Committee members present at the meeting were:
Judge Marguerrite L. Wagner of north county family courtFor the first half hour, Mr. Hennenhoefer explained the rational behind the proposal from the point of view of those who work within the system. The highlights of the proposal (and our position) are:
Attorney James A. Hennenhoefer, a high ranking State Bar official
Attorney Kate Yavendetti, head of San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program
The above is only a summary of our position on the proposal. For a copy of the proposal itself, please contact:
- Only 15% of litigants going through divorce utilize services of lawyers. Look for ways to relax the rules so more lawyers can provide a diverse range of services to people of less income, without having to represent their entire case.
- As market recession dictates in all other professions, may be lawyers should lower their fees. Also suggested if they decide to relax lawyer's work requirements, why not also allow non-lawyers represent clients, to which Mr. Hennenhoefer reacted as "a major change that would be very difficult to implement."
- Simplifying court forms.
- None of us at the meeting saw any problem with simplifying court forms and procedures.
- Establishing and funding free legal centers
- It was pointed out that any free legal clinic must provide services to all parties equally. Currently the San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, and its FLAP (Family Law Access Project) only represent family law matters on behalf of those with custody of their children. This is a constitutional violation. If the state funds legal representation of the custodial parent ONLY against the non-custodial parent, it can only promote an unfair condition for dragging out custody battles. It definitely creates more jobs for family law attorneys, and that's purhaps in accordance with the State Bar's mission.
- Giving immunity to court appointed lawyers for children so they can act more independently.
- We oppose that. Those of us who have dealt with social workers and other state employees enjoying IMMUNITY, know very well what this means. It means lack of accountability on their part. It means the state knows better what's best for our children, so the state can make money off of our children, and we dare not to question the state. Thanks, but no thanks. Court appointed attorneys, psychologists, and other personnel must be held to a higher standard. These people typically enjoy access to unlimited resources and state funding that by no means common and ordinary people can match. Therefore state funding and immunity must never be allowed to go hand in hand.
- By default allowing court Commissioners to hear cases unless objections are raised in initial papers.
- We oppose that. We ask that litigants be explicitly informed of their rights. Currently a litigant has to sign a waiver, before a commissioner or a judge pro temp can hear their case. Please note that commissioners and pro temp judges in CA do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Commission on Judicial Performance.
- Relaxing rules of evidence, and allowing more of adminstrative laws in family courts.
- We oppose that. Instead of creating more adminstrative laws, to process more cases, courts need to take a special care to observe litigants' civil and constitutional rights. Here we are talking about people's parental rights and their rights to property routinely being violated, in order to process more cases, and consequently to enrich those working in the system. This attitude of relaxing litigants' constitutional rights must stop.
Michael A. Fischer, Committee Counsel, Family Law Subcommittee, C/O Administrative Office of the Courts
303 Second Street, South Tower San Francisco, CA 94107
Phone: (415)396-9100