THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, January 25, 1997 TAG: 9701250010
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A10 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
SERIES: A VIRGINIA REFORM AGENDA
One of a series
LENGTH: 67 lines
A family going through divorce in Virginia often ends up trying parts or all of its case in two different courts - at great financial and emotional expense.
The reason is that Virginia divides family matters between Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, which handles delinquency and some custody and support matters, and Circuit Court, which is responsible for divorces, adoptions and annulments.
It's not unusual for a divorcing couple to bounce back and forth, time after time, between different judges in different courts.
If a custody settlement in Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court is appealed, the entire case is reheard in Circuit Court - an unnecessary step.
The state should convert Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court into Family Court, which would handle family matters, including divorce, and thus reduce the Circuit Court workload by about 18 percent.
In that way, family matters would be handled by judges specializing in family matters, and family cases would not bounce between two courts. Cases appealed from Family Courts would go to the state Court of Appeals, not for retrial but for a review of the lower-court record.
In 1990 and 1991, 10 pilot Family Courts, including one in Chesapeake, proved faster, cheaper and more prone to use mediation than other courts. A survey of litigants showed far more satisfaction with Family Courts than with the present dual-court system.
Setting up Family Courts has been the No. 1 priority of Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court Harry L. Carrico, whose duties include heading the Virginia court system. Family Courts are a high priority of the Virginia Bar Association, the League of Women Voters of Virginia, the Virginia Federation of Women's Clubs, and Action Alliance for Virginia's Children and Youth, an umbrella group for organizations supporting children.
The 1993 General Assembly passed legislation for setting up Family Courts but left the funding and appointment of judges for later.
But later never came.
It was proposed in 1994 that Family Courts, which would require 33 more judges, be paid for by a $4 increase in the General District Court filing fee. The fee would raise an estimated $18 million over two years.
But Gov. George F. Allen said the filing-fee increase looked like a tax increase, so he opposed it. Democrats didn't want to pass a fee increase that Allen would call a tax increase and veto. Republicans didn't want Family Court judges to be appointed at that time, because Democrats, holding a slim majority, would name every one.
Nothing got done the next two years, though serious attempts were made, and nothing is expected to get done this year.
The current two-court system causes dissolving families, including children, needless suffering. It is unnecessarily time consuming and expensive. It places family matters before judges not specifically trained to handle them.
It makes no sense.
The 1993 legislation providing for Family Courts expires June 1, 1998.
If not this General Assembly, then certainly the 1998 General Assembly should fund Family Courts and appoint the judges. Democrats, if still in control, should permit Republicans to share the appointments. If Allen insists on viewing the filing-fee hike as a tax increase, he should find another way to fund Family Courts.
No one is arguing against the merits of Family Courts. Richmond politicians have simply been unwilling to put partisanship aside and do what the best legal minds say needs to be done.