early

1990’s due to the crack cocaine epidemic in the District of Columbia at that time.4 In 1992, the number of child abuse and neglect

cases increased by more than 60 percent from the year before, from

833 5 to 1351; 6 1994 saw a similar jump, from 1376 7 the year before to 1786.8 The steady increase of this caseload was more than

the family division judges could handle alone effectively. To help

ease the docket, the chief judge assigned each of the 59 sitting

judges a share of the child abuse and neglect caseload. As a result,

judges outside the Family Division currently hear their abuse and

neglect cases between their ‘‘regular’’ calendars, in some cases

squeezed in during lunch breaks.9

In addition, the Superior Court has not been as effective as it

could be in moving cases involving abused and neglected children.

Currently, according to analysis done by the District of Columbia

Superior Court in July 2001, there are 3592 abuse and neglect

cases in review status that have been pending for two years or

more, only 11 percent of which involve children living at home

under the protective supervision of CFSA; all of the other more

than 3200 cases involve children who have been removed from

their homes.10 Moreover, the Superior Court indicated that it expected less than half of these long-standing abuse and neglect review cases to be closed within 12 months.11 The Adoption and Safe

3

12Written Testimony of Olivia Golden, Director of the District of Columbia Child and Family

Services Agency, to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight

of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, October 25, 2001, at

p. 9. 13 ‘‘Judges Describe Agonizing Decisions,’’ Washington Post°, January 16, 2000. 14 ‘‘Conditions ‘Shocking’ for District Children Awaiting Foster Care; Welfare System Needs

Leaders, Receivers Say,’’ Washington Post, March 2, 1995. 15LaShawn A. v. Dixon, 762 F. Supp. 959, 968 (D.D.C. 1991). 16 762 F. Supp. at 982–983. 17LaShawn A. v. Kelly, 887 F. Supp. 297 (D.D.C. 1995).

Families Act (ASFA) requires that, with certain exceptions, cases

of children in foster care or other temporary placement must reach

permanency within a certain timeframe, which is less than 2 years.

It is impossible to know how many of these cases genuinely qualify

under the ASFA exceptions that permit them to remain pending

beyond the required deadlines.

The dispersal of abuse and neglect cases to all 59 judges and to

some of the 18 senior judges of the Superior Court has contributed

to these shortcomings. It has caused logistical problems for CFSA

social workers, Office of Corporation Counsel attorneys, guardians

ad litem, and others involved in child welfare who must be present

for hearings in all of their cases.12 Hearings can take place at any

time of the day, in any courtroom—sometimes simultaneously—not

only making it difficult for these individuals to attend all their

hearings, but also making it hard for social workers to spend the

necessary time in the field, visiting children and families. If the

necessary participants are not present or have not had adequate

preparation time, it can be difficult for judges to move cases forward.13

It is important to point out, however, that lapses on the part of

CFSA cannot be laid solely at the doorstep of the Superior Court.

The crisis of abused and neglected children in the District of Columbia can be traced largely to long-standing problems within

CFSA and other city agencies dealing with child welfare. In 1989,

the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class action lawsuit in

federal court on behalf of all abused and neglected children in the

District of Columbia to force reforms in the system. At that time,

children awaiting foster care placements were left for days at a

time in the office of the child and family services agency (then a

division of the District of Columbia Department of Human Services) to sleep on the floor, chairs or cots,14 and the average stay in

foster care for a District of Columbia child was nearly five years,

more than three times the national average.15

After the 1991 trial, United States District Judge Thomas Hogan

found that as a result of indifference and poor management, the

city had failed to comply with reasonable professional standards in

almost every area of its child welfare system.16 Specifically, the

court found that due to dire staffing and resource shortages, the

child welfare agency had failed to conduct timely investigations of

reports of neglect or abuse, failed to find appropriate placements

for children, failed to monitor their care, and failed to ensure that

these children had permanent homes. The Division was put into receivership in 1995,17 and emerged on July 15, 2001, after a May

21, 2001 order by Judge Hogan finding that the District had met

preconditions to regain control of CFSA set by an earlier order. The

preconditions included prohibiting budget cuts and layoffs; increasing the number of home visits by social workers; passing legislation

4

18 ‘‘D.C. Regains Control of Foster Care; Child Welfare Goes to a New Agency,’’ Washington

Post, October 24, 2001. 19 ‘‘District of Columbia Child Welfare: Long-Term Challenges to Ensuring Children’s WellBeing,’’ GAO Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, December 2000 (GAO–01–91) (‘‘GAO Report’’). 20GAO Report at p. 7. 21 Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution gives Congress exclusive

jurisdiction over the District of Columbia; Congress retained its authority over the local courts

in the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act of 1973 and

took exclusive budget authority over the courts pursuant to the National Capital Revitalization

and Self-Government Act of 1997. 22For a detailed description of the history of the courts in the District of Columbia, see the

attached appendix, which is incorporated by reference herein. 23 Hearing Report, Committee on the District of Columbia and Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 91st Congress, First Session, May 19–22, July 25–27, and August 7, 1969 (‘‘D.C. Courts Hearing Report’’), at p. 580. 24D.C. Courts Hearing Report at 575.

that would place the responsibility for investigating abuse and neglect cases with Child and Family Services rather than splitting

the duty between the police and the agency; developing licensing

standards for foster care and group homes; and elevating the agency to cabinet-level status.18

Unfortunately, according to a December 2000 report by the

United States General Accounting Office (GAO), federal receivership did not offer the solution the LaShawn plaintiffs had sought

in 1989.19 GAO found that more than five years after the inception

of the receivership, CFSA had still not addressed its problems with

high turnover, hiring shortfalls, and inadequate training. As of one

year ago, caseloads were still much too high: in some cases, double

or triple the limit set by the court. While the number of children

under the agency’s care increased, the number of social workers

covering their cases declined: in December 1997, 2,900 children

were in foster care with 289 social workers at the agency; by August 2000, 3,271 children were in foster care with only 241 social

workers employed by the District to address their needs.20 Thus,

child welfare reform cannot be complete without resolving these

long-standing problems at CFSA.

Nevertheless, the tragic death of Brianna Blackmond put a fresh

face on the crisis. A media spotlight on a Superior Court judge’s decision to return the child to her troubled home without a hearing

sparked interest in addressing the court’s administration of abuse

and neglect cases. Unlike CFSA, which is under District control,

Superior Court reform can only be legislated by Congress.

FAMILY MATTERS AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT SYSTEM

The District of Columbia local court system is a federal responsibility pursuant to Congress’ constitutional authority over the District.21 It was created by statute in 1801, and since that time, has

gone through a number of reforms.22 For over 60 years, the District

of Columbia court system had a separate Juvenile Court, which

had jurisdiction over cases regarding children under 18, contributing to the delinquency of minors, paternity matters, and later,

cases of desertion and criminal non-support, 23 though many family

cases, including divorce, adoption, custody and domestic violence,

were heard by the Court of General Sessions.24 According to Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, one of the House sponsors of

the District of Columbia Family Court Act, ‘‘[t]he old Family Court,

then called ‘Juvenile Court,’ was a stand-alone court, that had beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:22 Dec 09, 2001 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR108.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR108
5

25Written Testimony of Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and

the District of Columbia, October 25, 2001 (‘‘Norton Testimony’’), at p. 2. 26D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 581. 27D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 582. 28D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 583. 29D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 581. 30D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 582. 31P.L. 91–358, 84 Stat. 473.

come a place apart, in effect a ghetto court, to which the city’s most

troubled children and families were sent away from the ‘real’ judicial system. Out of sight left children and families out of mind until

the Juvenile Court was abolished as hopelessly ineffective and

poorly funded.’’ 25

In the late 1960’s, the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia became concerned about the District of Columbia courts,

and began looking into avenues of reform. The Committee conducted an exhaustive review of the courts, and sought recommendations from a number of groups and commissions about

what form a new court system should take. Some, such as the

President’s Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia, believed that the Juvenile Court should be retained and strengthened

into a Family Court for all family cases, separate from the court

of general jurisdiction.26

This recommendation was not shared by the Ad Hoc Committee

on the Administration of Justice, a group comprised of attorneys

and court experts established by the Judicial Council of the District

of Columbia. The Ad Hoc Committee criticized the notion of a splintered court, quoting Roscoe Pound: ‘‘Multiplicity of courts is characteristic of archaic law.’’ 27 The Ad Hoc Committee pointed out

that ‘‘[t]he Juvenile Court has been in trouble for many, many

years, and is at the moment in serious trouble. It lacks strength

and cannot be adequately managed since it is not a part of the central court system of our city.’’ 28 Instead, the Ad Hoc Committee advocated for including the family bench under the umbrella of a single court of general jurisdiction. Specifically, it claimed that

‘‘[h]aving a larger pool of judges who could move in and out of the

Juvenile division and other parts of the court would broaden a

judge’s judicial experience, keep him abreast of general development of the law, and ensure a higher quality of judiciary, because

judges who might refuse to specialize in a steady diet of one aspect

of the law would be willing to serve for shorter periods of time.’’ 29

The Ad Hoc Committee also recommended that the family bench be

fully integrated into the court to allow the chief judge the necessary flexibility to manage it. It criticized the then-current domestic relations branch of the Court of General Sessions, which had its

own list of judges and clerks, and operated separately from the

Court, because the chief judge had ‘‘no power to rotate judges in

and out of the domestic relations branch.’’ 30

In 1970, Congress took the advice of the Ad Hoc Committee and

passed the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970,31 which abolished the Juvenile Court and established the unified court system that exists today. The District of

Columbia Superior Court was established as a court of general jurisdiction, with five branches: family, civil, criminal, tax and probate. Currently, the Superior Court is composed of 58 judges and

one chief judge. In addition to its five divisions, it recently estabVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:22 Dec 09, 2001 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR108.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR108
6

32 2000 Annual Report, District of Columbia Courts, p. 58. 33Superior Court judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The

President makes his selection from a list of three names provided to him by the District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Commission, which chooses from among a pool of applicants, who

must be residents of the District who have practiced there for a certain number of years. This

process usually involves extensive screening by the District of Columbia Nominations Commission, an Federal Bureau of Investigation background investigation and a thorough review by

this Committee of the candidate’s qualification and background. 34 According to Congressman Tom DeLay, ‘‘Judges outside of the Family Division don’t have

the current knowledge about the availability or quality of service options or new laws and new

regulations impacting the children before them. . . . I believe the best thing we can do for abused

children in the District is to return all cases to a family court made up of committed judges

who are all volunteers. Only their specialized knowledge of relevant federal and district laws

will result in better decisions for abused children.’’ Written Testimony of the Honorable Tom

Delay, to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government

Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, October 25, 2001 (‘‘DeLay Testimony’’), at p. 5. 35See footnote 33 above. 36Written Testimony of the Honorable Mike DeWine, to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the

District of Columbia, October 25, 2001 (‘‘DeWine Testimony’’), p. 3. 37DeWine Testimony at p. 2. 38DeWine Testimony at p. 2.

lished a cross-jurisdictional domestic violence unit. In an average

year the Court may dispose of upwards of 160,000 cases, with

14,000 in the family division alone.32

Currently, Superior Court judges, who are appointed for a total

term of 15 years after a rigorous selection process,33 fit the model

recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on the Administration of

Justice: they are generalists who serve extendable one-year terms

in the different divisions of the Court, with assignments left to the

discretion of the chief judge. All of the 59 judges have some of the

current caseload of the approximately 4,500 abuse and neglect

cases on their dockets, even if they have never sat on the family

bench.

THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The bill’s sponsors were concerned about how abused and neglected children with cases before the Superior Court are affected

by its current system. They noted that many of those with the

weighty responsibility of deciding the fate of abused and neglected

children are not well acquainted with the intricacies of family law,

the tangled bureaucracy responsible for children in the District of

Columbia, or the complex network of resources available to families

and children in trouble.34 Despite the rigorous and extensive judicial selection process,35 few candidates with family law experience

are nominated to the Superior Court bench. Further, with abuse

and neglect cases dispersed throughout the entire court, most

judges who have these cases do not sit in the Family Division; if

they ever have, they rotated through that division for only an ‘‘average judicial term [of] about one year.’’ 36 Thus, as Senator

DeWine, the lead sponsor of the Senate bill, put it, under the current system, ‘‘[j]udges don’t get the training, the technical support,

nor the experience they need to properly handle these cases.’’ 37

Moreover, as Senator DeWine has said, ‘‘the currently spread-out

system is a structural nightmare.’’ 38 Caseworkers, attorneys from

the District of Columbia Corporation Counsel’s Office, guardians ad

litem, and other participants necessary for hearings in neglect and

abuse cases must accommodate the schedules of all 59 judges of the

Superior Court, shuttling between courtrooms and waiting for their

cases to be called. This time-consuming system not only makes it

7

39Written Testimony of Deborah Luxenberg, Council for Court Excellence, to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, October 25, 2001 (‘‘Luxenberg Testimony’’), at p. 6. 40DeLay Testimony at p. 3. 41Senator Mike DeWine testified that ‘‘at the heart of the bill is the one-judge/one-family concept, which is designed to create judicial continuity, so that families aren’t shuffled from one

judge to another. This allows one judge to stay with one family throughout that family’s experience in the welfare system. The simple fact is that if a judge who knows the entire history of

a family, he or she can better protect the interests of the children and the parents involved.’’ DeWine Testimony at p. 3. 42DeLay Testimony at p. 3. 43Written Testimony of the Honorable Rufus King III, Chief Judge of the Superior Court of

the District of Columbia, to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, October 25,

2001, (‘‘King Testimony’’) at pp. 3–4. 44DeWine Testimony at p. 2.

difficult for caseworkers and others to make it to all the hearings

they must attend, it also takes a significant amount of time away

from their fieldwork responsibilities.39 Dispersing abuse and neglect cases throughout the court also means that a cohesive and integrated case management system cannot be maintained.40 In addition, mixing family cases with other types of matters on a judge’s

calendar can mean that children and families waiting for hearings

may be occupying the same hallways together with criminal defendants and others, in an atmosphere that neither facilitates open

and meaningful discussion of their most personal problems nor

guarantees their cases receive the focused attention of the court.

Finally, cases involving the same family are often heard by different judges, which means that the knowledge one judge may have

gained over time about the problems unique to that family will not

be drawn on.41 As Congressman Tom DeLay has said, ‘‘We must

put together all the pieces of the child’s life before we determine

whether it’s safe for a child to go home, remain in a particular foster home or facility, or be placed for adoption. A child is safer when

a single judge understands the whole story of his or her life. Multiple judges increase the chance of errors or vital information not

being considered.’’ 42

Rufus G. King III, the current chief judge of the Superior Court,

has made an effort to answer critics of this system. He has issued

administrative directives which increase Family Division terms to

three years beginning in January 2002, provide enhanced and additional training for Family Division judges, institute an alternate

dispute resolution mechanism, and establish stronger working relationships between the court and city agencies responsible for child

and family services.43 While the chief judge has made significant

strides to achieve positive change, more is required to ‘‘give these

judges the tools they need to do their jobs—to protect the lives of

these innocent children.’’ 44

SUMMARY OF H.R. 2657 AS INTRODUCED

H.R. 2657, as introduced, would have changed the structure of

the Court by redesignating the Family Division of the Court as a

‘‘Family Court’’ comprised of 12 to15 judges and a number of magistrates. Under that version of the bill, the guiding principle of the

Family Court would be ‘‘one family, one judge,’’ dictating that all

family members would see the same judge or magistrate—barring

conflicts of interest that may arise—for all family-law matters they

had pending before the court. Family Court judges appointed after

enactment would serve five-year terms, and sitting Superior Court

8

45See, e.g., Written Testimony of Margaret McKinney, Family Law Section of the District of

Columbia Bar, to the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, October 25,

2001 (‘‘McKinney Testimony’’), at pp. 3–8;. Written Testimony of Kathy Patterson, District of

Columbia City Councilmember and Chairman of Council Committee on the Judiciary, to the

House Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the Committee on Government Reform,

June 26, 2001 (‘‘Patterson Testimony’’), at p. 3. 46The Florida Supreme Court’s Family Court Steering Committee, after a seven year study,

recommended three-year terms, with an opportunity for the judge to rotate out of the family

division for a period of time following his or her term, before returning to the family bench. See

‘‘A Model Family Court for Florida: Recommendations of the Florida Supreme Court’s Family

Court Steering Committee,’’ June, 2000, at p. 15. 47See, e.g., McKinney Testimony at pp. 8–9; Luxenberg Testimony at p. 6. 48Patterson Testimony at pp. 5–6; King Testimony at p. 6.

judges would serve three-year terms, and the judges sitting on the

family bench would have to be trained or expert in family law.

After an 18-month transition period, all family cases pending in

Superior Court would have been transferred to the dockets of

judges or magistrates sitting on the Family Court bench. The hiring of magistrates with significant expertise in family law would be

authorized, and current hearing commissioners would be treated as

magistrates to give them additional power to move cases. Appointment of a special master would be required to help dispose of the

thousands of neglect and abuse cases currently pending. The court

would be required to create for the Family Court a ‘‘family friendly’’ environment, have a social services liaison on-site at all times, and

establish an electronic case management and tracking system to be

integrated with the systems of District of Columbia agencies providing social services to children and families. The chief judge

would be required to submit a transition plan to Congress on an

18-month timetable within 90 days of enactment. GAO would be required to submit a report assessing the procedures used to make

initial judicial appointments, the impact of magistrates, and the

number of judges needed for the Family Court.

CONCERNS RAISED ABOUT H.R. 2657 AS INTRODUCED

For the most part, the District of Columbia Family Court Act of

2001 as introduced would take important steps towards improving

the court system. Nonetheless, some concerns have been raised

about its specific terms from, among others, Superior Court judges

and administrators and members of the Family Law Section of the

District of Columbia Bar. Some contended that the five-year terms

for Family Court judges were too long for the emotionally taxing

work of the family bench.45 Concerns ranged from fears of ‘‘burnout’’ as judges approached the final years of their terms, to deterring strong candidates without significant family law backgrounds

from seeking judgeships on a court with such daunting term requirements.46 Another concern about the bill was that it unduly restricted the discretion of the chief judge as the top administrator

by not allowing him to make important court management decisions.47 For example, the bill set a minimum number of judges for

Family Court.

Another concern about the bill as introduced was that all pending family cases would have to be transferred into the Family

Court by the end of the 18-month transition period, with no exceptions.48 In the October 25, 2001 hearing on this bill in the Senate

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, questions were raised about

9

49 Norton Testimony at p. 3; Luxenberg Testimony at p. 8; King Testimony at p. 7; McKinney

Testimony at p. 16; ‘‘Steamrolling the Superior Court,’’ Washington Post Editorial, October 25,

2001.

two aspects of this provision: first, all family cases would include

divorce, child support, and mental health cases, which would mean

that the new court would be inundated with thousands of new

cases unrelated to abused and neglected children; and second, no

exception would exist for a judge who does not sit in the Family

Court to keep a case on her docket where she has formed a special

relationship with or understanding of a troubled child, whose case

cannot be resolved within the transition period. Finally, some were

concerned that the language of H.R. 2657, as introduced, might

have dismantled the cross-jurisdictional Domestic Violence Unit by

divesting it of jurisdiction over family cases, or might have prevented the court from instituting other cross-jurisdictional units.49

HOW THE AMENDMENT REFINES THE BILL

To address these concerns, the Committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2657, which was introduced by Senator Durbin, with Senators DeWine and Landrieu, the

sponsors of S. 1382, the Senate version of the District of Columbia

Family Court Act. Although the term lengths for Family Court

judges were left at five years for new judges and three years for

current judges, the bill as amended would provide the chief judge

more flexibility to reassign judges on the family bench when he

‘‘determines in the interest of justice the judge is unable’’ to finish

the full term. This change would protect the interests of children

in two ways: it would retain the requirement that judges seeking

a seat on the Family Court demonstrate a serious commitment by

agreeing to devote a substantial part of their career to it, but it

would allow the chief judge to reassign a judge when he or she is

simply not serving the interests of children and families. The

amendment also gives the chief judge more flexibility by removing

the minimum number of judges required to serve on the Family

Court. It will be in the chief judge’s discretion to determine, over

time, how many judges up to 15 are required on the family bench

to appropriately serve the needs of families and children of the District. If necessary, the chief judge may expand the Family Court

beyond 15 judges on a temporary basis.

The chief judge is also provided flexibility by being able to allow

judges to retain abuse and neglect cases outside the Family Court

under certain circumstances. Such cases should be rare exceptions

because a primary goal of the legislation is to have family cases— particularly cases involving abuse and neglect—handled by Family

Court judges under the one family, one judge principle. Nevertheless, H.R. 2657 as amended would give the chief judge the flexibility to permit a judge outside the Family Court to retain a case

he or she has had for more than 18 months, where the judge has

special knowledge of the child’s needs and reassignment would be

harmful to the child, so long as the case remains at all times in

full compliance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act. In addition, under similar exceptional circumstances, cases may be retained by Family Court judges who complete their full Family

Court term and are rotating to another Superior Court division.

The chief judge must determine, in consultation with the presiding

10

judge of the Family Court, that retention is in the best interest of

the parties, the judge has special knowledge of the child’s needs

and reassignment would be harmful to the child. Finally, the

amended bill would ensure that the Domestic Violence Unit is kept

intact.

Despite the many areas of concern that the amended bill has addressed, there are a number of issues unresolved, including the effect of the five-year term of service for Family Court judges on the

morale and recruitment of judges, the ability of the chief judge to

rotate judges in and out of the Family Court, and the exceptions

allowing judges outside of the Family Court to retain cases within

the jurisdiction of the Family Court. These concerns echo those expressed by the Ad Hoc Committee on the Administration of Justice

in connection with the 1970 restructuring of the District of Columbia courts, relating to fragmentation in the court and hindering the

flexibility of the chief judge to manage the court. H.R. 2657 would

provide that the Superior Court report periodically to this Committee on its progress in putting the reforms into place; the Committee will carefully review these reports and monitor the Superior

Court’s implementation of the reforms with particular emphasis on

the unresolved concerns discussed above.

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

H.R. 2657, the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001,

was introduced on July 26, 2001 by Congressman Tom DeLay, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, Congresswoman Morella and

Congressman Tom Davis, and was referred to the Committee on

Government Reform. On August 13, 2001, H.R. 2657 was referred

to the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, which considered

the bill and held a mark-up session that day. On September 20,

2001, Congresswoman Morella moved to suspend the rules of the

House of Representatives and pass the bill, and after 40 minutes

of debate, H.R. 2657 was passed by a vote of 408 to 0. On September 16, 2001, H.R. 2657 was received in the Senate, and was

referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. On October 16, 2001, the Committee on Governmental Affairs referred

the bill to the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia.

On October 25, 2001, the Oversight of Government Management,

Restructuring and the District of Columbia conducted a hearing on

‘‘Promoting the Best Interests of Children: Proposals to Establish

a Family Court in the District of Columbia Superior Court.’’ This

hearing was an opportunity to consider the components of H.R.

2657 and a similar Senate bill, S. 1382, including placing all cases

involving one family before one judge, assigning a team of magistrates and social workers to assist the judicial function, mandating minimum terms for service for judges on the ‘‘family court,’’ and transferring all child abuse and neglect cases now dispersed

across the court back under a ‘‘family court’’ helm.

Member witnesses testifying before the subcommittee were Congressman Tom DeLay and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, the lead sponsors of H.R. 2657, and Senator Michael DeWine

and Senator Mary Landrieu, the lead sponsors of S. 1382. Representatives of the District of Columbia judicial and social services

systems and legal community directly involved in handling and litiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:22 Dec 09, 2001 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR108.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR108
11

gating child abuse and neglect matters also testified: the Honorable

Rufus G. King III, Chief Judge of the Superior Court of the District

of Columbia; the Honorable Lee Satterfield, Presiding Judge of the

Family Division of the Superior Court; Dr. Olivia Golden, Director

of the District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency;

Deborah Luxenberg, Chairman of the Children in the Courts Subcommittee of the Council for Court Excellence; and Margaret

McKinney, Chairman of the Family Law Section, District of Columbia Bar.

H.R. 2657 was polled out of the Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia Subcommittee

on November 12, 2001. On November 14, 2001, H.R. 2657 was considered by the full Committee on Governmental Affairs. A substitute amendment was offered by Senator Richard Durbin. The

Durbin amendment was adopted by voice vote, with no Members

present dissenting. H.R. 2657, as amended, was ordered reported

out of the Committee of Governmental Affairs by voice vote, with

no Members present dissenting. Present were Senators Akaka,

Durbin, Cleland, Carper, Carnahan, Thompson, Voinovich, Cochran, Bunning and Lieberman.

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS (AS AMENDED)

Section 1 entitles the Act as the ‘‘District of Columbia Family

Court Act of 2001.’’

Section 2 re-designates the existing family division of the District

of Columbia Superior Court as the Family Court and makes conforming amendments to the District of Columbia Code. It reorganizes the current structure of the court, establishing a specialized

group of judges, assisted by a team of magistrates, to focus on making expeditious decisions in litigation involving families and children, including abused and neglected children. The nationally-acclaimed Domestic Violence Unit, which handles cross-jurisdictional

criminal, civil, and family issues, would be retained intact as a separate unit of the Superior Court, permitting appropriate cases to

be assigned to such unit and not subsumed by or brought within

the new Family Court.

Section 3 sets out the composition of the Family Court, including

appointment and assignment of judges, the number of judges, and

qualifications for Family Court judges. This section addresses concerns expressed about the present practice of giving each of the 59

judges of the Superior Court a child welfare caseload in addition

to his or her other responsibilities. It also aims to keep all child

abuse and neglect cases, with very limited exceptions, within the

Family Court, promoting the principle of ‘‘one family, one judge.’’

The intent of the ‘‘one family, one judge’’ language is for the case

to be assigned to a specific judge in the Family Court at the time

the case is first brought to court, and for this judge to conduct all

subsequent hearings, conferences and trials. The Committee believes that use of a single judge or magistrate rather than a multitude of judges as the case progresses can ensure that a case plan

is developed in a logical, step-by-step manner and provide greater

consistency and continuity for families involved in the process.

Such reforms can aid compliance with Federal law for the timely

placement and adoption of children.

12

Subsection 3(a) adds a new section to the District of Columbia

Code that sets forth special rules regarding assignment and service

of judges of Family Court. It requires that the number of judges

serving in the Family Court be no more than 15. The amendment

adopted by the Committee removes the minimum number of 12

judges set forth in the underlying bill, to afford the chief judge

flexibility to address unforeseeable future needs of the court. Although a minimum number is not imposed, the Committee understands that the Court should maintain a minimum of 12 judges in

the Family Court to meet the needs of the current case flow.

Should the case flow of the Family Court increase to a point

where 15 judges cannot keep up with their dockets, this subsection

allows the chief judge to expand the number of judges serving on

the Family Court beyond 15 judges by temporarily assigning to the

Family Court qualified judges from other divisions in emergency

circumstances in order to meet the intent of the law. Such judges

temporarily reassigned under such circumstances would be encouraged, but not required, to serve the full term of a Family Court

judge, but they must have training or experience in family law. To

the greatest extent possible, the qualified judges enlisted by the

chief judge to fill the need on the Family Court under this subsection should be volunteers.

Subsection 3(a) also modifies the restriction in § 11–903 of the

District of Columbia Code on the total composition of the Superior

Court to allow the chief judge to exceed the overall cap of 59 judges

if necessary to maintain a full complement of 15 judges in the Family Court. The chief judge may do this, however, only if the number

of judges on the Family Court is less than 15, the chief judge is

unable to secure a volunteer judge from another division to transfer to the Family Court bench, the chief judge obtains approval

from the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration, and the chief

judge reports to Congress about why it is necessary to exceed the

cap.

Subsection 3(a) also establishes the qualifications for a judge

serving on the Family Court. It requires that a Family Court judge

have training or expertise in family law, as well as a certified intention to serve the full term and participate in training. This subsection also sets forth the term of service for judges on the Family

Court. For judges sitting on the bench at the time of enactment,

the term of service would be three years, including any period of

time served on the Family Division immediately preceding the enactment. For judges who take the bench after enactment, the term

of service would be five years. This subsection permits assignment

for additional service at a judge’s request, including service for a

judge’s full 15 year term, with the approval of the chief judge. This

subsection also permits the chief judge to reassign any Family

Court judge if the chief judge determines that in the interest of justice the judge is unable to continuing serving in the Family Court.

Senior judges are exempted from the three-year term requirement;

however, in assigning senior judges to the Family Court, the Committee encourages the chief judge to keep in mind the goals of this

legislation to have judges on the Family Court for a sufficiently

lengthy period to provide consistency to the operation of the Family

Court.

13

Subsection 3(b)(1) requires the chief judge of the Superior Court

to submit a transition plan to Congress and the President not later

than 90 days after enactment. The plan should analyze and describe the role of the presiding judge of the Family Court, the number of judges and magistrates needed in the Family Court, the appropriate functions and compensation for the magistrates, a plan

for case flow and case management, a plan for space and equipment, a plan for the disposition or transfer of child abuse and neglect cases pending before judges serving in other divisions of the

Court, and an estimate of the number of cases for which the transfer or disposition deadline of 18 months cannot be met and why.

Subsection 3(b)(2) specifies that the chief judge may not take any

action to implement the transition plan until 30 days after filing

such plan with the President and the Congress.

Subsection 3(b)(2) provides for the implementation of the plan to

dispose of or transfer the child abuse and neglect cases within 18

months after filing a transition plan as outlined in subsection

3(b)(1). It adds a rule of construction that this 18-month deadline

does not preclude transfer of cases well before the deadline, or even

immediately. Indeed, the Superior Court is encouraged to begin the

process of transferring appropriate cases outside the Family Division into the Family Court as soon as practicable.

Subsection 3(b)(2) also allows cases pending before judges serving

in other divisions to be retained by those judges in special circumstances. Retention is permitted provided if (1) the case retained

remains at all times in full compliance with the Adoption and Safe

Families Act [42 U.S.C. 675(5)(E)] (‘‘ASFA’’); (2) the case has been

assigned continuously to that judge for 18 months or more; and (3)

the judge has a special knowledge of the child’s needs, such that

reassignment would be harmful to the child. The Committee intends that only a very small number of cases be retained under

this provision; to the greatest extent possible, cases under the jurisdiction of the Family Court that are on the dockets of non-Family

Court judges should be transferred into the Family Court. This will

facilitate not only the needs of the children and families involved

in those cases, but also will help the entire system to operate more

smoothly.

Subsection 3(b)(2) also requires that the Superior Court provide

progress reports to Congress at six-month intervals for two years.

The purpose of the reports is to monitor the implementation of the

reforms set forth in the bill, including the court’s transfer of cases

into the Family Court.

Subsection 3(c) establishes the process for filling judicial vacancies on the Family Court and the role of the District of Columbia

Judicial Nomination Commission.

Subsection 3(d) requires the Comptroller General to prepare and

submit to Congress not later than two years after enactment of the

Act a report which includes an analysis of the procedures used to

make initial appointments to the Family Court, the impact of the

magistrates, and the number of judges needed for the Family

Court. The Comptroller General is required to provide to the chief

judge a preliminary copy of the report and take the comments and

recommendations of the chief judge into consideration in preparing

the final version of the report.

14

Section 4 sets forth the jurisdiction of the Family Court, encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution, and establishes a

‘‘one family, one judge’’ requirement where it is practicable, feasible, and lawful. It establishes a training program for judges, magistrates, attorneys, and non-judicial personnel. It requires the establishment of a ‘‘family-friendly’’ environment and an integrated

computerized case tracking system. This Section also requires the

Mayor of the District of Columbia to establish an on-site social

services liaison to coordinate with the Court and to provide information about relevant city services. This Section further requires

the chief judge to submit annual reports to Congress on the activities of the Family Court during the year.

Subsection 4(a) adds several new sections to the District of Columbia Code. One section enumerates the specific areas of Family

Court jurisdiction. Another section specifies that until disposition,

cases must remain within the Family Court governed by the ‘‘one

family, one judge’’ principle, but cases must also remain in the

Family Court even after the judge handling those cases completes

his or her full term on the Family Court and rotates out to another

division.

Subsection 4(a) provides an exception to this rule, which would

permit certain narrowly defined cases to stay on that judge’s docket. For a judge leaving the Family Court to retain a case, (1) the

case must be in compliance with ASFA; (2) it cannot stay on the

judge’s docket for more than 18 months after leaving the Family

Court; (3) the judge must have special knowledge of the child’s

needs, such that reassignment would be harmful to child; and (4)

the chief judge, in consultation with presiding judge of the Family

Court, must determine that retention of the case is in the best interests of the parties. As with the exception provided under subsection 3(b)(2), the Committee intends that only a very small number of cases be retained by judges pursuant to this provision. In addition, the Committee recommends that any further proceedings in

family cases retained by a judge rotating out of the Family Court

be conducted in courtrooms or space designated for the Family

Court, to the greatest extent possible. The Committee believes that

this will minimize the burden on litigants and social workers involved in these cases, and be conducive to maintaining a familyfriendly environment.

Subsection 4(a) also establishes a new District of Columbia Code

section requiring the chief judge to submit annual reports to Congress on Family Court activities, including information on compliance with deadlines and performance measures as well as information on the number of judges serving in Family Court, how long

each judge has served, the number of cases retained outside the

family court, the number of judicial reassignments to and from the

Family Court bench, and the ability to recruit qualified sitting

judges from within the Superior Court to serve on the Family

Court bench.

Subsection 4(b) provides for expedited appeals for orders of the

Family Court terminating parental rights or granting or denying a

petition to adopt.

Subsection 4(c) requires that not later than six months after enactment of the Act, the Mayor of the District of Columbia must

submit a plan to the President and Congress for integrating the

15

computer systems of relevant District of Columbia government

agencies with the computer systems of the Court and authorizes

funds to be appropriated for completion of the plan.

Subsection 4(d) makes clerical amendments to the table of sections in chapter 11 of title 11 of the District of Columbia Code.

Section 5 re-designates hearing commissioners as magistrates in

the District of Columbia Code.

Subsection 5(b) allows any individual serving as a hearing commissioner as of the date of enactment of the Act to be reappointed

as a magistrate. It also permits hearing commissioners appointed

prior to enactment of this Act to become magistrates without meeting the residency requirement.

Subsection 5(c) makes the amendments of this section effective

on the date of enactment of this Act.

Section 6 outlines special rules for magistrates of the Family

Court. It requires certified social workers on the Advisory Merit Selection Panel to assist in the hiring of magistrates, establishes special qualifications for magistrates in the Family Court, and provides magistrates for the Family Court and Domestic Violence Unit

with additional powers and authorities. Magistrates will have expertise in family law, and will be able to address the problems facing the children and families of the District of Columbia. It requires the chief judge, in consultation with the presiding judge of

the Family Court, to ensure that magistrates receive training. The

Committee strongly encourages that magistrates serving in the

Family Court or Domestic Violence Unit serve their entire terms in

the Family Court or Domestic Violence Unit to maximize case continuity and advance the guiding principle of one family, one judge.

Subsection 6(b) makes conforming amendments to the District of

Columbia Code.

Subsection 6(c) makes a clerical amendment to the table of sections for subchapter II of chapter 17 of title 11 of the District of

Columbia Code.

Subsection 6(d) establishes an expedited initial appointments

process for appointing the first five magistrates serving in the

Family Court within 60 days of enactment. It also sets forth the

transition responsibilities of those first five magistrates, which include working with the judges outside the Family Court to whom

child abuse and neglect cases are currently assigned to help make

case disposition or transfer decisions.

Section 7 is a sense of the Congress that Maryland, Virginia, and

the District of Columbia should promptly enter into a border agreement to facilitate the timely and safe placement of children in District of Columbia welfare system in foster and kinship homes and

other facilities in Maryland and Virginia.

Section 8 is a sense of the Congress that the chief judge of the

Superior Court and the presiding judges of the Family Division

take all steps necessary to encourage, support, and improve the use

of Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) in family court actions or proceedings. CASAs play a unique and important role in

ensuring that children are protected and their needs met.

Section 9 requires the chief judge and the presiding judge of the

Family Court, not later than 12 months after enactment of the Act

and in consultation with the General Services Administration, to

submit to Congress a feasibility study for the construction of approVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:22 Dec 09, 2001 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR108.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR108
16

priate permanent courts and facilities for the Family Court and an

analysis of the success of the use of magistrates under the expedited appointment procedures. The feasibility study is intended to

be the first step towards establishing a permanent ‘‘family-friendly’’ environment for those served by the Family Court. The Committee

expects that, upon completion, the study will be used to begin the

process of actual construction of space pursuant to established federal property and procurement principles.

Section 10 authorizes appropriations of such sums as necessary

to the District of Columbia Courts and the District of Columbia to

carry out the amendments of the Act.

Section 11 makes the amendments of the Act effective upon the

appropriation of funds specifically designated by the Federal law

for the purposes of carrying out the Act.

V. COST ESTIMATE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, November 27, 2001.

Hon. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN,

Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2657, the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Matthew Pickford and

Lanette J. Walker (for federal costs), Susan Sieg Tompkins (for the

state and local impact), and Paige Piper/Bach (for the private-sector impact).

Sincerely,

BARRY B. ANDERSON

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

H.R. 2657—District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001

Summary: H.R. 2657 would redesignate the Family Division of

the Superior Court of the District of Columbia as a distinct entity

called the Family Court of the Superior Court. The act would require that all proceedings under the jurisdiction of the Family Division be heard by that new entity. Under current law, other divisions of the Superior Court regularly handle proceedings of the

Family Division when necessary. In addition, the act would require

the appropriation of such sums as necessary to the District of Columbia to implement the act. CBO estimates that implementing

the act would cost $92 million over the 2002–2006 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Because the act would

not affect direct spending or governmental receipts, pay-as-you-go

procedures would not apply.

H.R. 2657 contains intergovernmental mandates as defined in

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) but CBO estimates

that the costs to comply with those requirements would not exceed

the threshold established in UMRA ($56 million in 2001, adjusted

annually for inflation). Further, H.R. 2657 would authorize approVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:22 Dec 09, 2001 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR108.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR108
17

priations to carry out the provisions of the act, so the District of

Columbia would face no net costs. The act contains no new privatesector mandates as defined in UMRA.

Major Provisions: In addition to designating the Family Division

of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia as the Family

Court, H.R. 2657 would: —Require that representatives of social services and other

related services for individuals and families served by the

Family Court be available on-site at the location of the Family

Court; —Require ‘‘one family, one judge’’ for cases and proceedings

to the greatest extent practicable, feasible, and lawful; —Designate the jurisdiction of the Family Court to include

divorces, child support, custody, adoptions, and various other

proceedings; —Establish certain requirements for judges who would serve

on the Family Court; —Direct the court to establish and operate an electronic

tracking system for cases and proceedings in the Family Court

and expand the system to cover all divisions of the Superior

Court; —Require that representatives from the departments of the

District government related to social and family services be

available on-site at the location of the Family Court; —Authorize the Mayor of the District of Columbia to appoint

a liaison between the Family Court and the District government; —Designate all hearing commissioners of the Superior Court

as magistrate judges with the full duties of that position and

establish certain requirements for magistrate judges serving

the Family Court; and —Authorize the appropriation of such sums as are necessary

to support the additional judges and staff authorized under the

act.

Other provisions would require the court to develop a master

plan for the Family Court, and would require several reports from

the District of Columbia Courts.

Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: As shown in the following table, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2657 would

cost $92 million over the 2002–2006 period, subject to appropriation of the necessary amounts. The costs of this legislation fall

within budget function 800 (general government).

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Judges and support staff:

Estimated authorization level .............................................................. 3 6 6 6 6

Estimated outlays ................................................................................ 3 6 6 6 6

Integrated Justice information system:

Estimated authorization level .............................................................. 2 3 2 (1) (1)

Estimated outlays ................................................................................ 2 3 2 (1) (1)

Capital improvements and rental costs:

Estimated authorization level .............................................................. 12 21 8 6 6

Estimated outlays ................................................................................ 3 11 16 13 7

Computer integration plan:

Estimated authorization level .............................................................. 3 (1) (1) (1) (1)

18

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Estimated outlays ................................................................................ 3 (1) (1) (1) (1)

D.C. Services representatives and liaison:

Estimated authorization level .............................................................. 1 1 1 1 1

Estimated outlays ................................................................................ 1 1 1 1 1

Total discretionary changes:

Estimated authorization level .............................................................. 21 31 17 13 13

Estimated outlays ................................................................................ 12 21 25 20 14

1 Less than $500,000.

Basis of estimate

For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 2657 will be enacted

by the end of 2001 and that the amounts necessary to implement

the act will be provided each fiscal year. All spending would be

subject to future appropriation actions.

Section 3 would require that most proceedings under the jurisdiction of the Family Court be held in that court and that all family

law cases pending in other divisions of the Superior Court (except

for certain specific circumstances) be transferred into the Family

Court. The majority of family law cases are neglect and abuse

cases, and about 4,500 such cases are currently pending. Of those

cases, 3,600 are pending before a judge outside the Family Division

of the Superior Court. In addition, about 1,500 new cases come before the court each year. Most of the estimated cost to implement

this legislation would be required to fund the additional workload

that would be imposed on the Family Court and the capital costs

of expanding work space to accommodate the additional judges and

support staff. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2657 would

cost about $92 million over the 2002–2006 period. The components

of that estimate are described below.

Additional Superior Court Judges and Support Staff

H.R. 2657 would set requirements for judges that serve the Family Court, including a minimum length of service. Under the act,

judges currently serving on the court may choose to transfer to the

Family Court from all divisions of the Superior Court. Assuming

that all 12 of the current Family Division judges choose to transfer,

CBO expects that three additional judges would be necessary to implement the act. CBO estimates that the salaries and benefits of

the judges and judicial support staff would cost about $1 million

each year over the five-year period.

The act would designate all Superior Court hearing commissioners as magistrate all Superior Court hearing commissioners as

magistrate judges and would authorize the court to appoint additional magistrate judges if needed. Based on information from the

District of Columbia Courts, CBO expects that nine additional

magistrates would be required to implement the act. Based on the

historical ratio of magistrate judges to support staff, CBO estimates that the additional magistrate judges and staff would cost

about $3.4 million each year over the five-year period.

Section 4 would require cases and proceedings in the Family

Court to be resolved through alternative dispute resolution procedures to the greatest extent practical. Based on information from

the court, CBO expects that the court would request that about

1,500 new cases each year enter the alternative dispute resolution

19

process. Based on the operation of the current alternative dispute

resolution program, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost about $500,000 each year over the five-year period

for stipends and training for mediators and additional court support staff.

Section 4 also would require the Family Court to develop an ongoing program to train judges and other staff in matters related to

family law, such as child development, family dynamics, and risk

factors for child abuse. Based on information from the District of

Columbia Courts, CBO estimates that implementing this provision

would cost about $50,000 in 2002 and $100,000 each year over the

2003–2006 period.

In addition, CBO estimate that security and office supplies for the additional judges and staff would cost about $50,000 each year

over the five-year period.

Integrated Justice Information System

Section 4 would require the District of Columbia Courts to establish and operate an electronic tracking and management system for

cases and proceedings in the Family Court and to expand this system to all divisions of the Superior Court. Based on information

from the court, CBO estimates that the complete system would cost

$7 million. The court has received a grant of over $1 million for the

system; therefore, CBO estimates that an additional $6 million

would be needed to complete the system.

In addition, CBO estimates that additional support staff would

be necessary to administer the Integrated Justice Information System and analyze the data for the various reports required under

the act. CBO estimates that the new staff would cost about

$300,000 each year over the 2002–2006 period, assuming the appropriation of the necessary amounts.

Capital Improvements

Based on information from the District of Columbia Courts, CBO

expects that implementing the act would require the court to construct new courtrooms and upgrade electrical, plumbing, and other

systems within existing court buildings. In addition, the District

Courts expect to rent office space in commercial buildings to accommodate the staff increases authorized by the act.

Based on information from the District of Columbia Courts, CBO

estimates that implementing this provision would cost about $25

million over the 2002–2006 period for construction and renovation,

and about $6 million per year for the rental of office space. We estimate that capital improvements and rental payments authorized

by H.R. 2657 would cost about $2 million in 2002 and $53 million

over the 2002–2006 period, subject to the availability of appropriated funds.

Computer Integration Plan

H.R. 2657 would require the District government to submit to

the Congress a plan for integrating certain computer systems of the

District government not more than six months after the date of enactment. Under the planned computer system, the Family Court

and the relevant social services agencies in the District would be

able to access and share information related to the individuals and

20

families they serve. Based on information from the District government, CBO estimates that preparing this plan would cost $3 million in 2002.

D.C. Services Representatives and Liaison

H.R. 2657 would require that representatives from the departments of the District government related to social and family services be available on-site at the location of the court. Based on information from the District government, CBO expects that 10 representatives would be required to implement this provision of the

act. The act also would require the Mayor of the District of Columbia to appoint a liaison between the Family Court and the District

government. CBO estimates that the additional personnel would

cost about $1 million each year over the five-year period, assuming

the appropriation of the necessary amounts.

Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: H.R.

2657 would place new requirements on the superior court and the

Mayor of the District of Columbia as part of redesignating the

court’s Family Division as Family Court. Among these requirements, the Superior Court would be required to develop a transition plan that would address appointment and qualification of

judges, case flow management, and disposition of actions pending

before the Family Division. The court also would be required go

prepare status reports, provide certain training to judges serving

on the Family Court, and update its data management systems.

The Mayor would be required to make representatives of certain

city agencies available to individuals served by the court, and to

develop a plan for integrating certain city data systems with data

systems of the court.

Those requirements would be mandates under UMRA but CBO

estimates that the cost to comply would not exceed the threshold

established in the act ($56 million in 2001, adjusted annually for

inflation). H.R. 2657 would authorize appropriations to pay for the

mandates, so the District of Columbia would face no net costs as

a result of the act if those appropriations are provided.

Estimated impact on the private sector: This act contains no new

private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.

Previous CBO estimate: On September 12, 2001, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 2657, the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001, as approved by the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, House Committee on Government Reform on August 13, 2001. The two versions of the bill are similar, but the full

committee version would require a lesser workload for the Family

Court, which would lower staffing costs. In addition, because we

are now assuming a later enactment date, costs over the 2002–

2006 period would be $7 million lower.

On November 27, 2001, CBO prepared a cost estimate for S.

1382, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on November 14, 2001. H.R. 2657 and S. 1382 are

identical, as are the estimated costs.

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Matthew Pickford and

Lanette J. Walker; impact on State, local, and tribal governments:

Susan Sieg Tompkins; impact on the private sector: Paige Piper/

Bach.

21

Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director for

Budget Analysis.

VI. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Paragraph 11(b)(1) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the

Senate requires that each report accompanying a bill evaluate the

‘‘regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out this

bill.’’ According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), H.R.

2657 contains intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). The Mayor of the District

of Columbia would be required to make representatives of certain

city agencies available to individuals served by the court, and to

develop a plan for integrating certain city data systems with data

systems of the court. CBO estimates that the costs to comply with

those requirements would not exceed the threshold established in

UMRA. H.R. 2657 has no additional regulatory impact.

VII. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as

reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted

is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic and

existing law, in which no change is proposed, is shown in roman):

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE

TITLE 11, ORGANIZATION AND JURISDICTION

OF THE COURTS

CHAPTER 7. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF

APPEALS

§ 11–721. Orders and judgments of the Superior Court

(a) The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has jurisdiction of

appeals from—

(1) all final orders and judgments of the Superior Court of

the District of Columbia;

* * * * * * *

(g) Any appeal from an order of the Family Court of the District

of Columbia terminating parental rights or granting or denying a

petition to adopt shall receive expedited review by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

CHAPTER 9. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

ø§ 11–902. Organization of the court

The Superior Court shall consist of the following divisions: Civil

Division, Criminal Division, Family Division, Probate Division, and

Tax Division. The divisions of the Superior Court may be divided

into such branches as the Superior Court may by rule prescribe.¿

22

§ 11–902. Organization of the court

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Superior Court shall consist of the following:

(1) The Civil Division.

(2) The Criminal Division.

(3) The Family Court.

(4) The Probate Division.

(5) The Tax Division.

(b) BRANCHES.—The divisions of the Superior Court may be divided into such branches as the Superior Court may by rule prescribe.

(c) DESIGNATION OF PRESIDING JUDGE OF FAMILY COURT.—The

chief judge of the Superior Court shall designate one of the judges

assigned to the Family Court of the Superior Court to serve as the

presiding judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court.

(d) JURISDICTION DESCRIBED.—The Family Court shall have

original jurisdiction over the actions, applications, determinations,

adjudications, and proceedings described in section 11–1101. Actions, applications, determinations, adjudications, and proceedings

being assigned to cross-jurisdictional units established by the Superior Court, including the Domestic Violence Unit, on the date of enactment of this section may continue to be so assigned after the date

of enactment of this section.

§ 11–906. Administration by chief judge; discharge of duties

(a) The chief judge shall administer and superintend the business of the Superior Court, as provided in chapter 17 of this title.

The chief judge shall attend to the discharge of the duties pertaining to the office of chief judge and perform such additional judicial work as the chief judge is able to perform.

(b) The chief judge shall, insofar as is consistent with this title,

arrange and divide the business of the Superior Court and fix the

time of sessions of the Family Court and the various divisions and

branches of the Superior Court.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER I. CONTINUATION AND ORGANIZATION

Sec.

11–901. Continuation of courts; court record; seal.

11–902. Organization of the court.

* * * * * * *

11–908. Designation and assignment of judges.

11–908A. Special Rules regarding assignment and service of judges of Family Court.

* * * * * * *

§ 11–908. Designation and assignment of judges

(a) øThe chief judge¿ Subject to section 11–908A, the chief judge

may designate the number of judges to serve in any division and

branch of the Superior Court and may assign and reassign any

judge to sit in any division or branch. When making assignments

to the Family Division and Tax Division, the chief judge shall consider the qualifications and interest of the judges. Each associate

23

judge shall attend and serve in the division and branch to which

assigned.

* * * * * * *

§ 11–908A. Special rules regarding assignment and service of

judges of Family Court

(a) NUMBER OF JUDGES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The number of judges serving on the Family

Court of the Superior Court shall be not more than 15.

(2) EXCEPTION.—If the chief judge determines that, in order to

carry out the intent and purposes of this Act, an emergency exists such that the number of judges needed on the Family Court

of the Superior Court at any time is more than 15, the chief

judge may temporarily reassign qualified judges from other divisions of the Superior Court or qualified senior judges to serve

on the Family Court. Such reassigned judges shall not be subject to the term of service requirements of this Act.

(3) COMPOSITION.—The total number of judges on the Superior

Court may exceed the limit on such judges specified in section

11–903 to the extent necessary to maintain the requirements of

this subsection if— (A) the number of judges serving on the Family Court is

less than 15; and

(B) the chief judge of the Superior Court— (i) is unable to secure a volunteer judge who is sitting on the Superior Court outside of the Family Court

for reassignment to the Family Court;

(ii) obtains approval of the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration; and

(iii) reports to Congress regarding the circumstances

that gave rise to the necessity to exceed the cap.

(b) QUALIFICATIONS.—The chief judge may not assign an individual to serve on the Family Court of the Superior Court or handle

a Family Court case unless— (1) the individual has training or expertise in family law;

(2) the individual certifies to the chief judge that the individual intends to serve the full term of service, except that this

paragraph shall not apply with respect to individuals serving

as senior judges under section 11–1504, individuals serving as

temporary judges under section 11–908, and any other judge

serving in another division of the Superior Court;

(3) the individual certifies to the chief judge that the individual will participate in the ongoing training programs carried out for judges of the Family Court under section 11– 1104(c); and

(4) the individual meets the requirements of section 11– 1501(b).

(c) TERM OF SERVICE.— (1) IN GENERAL.— (A) SITTING JUDGES.—An individual assigned to serve as

a judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court who is

serving as a judge in the Superior Court on the date of enactment of the District of Columbia Family Court Act of

2001 shall serve in the Family Court for a term of not fewer

than 3 years as determined by the chief judge of the SupeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:22 Dec 09, 2001 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\SR108.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR108
24

rior Court (including any period of service on the Family

Division of the Superior Court immediately preceding the

date of enactment of such Act).

(B) NEW JUDGES.—An individual assigned to serve as a

judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court who is not

serving as a judge in the Superior Court on the date of enactment of the District of Columbia Family Court Act of

2001 shall serve for a term of 5 years.

(2) ASSIGNMENT FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICE.—After the term of

service of a judge of the Family Court (as described in paragraph (1)) expires, at the judge’s request and with the approval

of the chief judge, the judge may be assigned for additional

service on the Family Court for a period of such duration (consistent with section 431(c) of the District of Columbia Home

Rule Act) as the chief judge may provide.

(3) PERMITTING SERVICE ON FAMILY COURT FOR ENTIRE

TERM.—At the request of the judge and with the approval of the

chief judge, a judge may serve as a judge of the Family Court

for the judge’s entire term of service as a judge of the Superior

Court under section 431(c) of the District of Columbia Home

Rule Act.

(d) REASSIGNMENT TO OTHER DIVISIONS.—The chief judge may

reassign a judge of the Family Court to any division of the Superior

Court if the chief judge determines that in the interest of justice the

judge is unable to continue serving in the Family Court.

CHAPTER 11. FAMILY DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR

COURT

Chapter 11. øFamily Division¿ Family Court of the Superior Court.

* * * * * * *

Chapter Sec.

1. General Provisions.............................................................................11–101 to 11–102

3. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ........... 11–301

* * * * * * *

11. øFamily Division¿ Family Court of the District of Columbia......................11–1101

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 11. øFAMILY DIVISION¿ FAMILY COURT OF

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Sec.

11–1101. Exclusive Jurisdiction.

11–1102. Use of alternative dispute resolution.

11–1103. Standards of practice for appointed counsel.

11–1104. Administration.

11–1105. Social services and other related services.

11–1106. Reports to Congress.

ø§ 11–1101. Exclusive jurisdiction

øThe Family Division of the Superior Court shall be assigned, in

accordance with chapter 9, exclusive jurisdiction of—

ø(1) actions for divorce from the bond of marriage and legal

separation from bed and board, including proceedings incidental thereto for alimony, pendente lite and permanent, and

for support and custody of minor children;

25

ø(2) applications for revocation of divorce from bed and

board;

ø(3) actions to enforce support of any person as required by

law;

ø(4) actions seeking custody of minor children, including petitions for writs of habeas corpus;

ø(5) actions to declare marriages void;

ø(6) actions to declare marriages valid;

ø(7) actions for annulments of marriage;

ø(8) determinations and adjudications of property rights,

both real and personal, in any action referred to in this section,

irrespective of any jurisdictional limitation imposed on the Superior Court;

ø(9) proceedings in adoption;

ø(10) proceedings under the Act of July 10, 1957 (D.C. Code,

secs. 30–301 to 30–324);

ø(11) proceedings to determine paternity of any child born

out of wedlock;

ø(12) civil proceedings for protection involving intrafamily offenses, instituted pursuant to chapter 10 of title 16;

ø(13) proceedings in which a child, as defined in section 16– 2301, is alleged to be delinquent, neglected, or in need of supervision;

ø(14) proceedings under chapter 5 of title 21 relating to the

commitment of the mentally ill;

ø(15) proceedings under chapter 11 of title 21 relating to the

commitment of the substantially retarded; and

ø(16) proceedings under Interstate Compact on Juveniles

(described in title IV of the District of Columbia Court Reform

and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970).¿

§ 11–1101. Jurisdiction of the Family Court

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Family Court of the District of Columbia

shall be assigned and have original jurisdiction over—

(1) actions for divorce from the bond of marriage and legal

separation from bed and board, including proceedings incidental thereto for alimony, pendente lite and permanent, and

for support and custody of minor children;

(2) applications for revocation of divorce from bed and board;

(3) actions to enforce support of any person as required by

law;

(4) actions seeking custody of minor children, including petitions for writs of habeas corpus;

(5) actions to declare marriages void;

(6) actions to declare marriages valid;

(7) actions for annulments of marriage;

(8) determinations and adjudications of property rights, both

real and personal, in any action referred to in this section, irrespective of any jurisdictional limitation imposed on the Superior Court;

(9) proceedings in adoption;

(10) proceedings under the Act of July 10, 1957 (D.C. Code,

secs. 30–301 to 30–324);

(11) proceedings to determine paternity of any child born out

of wedlock;

26

(12) civil proceedings for protection involving intrafamily offenses, instituted pursuant to chapter 10 of title 16;

(13) proceedings in which a child, as defined in section 16– 2301, is alleged to be delinquent, neglected, or in need of supervision;

(14) proceedings under chapter 5 of title 21 relating to the

commitment of the mentally ill;

(15) proceedings under chapter 11 of title 21 relating to the

commitment of the substantially retarded; and

(16) proceedings under Interstate Compact on Juveniles (described in title IV of the District of Columbia Court Reform and

Criminal Procedure Act of 1970).

(b) DEFINITION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—In this chapter, the term ‘action or proceeding’ with respect to the Family Court refers to cause of action described in paragraphs (1) through (16) of subsection (a).

(2) EXCEPTION.—An action or proceeding may be assigned to

or retained by cross-jurisdictional units established by the Superior Court, including the Domestic Violence Unit.

§ 11–1102. Use of alternative dispute resolution

To the greatest extent practicable and safe, cases and proceedings

in the Family Court of the Superior Court shall be resolved through

alternative dispute resolution procedures, in accordance with such

rules as the Superior Court may promulgate.

§ 11–1103. Standards of practice for appointed counsel

The Superior Court shall establish standards of practice for attorneys appointed as counsel in the Family Court of the Superior

Court.

§ 11–1104. Administration

(a) ‘‘ONE FAMILY, ONE JUDGE’’ REQUIREMENT FOR CASES AND

PROCEEDINGS.—To the greatest extent practicable, feasible, and lawful, if an individual who is a party to an action or proceeding assigned to the Family Court has an immediate family or household

member who is a party to another action or proceeding assigned to

the Family Court, the individual’s action or proceeding shall be assigned to the same judge or magistrate judge to whom the immediate family member’s action or proceeding is assigned.

(b) RETENTION OF JURISDICTION OVER CASES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In addition to the requirement of subsection

(a), any action or proceeding assigned to the Family Court of

the Superior Court shall remain under the jurisdiction of the

Family Court until the action or proceeding is finally disposed,

except as provided in paragraph (2)(C).

(2) ONE FAMILY, ONE JUDGE.—

(A) FOR THE DURATION.—An action or proceeding assigned pursuant to this subsection shall remain with the

judge or magistrate judge to whom the action or proceeding

is assigned for the duration of the action or proceeding to

the greatest extent practicable, feasible, and lawful.

(B) ALL CASES INVOLVING AN INDIVIDUAL.—If an individual who is a party to an action or proceeding assigned

to the Family Court becomes a party to another action or

27

proceeding assigned to the Family Court, the individual’s

subsequent action or proceeding shall be assigned to the

same judge or magistrate judge to whom the individual’s

initial action or proceeding is assigned to the greatest extent practicable and feasible.

(C) FAMILY COURT CASE RETENTION.—If the full term of

a Family Court judge to whom the action or proceeding is

assigned is completed prior to the final disposition of the

action or proceeding, the presiding judge of the Family

Court shall ensure that the matter or proceeding is reassigned to a judge serving on the Family Court.

(D) EXCEPTION.—A judge whose full term on the Family

Court is completed but who remains in Superior Court may

retain the case or proceeding for not more than 18 months

after ceasing to serve if— (i) the case remains at all times in full compliance

with section 103(a)(3) of Public Law 105–89 (42 U.S.C.

675(E)), if applicable, and the case has been assigned

continuously to the judge for 18 months or more and

the judge has a special knowledge of the child’s needs,

such that reassignment would be harmful to the child;

and

(ii) the chief judge, in consultation with the presiding

judge of the Family Court determines that such retention is in the best interests of the parties.

(3) STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL ETHICS.—The actions of a judge

or magistrate judge in retaining an action or proceeding under

this paragraph shall be subject to applicable standards of judicial ethics.

(c) TRAINING PROGRAM.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The chief judge, in consultation with the

presiding judge of the Family Court, shall carry out an ongoing

program to provide training in family law and related matters

for judges of the Family Court and other judges of the Superior

Court who are assigned Family Court cases, including magistrate judges, attorneys who practice in the Family Court, and

appropriate nonjudicial personnel, and shall include in the program information and instruction regarding the following:

(A) Child development.

(B) Family dynamics, including domestic violence.

(C) Relevant Federal and District of Columbia laws.

(D) Permanency planning principles and practices.

(E) Recognizing the risk factors for child abuse.

(F) Any other matters the presiding judge considers appropriate.

(2) USE OF CROSS-TRAINING.—The program carried out under

this section shall use the resources of lawyers and legal professionals, social workers, and experts in the field of child development and other related fields.

(d) ACCESSIBILITY OF MATERIALS, SERVICES, AND PROCEEDINGS;

PROMOTION OF ‘‘FAMILY-FRIENDLY’’ ENVIRONMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—To the greatest extent practicable, the chief

judge and the presiding judge of the Family Court shall ensure

that the materials and services provided by the Family Court

are understandable and accessible to the individuals and famiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:22 Dec 09, 2001 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\SR108.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR108
28

lies served by the Family Court, and that the Family Court carries out its duties in a manner which reflects the special needs

of families with children.

(2) LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS.—To the maximum extent feasible, safe, and practicable, cases and proceedings in the Family

Court shall be conducted at locations readily accessible to the

parties involved.

(e) INTEGRATED COMPUTERIZED CASE TRACKING AND MANAGE- MENT SYSTEM.—The Executive Officer of the District of Columbia

courts under section 11–1703 shall work with the chief judge of the

Superior Court— (1) to ensure that all records and materials of cases and proceedings in the Family Court are stored and maintained in electronic format accessible by computers for the use of judges,

magistrate judges, and nonjudicial personnel of the Family

Court, and for the use of other appropriate offices of the District

government in accordance with the plan for integrating computer systems prepared by the Mayor of the District of Columbia under section 4(b) of the District of Columbia Family Court

Act of 2001;

(2) to establish and operate an electronic tracking and management system for cases and proceedings in the Family Court

for the use of judges and nonjudicial personnel of the Family

Court, using the records and materials stored and maintained

pursuant to paragraph (1); and

(3) to expand such system to cover all divisions of the Superior Court as soon as practicable.

§ 11–1105. Social services and other related services

(a) ONSITE COORDINATION OF SERVICES AND INFORMATION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Mayor of the District of Columbia, in

consultation with the chief judge of the Superior Court, shall

ensure that representatives of the appropriate offices of the District government which provide social services and other related

services to individuals and families served by the Family Court

(including the District of Columbia Public Schools, the District

of Columbia Housing Authority, the Child and Family Services

Agency, the Office of the Corporation Counsel, the Metropolitan

Police Department, the Department of Health, and other offices

determined by the Mayor) are available on-site at the Family

Court to coordinate the provision of such services and information regarding such services to such individuals and families.

(2) DUTIES OF HEADS OF OFFICES.—The head of each office

described in paragraph (1), including the Superintendent of the

District of Columbia Public Schools and the Director of the District of Columbia Housing Authority, shall provide the Mayor

with such information, assistance, and services as the Mayor

may require to carry out such paragraph.

(b) APPOINTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES LIAISON WITH FAMILY

COURT.—The Mayor of the District of Columbia shall appoint an individual to serve as a liaison between the Family Court and the District government for purposes of subsection (a) and for coordinating

the delivery of services provided by the District government with the

activities of the Family Court and for providing information to the

judges, magistrate judges, and nonjudicial personnel of the Family

29

Court regarding the services available from the District government

to the individuals and families served by the Family Court. The

Mayor shall provide on an ongoing basis information to the chief

judge of the Superior Court and the presiding judge of the Family

Court regarding the services of the District government which are

available for the individuals and families served by the Family

Court.

§ 11–1106. Reports to Congress

Not later than 90 days after the end of each calendar year, the

chief judge of the Superior Court shall submit a report to Congress

on the activities of the Family Court during the year, and shall include in the report the following:

(1) The chief judge’s assessment of the productivity and success of the use of alternative dispute resolution pursuant to section 11–1102.

(2) Goals and timetables as required by the Adoption and

Safe Families Act of 1997 to improve the Family Court’s performance in the following year.

(3) Information on the extent to which the Family Court met

deadlines and standards applicable under Federal and District

of Columbia law to the review and disposition of actions and

proceedings under the Family Court’s jurisdiction during the

year.

(4) Information on the progress made in establishing locations and appropriate space for the Family Court that are consistent with the mission of the Family Court until such time as

the locations and space are established.

(5) Information on any factors which are not under the control of the Family Court which interfere with or prevent the

Family Court from carrying out its responsibilities in the most

effective manner possible.

(6) Information on—

(A) the number of judges serving on the Family Court as

of the end of the year;

(B) how long each such judge has served on the Family

Court;

(C) the number of cases retained outside the Family

Court;

(D) the number of reassignments to and from the Family

Court; and

(E) the ability to recruit qualified sitting judges to serve

on the Family Court.

(7) Based on outcome measures derived through the use of the

information stored in electronic format under section 11–

1104(d), an analysis of the Family Court’s efficiency and effectiveness in managing its case load during the year, including

an analysis of the time required to dispose of actions and proceedings among the various categories of the Family Court’s jurisdiction, as prescribed by applicable law and best practices,

including (but not limited to) best practices developed by the

American Bar Association and the National Council of Juvenile

and Family Court Judges.

30

(8) If the Family Court failed to meet the deadlines, standards, and outcome measures described in the previous paragraphs, a proposed remedial action plan to address the failure.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 17. ADMINISTRATION OF THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA COURTS.

SUBCHAPTER I. COURT ADMINISTRATION

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II. COURT PERSONNEL

Sec.

11–1721. Clerks of courts.

* * * * * * *

11–1732. øHearing commissioners¿ Magistrate judges.

11–1732A. Special Rules for magistrate judges of the Family Court of the Superior

Court and the Domestic Violence Unit.

* * * * * * *

§ 11–1732. øHearing commissioners¿ Magistrate Judges

(a) With the approval of a majority of the judges of the Superior

Court of the District of Columbia in active service and subject to

standards and procedures established by the rules of the Superior

Court, the chief judge of the Superior Court may appoint øhearing

commissioners¿ magistrate judges, who shall serve in the Superior

Court and perform the duties enumerated in subsection (j) of this

section (or, in the case of magistrate judges for the Family Court

or the Domestic Violence Unit of the Superior Court, the duties enumerated in section 11–1732A(d)) and such other functions incidental to these duties as are consistent with the rules of the Superior Court and the Constitution and laws of the United States and

of the District of Columbia.

(b) øHearing commissioners¿ magistrate judges shall be selected

pursuant to standards and procedures adopted by the Board of

Judges. Such procedures shall contain provisions for public notice

of all vacancies in øhearing commissioner¿ magistrate judge positions and for the establishment by the Court of an advisory merit

selection panel, composed of lawyer and nonlawyer residents of the

District of Columbia who are not employees of the District of Columbia Courts, to assist the Board of Judges in identifying and recommending persons who are best qualified to fill such positions.

(c) øNo individual¿ Except as provided in section 11–1732A(b), no

individual shall be appointed as a øhearing commissioner¿ magistrate judges unless that individual—

(1) is a citizen of the United States;

(2) is an active member of the unified District of Columbia

Bar and has been engaged in the active practice of law in the

District for the five years immediately preceding the appointment or for such five years has been on the faculty of a law

school in the District, or has been employed as a lawyer by the

United States or District government; and

(3) is a bona fide resident of the District of Columbia and has

maintained an actual place of abode in the District for at least

31

ninety days immediately prior to appointment, and retains

such residency during service as a øhearing commissioner¿

magistrate judge, except that øhearing commissioners¿ magistrate judges appointed prior to the effective date of this section shall not be required to be residents of the District to be

eligible to be appointed to one of the initial terms under this

section or to be reappointed.

(d) øHearing commissioners¿ magistrate judges shall be appointed for terms of four years and may be reappointed for terms

of four years. Those individuals serving as øhearing commissioners¿ magistrate judges on the effective date of this Act shall be

automatically appointed for a four year term.

(e) Upon the expiration of a øhearing commissioner’s¿ magistrate

judge’s term, the øhearing commissioner¿ magistrate judge may

continue to perform the duties of office until a successor is appointed, or for 90 days after the date of the expiration of the øhearing commissioner’s term¿ magistrate judge’s, whichever is earlier.

(f) No individual may serve as a øhearing commissioner¿ magistrate judge under this section after having attained the age of

seventy-four.

(g) The Board of Judges may suspend, involuntarily retire, or remove a øhearing commissioner¿ magistrate judge, during the term

for which the øhearing commissioner¿ magistrate judge is appointed, only for incompetence, misconduct, neglect of duty, or

physical or mental disability. Suspension, involuntary retirement,

or removal requires the concurrence of a majority of the judges in

active service. Before any order of suspension, involuntary retirement, or removal shall be entered, a full specification of the

charges and the opportunity to be heard shall be furnished to the

øhearing commissioner¿ magistrate judge pursuant to procedures

established by rules of the Superior Court.

(h) If the Board of Judges determines that a øhearing commissioner¿ magistrate judges position is not needed, the Board of

Judges may terminate the position.

(i)(1) øHearing commissioners¿ Magistrate judges may not engage in the practice of law, or in any other business, occupation,

or employment inconsistent with the expeditious, proper, and impartial performance of their duties as officers of the court.

(2) øHearing commissioners¿ Magistrate judges shall abide by

the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

(j) A øhearing commissioner¿ Magistrate judge, when specifically

designated by the chief judge of the Superior Court, and subject to

the rules of the Superior Court and the right of review under subsection (k), may perform the following functions:

(1) Administer oaths and affirmations and take acknowledgements;

(2) Determine conditions of release pursuant to the provisions of title 23 of the District of Columbia Code (relating to

criminal procedure);

(3) Conduct preliminary examinations and initial probation

revocation hearings in all criminal cases to determine if there

is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed

and that the accused committed it;

(4) (A) In any case brought under § 11–1101(1), (3), (10), or

(11) of the District of Columbia Code involving the establishVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:22 Dec 09, 2001 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR108.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR108
32

ment or enforcement of child support, or in any case seeking

to modify an existing child support order, where a øhearing

commissioner¿ magistrate judge in the Family Division of the

Superior Court finds that there is an existing duty of support,

the øhearing commissioner¿ magistrate judge shall conduct a

hearing on support, make findings, and enter judgment as provided by law, and in accordance with guidelines established by

rule of the Superior Court, which judgment shall constitute a

final order of the Superior Court.

(B) If in a case under paragraphs øparagraph¿ (A), the

øhearing commissioner¿ magistrate judge finds that a duty of

support exists and makes a finding that the case involves complex issues requiring judicial resolution, the øhearing commissioner¿ magistrate judge shall establish a temporary support

obligation and refer unresolved issues to a judge of the Superior Court.

(C) In cases under subparagraphs (A) and (B) in which the

øhearing commissioner¿ magistrate judge finds that there is a

duty of support and the individual owing that duty has been

served or given notice of the proceeding under any applicable

statute or court rule, if that individual fails to appear or otherwise respond, the øhearing commissioner¿ magistrate judge

shall enter a default order, which shall constitute a final order

of the Superior Court;

(5) Subject to the rules of the Superior Court and with the

consent of the parties involved, make findings and enter final

orders or judgments in other uncontested or contested proceedings, in the Civil, Criminal, and Family Divisions of the

Superior Court, excluding jury trials and trials of felony cases.

(k) With respect to proceedings and hearings under paragraphs

(2), (3), (4), and (5) of øsubsection (j),¿ subsection (j) (or proceedings

and hearings under section 11–1732A(d), in the case of magistrate

judges for the Family Court or the Domestic Violence Unit of the

Superior Court), a review of the øhearing commissioner’s¿ magistrate judge’s order or judgment, in whole or in part, may be made

by a judge of the appropriate division (or, in the case of an order

or judgment of a magistrate judge of the Family Court or the Domestic Violence Unit of the Superior Court, by a judge of the Family

Court or the Domestic Violence Unit) sua sponte and must be made

upon a motion of one of the parties made pursuant to procedures

established by rules of the Superior Court. The reviewing judge

shall conduct such proceedings as required by the rules of the Superior Court. An appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals may be made only after a judge of the Superior Court has reviewed the order or judgment.

(l) The Superior Court shall ensure that all øhearing commissioners¿ magistrate judges receive training to enable them to fulfill

their responsibilities (subject to the requirements of section 11–

1732A(f) in the case of magistrate judges of the Family Court of the

Superior Court or the Domestic Violence Unit).

(m)(1) The chief judge of the Superior Court, in consultation with

the District of Columbia Bar, the City Council of the District of Columbia, and other interested parties, shall within one year of the

effective date of this section, make a careful study of conditions in

the Superior Court to determine—

33

(A) the number of appointments required to provide for the

effective administration of justice;

(B) the divisions in which hearing commissioners shall serve;

(C) the appropriate functions of hearing commissioners; and

(D) the compensation of, and other personnel matters pertaining to, hearing commissioners.

Upon completion of the study, the chief judge shall report the findings of such study to the appropriate committees of the Congress.

(2) After the study required by paragraph (1), the chief judge

shall, from time to time, make such studies as the Board of Judges

shall deem expedient, giving consideration to suggestions of the

District of Columbia Bar and other interested parties.

(n) With the concurrence of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the Board of Judges of the Superior Court may promulgate

rules, not inconsistent with the terms of this section, which are

necessary for the fair and effective utilization of øhearing commissioners¿ magistrate judges in the Superior Court.

(o) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘Board of Judges’’ means the judges of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Any action of the Board of Judges shall require a majority vote of

the sitting judges.

§ 11–1732A. Special rules for magistrate judges of the Family

Court of the Superior Court and the Domestic Violence Unit

(a) USE OF SOCIAL WORKERS IN ADVISORY MERIT SELECTION

PANEL.—The advisory selection merit panel used in the selection of

magistrate judges for the Family Court of the Superior Court under

section 11–1732(b) shall include certified social workers specializing

in child welfare matters who are residents of the District and who

are not employees of the District of Columbia Courts.

(b) SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS.—Notwithstanding section 11–

1732(c), no individual shall be appointed as a magistrate judge for

the Family Court of the Superior Court or assigned to handle Family Court cases unless that individual— (1) is a citizen of the United States;

(2) is an active member of the unified District of Columbia

Bar;

(3) for the 5 years immediately preceding the appointment

has been engaged in the active practice of law in the District,

has been on the faculty of a law school in the District, or has

been employed as a lawyer by the United States or District government, or any combination thereof;

(4) has not fewer than 3 years of training or experience in the

practice of family law as a lawyer or judicial officer; and

(5)(A) is a bona fide resident of the District of Columbia and

has maintained an actual place of abode in the District for at

least 90 days immediately prior to appointment, and retains

such residency during service as a magistrate judge; or

(B) is a bona fide resident of the areas consisting of Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland, Arlington

and Fairfax Counties, and the City of Alexandria in Virginia,

has maintained an actual place of abode in such area, areas,

or the District of Columbia for at least 5 years prior to appointment, and certifies that the individual will become a bona fide

34

resident of the District of Columbia not later than 90 days after

appointment.

(c) SERVICE OF CURRENT HEARING COMMISSIONERS.—Those individuals serving as hearing commissioners under section 11–1732 on

the effective date of this section who meet the qualifications described in subsection (b)(4) may request to be appointed as magistrate judges for the Family Court of the Superior Court under

such section.

(d) FUNCTIONS OF FAMILY COURT AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE UNIT

MAGISTRATES.—A magistrate judge, when specifically designated by

the chief judge in consultation with the presiding judge to serve in

the Family Court or in the Domestic Violence Unit and subject to

the rules of the Superior Court and the right of review under section

11–1732(k), may perform the following functions:

(1) Administer oaths and affirmations and take acknowledgements.

(2) Subject to the rules of the Superior Court and applicable

Federal and District of Columbia law, conduct hearings, make

findings and enter interim and final orders or judgments in

uncontested or contested proceedings within the jurisdiction of

the Family Court and the Domestic Violence Unit of the Superior Court (as described in section 11–1101), excluding jury

trials and trials of felony cases, as assigned by the presiding

judge of the Family Court.

(3) Subject to the rules of the Superior Court, enter an order

punishing an individual for contempt, except that no individual

may be detained pursuant to the authority of this paragraph for

longer than 180 days.

(e) LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS.—To the maximum extent feasible,

safe, and practicable, magistrate judges of the Family Court of the

Superior Court shall conduct proceedings at locations readily accessible to the parties involved.

(f) TRAINING.—The chief judge, in consultation with the presiding

judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court, shall ensure that

all magistrate judges of the Family Court receive training to enable

them to fulfill their responsibilities, including specialized training

in family law and related matters.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 16, PARTICULAR ACTIONS,

PROCEEDINGS AND MATTERS

CHAPTER 9. DIVORCE, ANNULMENT, SEPARATION,

SUPPORT, ETC.

§ 16–916.1. Child Support Guidelines

(a) In any case brought under paragraph (1), (3), (10), or (11) of

section 11–1101 that involves the establishment or enforcement of

child support, or in any case that seeks to modify an existing child

support order, if the judicial officer finds that there is an existing

duty of child support, the judicial officer shall conduct a hearing on

child support, make a finding, and enter a judgment in accordance

35

with the child support guideline (‘‘guideline’’) established in this

section.

* * * * * * *

(o) A child support order issued under this section or section 5

of the District of Columbia Child Support Enforcement Amendment

Act of 1985, effective February 24, 1987 (D.C. Law 6–166; D.C.

Code, 30–504), shall be subject to modification by application of the

guideline subject to the following conditions or limitations:

(1) A party to a child support proceeding shall exchange relevant information on finances or dependents every 3 years and

shall be encouraged to update a child support order voluntarily

using the updated information and the guideline. Relevant information is any information that is used to compute child support pursuant to the guideline.

* * * * * * *

(6) If a petition to modify a child support order pursuant to

this section is accompanied by an affidavit that sets forth sufficient facts and guideline calculations, and is accompanied by

proof of service upon the respondent, the øFamily Division¿

Family Court of the Superior Court may enter an order to modify the child support order in accordance with the guideline unless a party requests a hearing within 30 days of service of the

petition for modification. No order shall be modified without a

hearing if a hearing is timely requested.

* * * * * * *

§ 16–924. Expedited judicial hearing

(a) In any case brought under D.C. Code, section 11–1101(1), (3),

(10), or (11), involving the establishment or enforcement of child

support, or in any case seeking to modify an existing child support

order, where a øhearing commissioner¿ magistrate judge in the

øFamily Division¿ Family Court of the Superior Court finds that

there is an existing duty of support, the øhearing commissioner¿

magistrate judge shall conduct a hearing on support and, within 30

days from the conclusion of the hearing, the øhearing commissioner¿ magistrate judge shall issue written findings of fact and

conclusions of law that shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

(1) The name and relationship of the parties;

(2) The name, age, and any exceptional information about

the child;

(3) The duty of support owed;

(4) The amount of monthly support payments;

(5) The annual earnings of the parents;

(6) The social security number of the parents;

(7) The name, address, and telephone number of each parent’s employer;

(8) The name, address, and telephone number of any person,

organization, corporation, or government entity that holds real

or personal assets of the obligor; and

(9) A statement that a responsible relative is bound by this

order to notify the Court within 10 days of any change in address or employment.

36

(b) The alleged responsible relative may be represented by counsel at any stage of the proceedings.

(c) If in a case under subsection (a) of this section the øhearing

commissioner¿ magistrate judge finds that the case involves complex issues requiring judicial resolution, the øhearing commissioner¿ magistrate judge shall establish a temporary support obligation and refer unresolved issues to a judge, except that the

øhearing commissioner¿ magistrate judge shall not establish a temporary support order if parentage is at issue.

(d) In cases under subsections (a) and (c) of this section in which

the øhearing commissioner¿ magistrate judge finds that there is a

duty of support and the individual owing that duty has been served

or given notice of the proceedings under any applicable statute or

court rule, if that individual fails to appear or otherwise respond,

the øhearing commissioner¿ magistrate judge shall enter a default

order.

(e) Subject to subsection (f) of this section, the findings of the

øhearing commissioner¿ magistrate judge shall constitute a final

order of the Superior Court.

(f) A review of the øhearing commissioner’s¿ magistrate judge’s

findings in a case under subsections (a) and (c) of this section may

be made by a judge of the øFamily Division¿ Family Court sua

sponte and shall be made upon the motion of 1 of the parties,

which shall be filed within 30 days after the judgment. An appeal

to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals may be made only

after a hearing is held in the Superior Court.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 23. FAMILY DIVISION PROCEEDINGS

SUBCHAPTER I. PROCEEDINGS REGARDING DELINQUENCY,

NEGLECT, OR NEED OF SUPERVISION

Sec.

16–2301. Definitions.

16–2301.1 References deemed to refer to Family Court of the Superior Court.

* * * * * * *

§ 16–2301. Definitions

* * * * * * *

§ 16–2301.1 References deemed to refer to Family Court of the

Superior Court

Any reference in this chapter or any other Federal or District of

Columbia law, Executive order, rule, regulation, delegation of authority, or any document of or pertaining to the Family Division of

the Superior Court of the District of Columbia shall be deemed to

refer to the Family Court of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

37

50 Hearing Report, Committee on the District of Columbia and Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 91st Congress, First Session, May 19–22, July 25–27, and August 7, 1969, pp. 562–587. 51Organic Act of 1801, 2 Stat. 103, ch. 15. 52Organic Act of 1801, 2 Stat. 103, ch. 15. 53 Hearing Report, Committee on the District of Columbia and Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 91st Congress, First Session, May 19–22, July 25–27, and August 7, 1969 (‘‘D.C. Courts Hearing Report’’), p. 566 (citing Act of April 29, 1802, ch. 31, sec. 24, 2 Stat. 166). 54D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 566 (citing Act of July 7, 1838, ch. 192, 5 Stat. 306). 55D.C. Courts Hearing Report at pp. 566–67.

VIII. APPENDIX

HISTORY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUPERIOR COURT

Introduction

The last major restructuring of the District of Columbia court

system occurred in 1970. As part of this reform effort, the Senate

Committee on the District of Columbia received testimony and

studies from a number of groups about how best to proceed. One

group, the Ad Hoc Committee on the Administration of Justice,

comprised of a group of attorneys and court experts, prepared an

extensive report on the history of the District of Columbia court

system.50 The following is a summary of its findings.

Prior to 1970, the original jurisdiction over legal matters in District of Columbia was split among 3 separate courts: the District

of Columbia Court of General Sessions, the United States District

Court for the District of Columbia, and the Juvenile Court. At that

time, the jurisdiction of these courts in some cases overlapped and

in other cases were fragmented. This appeared to be a result of a

long history of reforms in the court system.

United States District Court

The history of the District of Columbia court system began with

the Organic Act of 1801 which established a Circuit Court for the

District of Columbia. The Circuit Court was given jurisdiction over

all federal and local cases, criminal and civil, within the District

of Columbia.51 The Organic Act also established justices of the

peace with jurisdiction over all petty civil claims and petty criminal

offenses.52

In 1802, Congress established a District Court for the District of

Columbia. The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was vested in the

newly established District Court; however the decisions of the District Court were appealable to the Circuit Court and the Circuit

Court retained original jurisdiction over local cases.53 Then in

1838, Congress established the Criminal Court of the District of

Columbia and gave it original jurisdiction over criminal cases in

District of Columbia. This left the District Court with appellate jurisdiction over criminal cases and original jurisdiction over civil

cases.54 In 1863, Congress created the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia and transferred all of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to this new Court. Even though the Criminal Court and

the District Court still existed, their powers were also effectively

transferred to the Supreme Court.55

In 1870, the Criminal Court was formally merged with the Supreme Court but a new criminal court, the Police Court was established. The Police Court was given jurisdiction over the criminal ofVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:22 Dec 09, 2001 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR108.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR108
38

56D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 574 (citing Act of June 17, 1870, 16 Stat. 153). 57D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 575 (citing Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 848). 58D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 567. 59D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 573 (citing Act of March 2, 1901, 31 Stat. 1189). 60D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 575. 61D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 575. 62D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 579 (citing Act of March 19, 1906, Ch. 960, 34 Stat. 73). 63D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 580. 64D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 580.

fenses covered by the justices of the peace.56 This jurisdiction was

very limited and included all offenses against the United States not

punishable by imprisonment and all offenses against the laws of

District of Columbia Later, in 1891, the Police Court lost exclusive

jurisdiction over these offenses and the Supreme Court was given

concurrent jurisdiction with the Police Court.57

This new Supreme Court, like the original Circuit Court in 1801,

was given appellant and original jurisdiction over federal and local

actions. In 1936, the name of the Supreme Court was changed to

the District Court for the District of Columbia and, in 1948, District of Columbia was recognized a federal judicial district which

resulted in the District Court becoming the official federal court as

we know it today.58

District of Columbia Court of General Sessions

Beginning in 1801, the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace established by the Organic Act, increased. They heard small civil

claims and over time the amount of claims under their jurisdiction

increased and, in 1901, a Justices of the Peace Court was officially

established.59 In 1909, the Justices of the Peace Court was reconstituted as the Municipal Court and, in 1942, the Police Court

merged with the Municipal Court giving the Court limited jurisdiction over criminal offenses. Over the years, the size of the civil

claims over which the court had jurisdiction increased and, in 1956,

the Municipal Court also received general jurisdiction over domestic relations matters (formerly under the jurisdiction of the District

Court).60 In 1962, the Municipal Court was renamed as the District

of Columbia Court of General Sessions.61 This Court, unlike the

Circuit and then District Court, had jurisdiction over small civil

claims and petty criminal cases in addition to domestic relations.

The reason for the gradual increase in jurisdiction was due, in

part, to alleviating the increasing caseload in the District Court.

The Juvenile Court

The Juvenile Court was an outgrowth of the Police Court and

was established in 1906. This Court was a legal recognition of practices that had occurred in Police Court and in society at the time

namely that adult criminal sanctions for juveniles were too

harsh.62 The Juvenile Court was given exclusive jurisdiction over

all children under 18 years of age except the court could waive jurisdiction to the United States District Court if the child was over

16 or it was a capital offense. The Juvenile Court also had jurisdiction over paternity and contributing to the delinquency of a minor

cases.63 In 1951, it was given concurrent jurisdiction with the District Court over desertion and criminal non-support cases.64

39

65D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 562. 66D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 562. 67D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 581. 68D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 581.

Congressional Review of Court System in 1960s

This process, which began in 1801, culminated in the courts that

existed prior to the last major restructuring of the District of Columbia court system in 1970. The District Court for the District of

Columbia, although a federal court, still maintained significant jurisdiction over local civil and criminal cases. The District of Columbia Court of General Sessions only had limited jurisdiction over the

small civil claims (formerly under the Justice of the Peace Court),

minor offenses (formerly under the Police Court), and domestic relations (formerly under the District Court). The Juvenile Court had

jurisdiction over minors, paternity cases, desertion and criminal

non-support but shared jurisdiction over the latter with the District

Court.

In the late 1960s, several commissions were established to review the status of the District of Columbia court system. This was

due in large part to a marked increase in crime and the problem

of backlog in the United States District Court due to local cases.

Among the Commissions established to review this situation and

make recommendations on reforming the court system was the Ad

hoc Committee on the Administration of Justice. This committee

was assigned the task of reviewing the history of the District of Columbia court system.65

This Committee highlighted the problems with the Juvenile

Court at the time. They noted that one problem was that the Juvenile Court was not confined to juveniles because it also included

adults in criminal non-support cases and paternity cases. It also

noted that family matter jurisdiction was fragmented with the District Court having concurrent jurisdiction over criminal non-support and children tried as adults and with the Court of General

Sessions having jurisdiction over divorce, separation, annulment,

adoption, custody, civil support, and domestic violence. Further, domestic relations cases within the Court of General Sessions were

not a division but only a branch of the civil division within the

Court.66

Because of the fragmentation of family matters in the court system, in 1967, the President’s Commission on Crime in the District

of Columbia recommended that a Family Court be established to

handle all family matters.67 The Committee on the Administration

of Justice recommended consolidating family matters under one

umbrella but not as a separate court. The Committee recommended

that the juvenile court be made a division of the Court of General

Sessions. The reasons included: (1) it would be consistent with the

historical trend of developing a local court of general jurisdiction,

(2) it would reduce duplication of personnel and other activities, (3)

it would reduce scheduling conflicts for police, attorneys, clients,

and witnesses, and (4) it would increase the quality of judges serving.68 Specifically, they noted:

Having a larger pool of judges who could move in and

out of the Juvenile division and other parts of the court

would broaden a judge’s judicial experience, keep him

40

69D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 581. 70D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 583. 71D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 582. 72D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 582. 73 ‘‘Reorganizing the Courts of the District of Columbia, and for Other Purposes’’ (Report No.

91–405, Accompanying S. 2601), Committee on the District of Columbia, September 16, 1969,

p. 3. 74Since then, the local District of Columbia court system experienced other changes through

the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act of 1973 (Home

Rule Act), P.L. 93–198, 97 Stat. 779, the District of Columbia Prosecutorial and Judicial Efficiency Act of 1985, P.L. 99–573, and the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government

Improvement Act of 1997 (1997 Revitalization Act), D.C. Code sec. 4–192 [recodified in 2001 as

D.C. Code sec. 5–133.17].

abreast of general development of the law, and ensure a

higher quality of judiciary, because judges who might

refuse to specialize in a steady diet of one aspect of the law

would be willing to serve for shorter periods of time.69

The Committee also noted that, ‘‘[t]he Juvenile Court has been

in trouble for many, many years, and is at the moment in serious

trouble. It lacks strength and cannot be adequately managed since

it is not a part of the central court system of our city.’’ 70

The Committee further quoted Roscoe Pound, rejecting a further

splintering of the court system: ‘‘Multiplicity of courts is characteristic of archaic law.’’ 71 When specifically describing the domestic relations branch of the Court of General Sessions, the Committee noted that it had its own list of judges, clerks, and is separately run from the Court in general. The Committee criticized the

then-current system by stating that the chief judge ‘‘has no power

to rotate judges in and out of the domestic relations branch’’ and

recommended support for doing away with this restriction.72

In addition, to address what it regarded as the ‘‘wasteful, disfunctional institutional defects’’ [sic] in the court system at the

time,73 Senate Committee on the District of Columbia issued its

own 893-page publication which consisted of the record of hearings

on court reorganization. Most of the problems the Committee highlighted related to the crime increase and backlog as well as the effect of the fragmentation of the courts.

Based upon years of review by various Commissions, including

the Committee on the Administration of Justice and the Senate

Committee on the District of Columbia, Congress passed the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of

1970. That Act created the District of Columbia court system that

exists today. The Act vests judicial power over local legal matters

in the District of Columbia Superior Court and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia Superior Court became the court of general jurisdiction and the District

of Columbia Court of Appeals was made the highest court of District of Columbia, whose decisions are appealable to the United

States Supreme Court.74

Current Court System

Through Congress’ review of the court system in the 1960s, the

current process for the appointment of the judges was developed.

The District of Columbia Superior Court was established as a court

of general jurisdiction, with five branches: family, civil, criminal,

tax and probate. Currently, the Superior Court is composed of 58

judges and one chief judge. In addition to its five divisions, it reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:22 Dec 09, 2001 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR108.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR108
41

cently established a cross-jurisdictional domestic violence unit. In

an average year, the Court may dispose of upwards of 160,000

cases, with 14,000 in the family division alone.

Currently, Superior Court judges, who are appointed for a total

term of 15 years, fit the model recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on the Administration of Justice: they are generalists who

serve extendable one-year terms in the different divisions of the

Court, with assignments left to the discretion of the chief judge.

Each one of the 59 judges has some of the current caseload of the

approximately 4,500 abuse and neglect cases on their dockets, even

if they have never sat on the family division bench.

The judges must go through a rigorous process unlike judges in

other local jurisdictions. They are thoroughly screened by the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission, the President

(including investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation),

and the Senate. In addition, during their tenure on the bench, they

are continually monitored by the Judicial Disabilities and Tenure

Commission. This process was carefully evaluated and recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on the Administration of Justice and Congress when reorganizing the Court in 1970.

Æ