Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-02-20

the proposed family court. AL
though the bar association never
approved the establishment of
that office and twice has recon-
mended that it be abolished, the
judges have kept it in continu-
Gus operation at considerable
expense to the taxpayers because
of its alleged great value to them.
"(b) In 1888, the Federal rules
of civil procedure. which are ap-
plicable to local domestic rela-
tions cases. introduced some
truly great reforms such as sim
plifled pleadings. pre-trial dis
covery and the, power to compel
physical and mental examina.
tionS.
Furthermore, said rules au-
thoriZed the innovation of pre-
trial proceedings under which
the litigantS and their attorneys
can be required to appear before
a judge in advance of trial for
the purpose of simplifying issues
and attempting to effect settle
ments. For a short time in the
beginning, matrimonial cases
were assigned for pre-trial in
the same manner as other cases,
and attempts to effect settle
ments and reconciliations were
made by the judges; but for
many years the pre- trial of mat
rlmonial cases has been discon-
tlnued by the judges themselves
because they proved to be pro-
ductive of no worthwhile results.
Now, these same judges are
agitating for a new court and
talking about the desirability of
making compulsory attempts at
reconciliation when they already
have the power they need and
don't use it.
Calls Bill "Glamorized."
"In order to obtain popular
support for the proposed Family
Court, certain judges have CLAM
orized it by attributing to it the
power to effect reconciliations,
to reduce crime and juvenile de-
liquency, to lessen the hostil-
ity Of litigating husbands and
wives, to better the welfare of
children, to obtain factual in
formation in some manner bet
ter than is now possible, and to
collect alimony promptly.
The bill, however, which the
judges have written, approved,
and caused to be introduced in
Congress merely proposes to
create a separate court and to
transfer to it the Jurisdiction
now possessed by the District
Court under the sections of the
Code relating to divorce, separa-
ton. and adoption.
In plain English, the bill
makes no attempt to establish
any reforms, actual or So-called,
but it merely creates an Inferior
court into which are to be
dumped all of the domestic re-
lations cases without any change
whatsoever in law or procedure
"aS is
There has been some talk
about amending the bill, but
until that is done the judges
cannot deny that they have been
telling the public about one kind
of court and have sponsored a
bill to produce another kind of
court.
Certain judges have claimed
that the District of Columbia is
behind the times in the handling
of domestic relations cases, and
that in other Jurisdictions there
have been created modern courts
for such purposes.
where are these courts?
say, and ! challenge anybody to
present proof to the contrary,
that in the entire United States
of America there exist only a
little handful of special courts
to handle domestic relations cases
and few, if any. of these courts
are the same. With very few
exceptions, domestic relations
cases are handled in the State
courts of general jurisdiction by
judges who have the broadening
experience of administering JUS
tice in all kinds of cases in about
the same way as is now being
done in the District Of Columbia. >