Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-02-21
The Family Court c Controversy:
It's Background and Arguments

E1o0OGAdO4O11 ICtCA1tky VOtC0 2VO
to l57 against the pending leg
islation.
The Law and Legislation Com
mittee of the Commissioners
Advisory Council proposes that
jurisdiction in domestic relations
cases be removed from District
Court and added to Municipal
Court. rather than set up a new
and separate tribunal.
One Main Argument.
One Of the principal argu-
ments for a family court Is the
prospect Of reducing the advisory
aspects Of divorce cases. The adj
vocates contend much injury is
done litigants. their children
and society in general by the
present practice.
Some of the advocates say the
first harmful step comes with
the filing of a suit. They prefer
to require as the first step a
notice Of intention to file suit.
II and when such notice were
given. the quarreling couple
would be called into court cham
bers to tell their stories inform
ally to an authorized court of
fetal. The theory here is that a
cooling of period would help
everyone.
An objective would be to pre-
vent divorces II possible. When
this effort fails. the court staff
would seek to work out agree
ments to soften allegations in di-
vorce papers and to reduce in
elimination in open court trials.
While intended to benefit liti-
gapts. this procedure is urged
particularly out of consideration
for their children. +
The present practice of ro-
tating assignments among the
judges of District Court results
IN q situation which many citi-
Gems find Objectionable. Some
domestic relations litigation hobs
up every few months-each time
before another Judge. AS many
as nine different judges have
been asked by lawyers to act
upon a single case.
No Check on Alimony.
Dissatisfaction also is expressed
in the system-or lack of it-for
paying alimony and support
money There is no machinery
to keep a check on these pay
ments. Advocates of the family
court say the machinery is badly
needed.
Suppose a defendant is ordered
to pay his divorced wife SIS a
week. He makes several pay
ments at the start. then quits.
The wife tells her lawyer. The
attorney, for reasons considered
valid. waits until the amount due
Is sizeable.
Then he goes to court and asks
a judge to cite the man in con-
tempt. Frequently, the defend
ant is so far in arrears that 1t Is
impossible for him to catch up.
II the judge sends him to Jail.
his earnings are cut of. How
best can the man be forced to
obey the court order and also
pay the morley his wife should
have been receiving for months?
Advocates Of the family court
would like to establish a collec-
ton system somewhat like the
one operating successfully in De-
troit. They would have the do
meStic relations commissioner set
up a ticker" system, similar to
those used in banks. The day a
defendant fails to pay on time.
the court is alerted. If the delin-
quent lacks a valid excuse. he is
brought in Immediately and re-
quired to comply with the court
order.
Requirements Of System.
To reach these detectives. a
family court system probably
would require:
/. Judges especially qualified
for the work
2. Machinery for compulsory
reconciliation.
3. A court staff TO include
marriage counselors, psychia-
trists. psychologists. social work.
ers and other investigators.
4. A system for payment of
alimony and m a Int n a n C e
through the court.
Critics of the separate family
court are quick to note that none
of these aims are spelled out in
the pending bill. They charge
the advocates with saying they
would establish one kind of court,
while pushing legislation that
would establish something else.
This argument is based upon
the. fact that the bill, as intro
duced. Is drawn in general terms,
with authority for the court to
issue rules Of procedure.
Paradoxically, the judges say
they are performing inadequate
service in domestic relations
matters, while the opposition
contends they are doing an ex-
cellent job.
Claims Of Opposition.
The opposition makes these
other claims:
/. A family court would be an
inferior tribunal. Since domestic
problems are among the most
important of all litigation, they
should be processed in court
Of high standing, as at present.
2. The proposal would simply
add to the multiplicity Of courts
in Washington.
8. The present system was
built up on years Of experience
and has been proved successful.
A.. The proposal would endan-
ger "due process"
5. The proposed new court
could not carry the load and
would be expensive to operate.