Report: Family court system needs repair

By Staff and wire reports

The state's family court system is "crippled, incompetent and corrupt," according to a report released yesterday by the California branch of the National Organization for Women.

After a three-year inquiry, the report's authors concluded that the state's family law courts have developed into "full employment programs" for private court mediators, psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, educators and attorneys.

"What we are seeing is a lack of ethics and proper courtroom codes in the family law system," Rachel Allen, a California NOW spokeswoman, said. "As a result, judges, attorneys and other personnel are lining each other's pockets instead of acting in the best interest of the child." Family courts, part of the Superior Court system, are devoted to cases involving divorce, child custody, paternity and similar issues. Two media articles cited at the end of the report, released yesterday on the Internet at www.canow.org, are from local weekly newspapers examining reports of cronyism, favoritism and other malfeasance in Marin's family law court.

"(Marin's) role does weigh a little bit more heavily in light of all the advocacy groups and media in the area," said Allen, a longtime representative of Marin County NOW.

Kathryn Ballentine Shepherd, a Larkspur attorney who has practiced family law in Marin for 23 years, said she has long held many of the concerns raised in the report, which she hopes will be a catalyst for what she says are needed changes.

"Anything that prompts changing family law courts to make them more consumer-based and customer-friendly rather than litigation-based will be a positive change," she said. "It needs to be more personable and not treat these kinds of cases like they're lawsuits between insurance companies." The report, which describes an impersonal family court system that enriches judges, attorneys and mental health professionals at the expense of children, drew strong criticism yesterday from John Montgomery, administrator of Marin courts. "This is a shoddy piece of work that would not pass a college research class," he said. "They obviously started with a conclusion and then found a way to support it. That's not how you do research. This is what I call political or ideological advocacy." Criticism of Marin family law court erupted in 2000 with allegations that Judge Michael Dufficy favored certain attorneys and psychological experts whose interests were placed before children and families during his seven years overseeing family law matters. An earlier report by New York-based investigator and author Karen Winner led to a failed recall attempt against Dufficy, three other judges and District Attorney Paula Kamena.

The concern prompted the Marin Superior Court to request a independent review, which was conducted by the National Center for State Courts, based in Virginia. But critics said the center's report released this year failed to address their concerns.

Dufficy, who has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing, gave up the post in May 2000 and now hears other civil matters. Judge John Sutro sits on the bench in the family law court. Neither judge could be reached for comment yesterday.

The state NOW report was based partly on court files, interviews with people involved in child-custody cases and data from 300 parents who filled out an extensive Internet questionnaire.

Montgomery said the methodology of the California NOW report is similar to that of the Winner report in that it largely based its research on the criticisms of a pre-selected group of people who had expressed concerns, and thus, was not comprehensive.

In nearly one-fourth of the 300 cases, judges awarded custody of children to fathers with criminal records who were accused of abusing them, according to the report.

"The findings suggest that women who are victims of domestic violence, whose children make allegations of abuse against their fathers, are particularly at risk of losing custody of their children to the perpetrator," NOW Executive Director Helen Grieco wrote.

"In the most egregious cases, perfectly fit mothers who were primary caretakers are stripped of custody to release fathers from child-support obligations."

David L. Levy, president of the Children's Rights Council in Hyattsville, Md., said the NOW report makes a "preposterous charge.

"I would not imagine there is one shred of documented, supported and reliable evidence that California routinely gives custody to abusers and has a financial incentive in doing so," Levy said.

Dr. Carole Lieberman, a Beverly Hills psychiatrist who conducts psychological evaluations of parents and children in custody cases, said the system is biased against women, and that abused children often end up in custody of their abusive fathers.

"On the whole, the system is corrupt and does favor fathers in a lot of different ways," she said. "Judges abuse their power and discretion, and make rulings based upon their unconscious identification with the fathers."

Brought to you by The Marin Independent Journal http://www.marinij.com