[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 177 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H10366-H10373]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1100
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FAMILY COURT ACT OF 2001
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in
the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2657) to amend title 11,
District of Columbia Code, to redesignate the Family Division of the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia as the Family Court of the
Superior Court, to recruit and retain trained and experienced judges to
serve in the Family Court, to promote consistency and efficiency in the
assignment of judges to the Family Court and in the consideration of
actions and proceedings in the Family Court, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia Family
Court Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. REDESIGNATION OF FAMILY DIVISION AS FAMILY COURT OF
THE SUPERIOR COURT.
(a) In General.--Section 11-902, District of Columbia Code,
is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 11-902. Organization of the court
``(a) In General.--The Superior Court shall consist of the
following:
``(1) The Civil Division.
``(2) The Criminal Division.
``(3) The Family Court.
``(4) The Probate Division.
``(5) The Tax Division.
``(b) Branches.--The divisions of the Superior Court may be
divided into such branches as the Superior Court may by rule
prescribe.
``(c) Designation of Presiding Judge of Family Court.--The
chief judge of the Superior Court shall designate one of the
judges assigned to the Family Court of the Superior Court to
serve as the presiding judge of the Family Court of the
Superior Court.
``(d) Jurisdiction Described.--The Family Court shall have
original jurisdiction over the actions, applications,
determinations, adjudications, and proceedings described in
section 11-1101. Actions, applications, determinations,
adjudications, and proceedings being assigned to cross-
jurisdictional units established by the Superior Court,
including the Domestic Violence Unit, on the date of
enactment of this section may continue to be so assigned
after the date of enactment of this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment to Chapter 9.--Section 11-906(b),
District of Columbia Code, is amended by inserting ``the
Family Court and'' before ``the various divisions''.
(c) Conforming Amendments to Chapter 11.--(1) The heading
for chapter 11 of title 11, District of Columbia, is amended
by striking ``Family Division'' and inserting ``Family
Court''.
(2) The item relating to chapter 11 in the table of
chapters for title 11, District of Columbia, is amended by
striking ``Family Division'' and inserting ``Family Court''.
(d) Conforming Amendments to Title 16.--
(1) Calculation of child support.--Section 16-916.1(o)(6),
District of Columbia Code, is amended by striking ``Family
Division'' and inserting ``Family Court of the Superior
Court''.
(2) Expedited judicial hearing of cases brought before
hearing commissioners.--Section 16-924, District of Columbia
Code, is amended by striking ``Family Division'' each place
it appears in subsections (a) and (f) and inserting ``Family
Court''.
(3) General references to proceedings.--Chapter 23 of title
16, District of Columbia Code, is amended by inserting after
section 16-2301 the following new section:
``Sec. 16-2301.1. References deemed to refer to Family Court
of the Superior Court
``Any reference in this chapter or any other Federal or
District of Columbia law, Executive order, rule, regulation,
delegation of authority, or any document of or pertaining to
the Family Division of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia shall be deemed to refer to the Family Court of the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia.''.
(4) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for
subchapter I of chapter 23 of title 16, District of Columbia,
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
16-2301 the following new item:
``16-2301.1. References deemed to refer to Family Court of the Superior
Court.''.
SEC. 3. APPOINTMENT AND ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES; NUMBER AND
QUALIFICATIONS.
(a) Number of Judges for Family Court; Qualifications and
Terms of Service.--Chapter 9 of title 11, District of
Columbia Code, is amended by inserting after section 11-908
the following new section:
``Sec. 11-908A. Special rules regarding assignment and
service of judges of Family Court
``(a) Number of Judges.--
``(1) In general.--The number of judges serving on the
Family Court of the Superior Court shall be not more than 15.
``(2) Emergency reassignment.--If the chief judge
determines that, in order to carry out the intent and
purposes of the District of Columbia Family Court Act of
2001, an emergency exists such that the number of judges
needed on the Family Court of the Superior Court at any time
is more than 15--
``(A) the chief judge may temporarily reassign judges from
other divisions of the Superior Court to serve on the Family
Court who meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (3) of
subsection (b) or senior judges who meet the requirements of
those paragraphs, except such reassigned judges shall not be
subject to the term of service requirements set forth in
subsection (c); and
``(B) the chief judge shall, within 30 days of emergency
temporary reassignment pursuant to subparagraph (A), submit a
report to the President and Congress describing--
``(i) the nature of the emergency;
``(ii) how the emergency was addressed, including which
judges were reassigned; and
``(iii) whether and why an increase in the number of Family
Court judges authorized in subsection (a)(1) may be necessary
to serve the needs of families and children in the District
of Columbia.
``(3) Composition.--The total number of judges on the
Superior Court may exceed the limit on such judges specified
in section 11-903 to the extent necessary to maintain the
requirements of this subsection if--
``(A) the number of judges serving on the Family Court is
less than 15; and
``(B) the Chief Judge of the Superior Court--
``(i) is unable to secure a volunteer judge who is sitting
on the Superior Court outside of the Family Court for
reassignment to the Family Court;
``(ii) obtains approval of the Joint Committee on Judicial
Administration; and
``(iii) reports to Congress regarding the circumstances
that gave rise to the necessity to exceed the cap.
``(b) Qualifications.--The chief judge may not assign an
individual to serve on the Family Court of the Superior Court
or handle a Family Court case unless--
``(1) the individual has training or expertise in family
law;
``(2) the individual certifies to the chief judge that the
individual intends to serve the full term of service, except
that this paragraph shall not apply with respect to
individuals serving as senior judges under section 11-1504,
individuals serving as temporary judges under section 11-908,
and any other judge serving in another division of the
Superior Court who is reassigned on an emergency temporary
basis pursuant to subsection (a)(2);
[[Page H10367]]
``(3) the individual certifies to the chief judge that the
individual will participate in the ongoing training programs
carried out for judges of the Family Court under section 11-
1104(c); and
``(4) the individual meets the requirements of section 11-
1501(b).
``(c) Term of Service.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an
individual assigned to serve as a judge of the Family Court
of the Superior Court shall serve for a term of 5 years.
``(2) Special rule for judges serving on superior court on
date of enactment of family court act of 2001.--
``(A) In general.--An individual assigned to serve as a
judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court who is
serving as a judge of the Superior Court on the date of the
enactment of the District of Columbia Family Court Act of
2001 shall serve for a term of not fewer than 3 years.
``(B) Reduction of period for judges serving in family
division.--In the case of a judge of the Superior Court who
is serving as a judge in the Family Division of the Court on
the date of the enactment of the District of Columbia Family
Court Act of 2001, the 3-year term applicable under
subparagraph (A) shall be reduced by the length of any period
of consecutive service as a judge in such Division
immediately preceding the date of the enactment of such Act.
``(3) Assignment for additional service.--After the term of
service of a judge of the Family Court (as described in
paragraph (1)) expires, at the judge's request and with the
approval of the chief judge, the judge may be assigned for
additional service on the Family Court for a period of such
duration (consistent with section 431(c) of the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act) as the chief judge may provide.
``(4) Permitting service on family court for entire term.--
At the request of the judge and with the approval of the
chief judge, a judge may serve as a judge of the Family Court
for the judge's entire term of service as a judge of the
Superior Court under section 431(c) of the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act.
``(d) Reassignment to Other Divisions.--The chief judge may
reassign a judge of the Family Court to any division of the
Superior Court if the chief judge determines that in the
interest of justice the judge is unable to continue serving
in the Family Court.''.
(b) Plan for Family Court Transition.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the chief judge of the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia shall prepare and submit to
the President and Congress a transition plan for the Family
Court of the Superior Court, and shall include in the plan
the following:
(A) The chief judge's determination of the role and
function of the presiding judge of the Family Court.
(B) The chief judge's determination of the number of judges
needed to serve on the Family Court.
(C) The chief judge's determination of the number of
magistrate judges of the Family Court needed for appointment
under section 11-1732, District of Columbia Code.
(D) The chief judge's determination of the appropriate
functions of such magistrate judges, together with the
compensation of and other personnel matters pertaining to
such magistrate judges.
(E) A plan for case flow, case management, and staffing
needs (including the needs for both judicial and nonjudicial
personnel) for the Family Court, including a description of
how the Superior Court will handle the one family, one judge
requirement pursuant to section 11-1104(a) for all cases and
proceedings assigned to the Family Court.
(F) A plan for space, equipment, and other physical plant
needs and requirements during the transition, as determined
in consultation with the Administrator of General Services.
(G) An analysis of the number of magistrate judges needed
under the expedited appointment procedures established under
section 6(d) in reducing the number of pending actions and
proceedings within the jurisdiction of the Family Court (as
described in section 11-902(d), District of Columbia, as
amended by subsection (a)).
(H) Consistent with the requirements of paragraph (2), a
proposal for the disposition or transfer to the Family Court
of child abuse and neglect actions pending as of the date of
enactment of this Act (which were initiated in the Family
Division but remain pending before judges serving in other
Divisions of the Superior Court as of such date) in a manner
consistent with applicable Federal and District of Columbia
law and best practices, including best practices developed by
the American Bar Association and the National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
(I) An estimate of the number of cases for which the
deadline for disposition or transfer to the Family Court,
specified in paragraph (2)(B), cannot be met and the reasons
why such deadline cannot be met.
(2) Implementation of the plan for transfer or disposition
of actions and proceedings to family court.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C),
the chief judge of the Superior Court and the presiding judge
of the Family Court shall take such steps as may be required
as provided in the proposal for disposition of actions and
proceedings under paragraph (1)(H) to ensure that each child
abuse and neglect action of the Superior Court (as described
in section 11-902(d), District of Columbia Code, as amended
by subsection (a)) is transferred to the Family Court or
otherwise disposed of as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B) Deadline.--
(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act or any amendment made by this Act and except as
provided in subparagraph (C), no child abuse or neglect
action shall remain pending with a judge not serving on the
Family Court upon the expiration of 18 months after the
filing of the transition plan required under paragraph (1).
(ii) Rule of construction.--The chief judge of the Superior
Court should make every effort to provide for the earliest
practicable disposition of actions. Nothing in this
subparagraph shall preclude the immediate transfer of cases
to the Family Court, particularly cases which have been filed
with the court for less than 6 months prior to the date of
enactment of this Act.
(C) Retained cases.--Child abuse and neglect cases that
were initiated in the Family Division but remain pending
before judges, including senior judges as defined in section
11-1504, District of Columbia Code, in other Divisions of the
Superior Court as of the date of enactment of this Act may
remain before judges, including senior judges, in such other
Divisions when--
(i) the case remains at all times in full compliance with
Public Law 105-89, if applicable;
(ii) the chief judge determines, in consultation with the
presiding judge of the Family Court, based on the record in
the case and any unique expertise, training, or knowledge of
the case that the judge might have, that permitting the judge
to retain the case would lead to permanent placement of the
child more quickly than reassignment to a judge in the Family
Court.
(D) Priority for certain actions and proceedings.--The
chief judge of the Superior Court, in consultation with the
presiding judge of the Family Court, shall give priority
consideration to the disposition or transfer of the following
actions and proceedings:
(i) The action or proceeding involves an allegation of
abuse or neglect.
(ii) The action or proceeding was initiated in the family
division prior to the 2-year period which ends on the date of
enactment of this Act.
(iii) The judge to whom the action or proceeding is
assigned as of the date of enactment of this Act is not
assigned to the Family Division.
(E) Progress reports.--The chief judge of the Superior
Court shall submit reports to the President, to the Committee
on Appropriations of each House, the Committee on
Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on
Government Reform of the House of Representatives at 6-month
intervals for a period of 2 years after the date of
submission of the transition plan required under paragraph
(1) on the progress made towards disposing of actions or
proceedings described in subparagraph (B).
(F) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall
preclude the chief judge, in consultation with the presiding
judge of the Family Court, from transferring actions or
proceedings pending before judges outside the Family Court at
the enactment of this Act which do not involve allegations of
abuse and neglect but which would otherwise fall under the
jurisdiction of the Family Court to judges in the Family
Court prior to the deadline as defined in subparagraph 2(B),
particularly if such transfer would result in more efficient
resolution of such actions or proceedings.
(3) Effective date of implementation of plan.--The chief
judge of the Superior Court may not take any action to
implement the transition plan under this subsection until the
expiration of the 30-day period which begins on the date the
chief judge submits the plan to the President and Congress
under paragraph (1).
(c) Transition to Required Number of Judges.--
(1) Analysis by chief judge of superior court.--The chief
judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia shall
include in the transition plan prepared under subsection
(b)--
(A) the chief judge's determination of the number of
individuals serving as judges of the Superior Court who--
(i) meet the qualifications for judges of the Family Court
of the Superior Court under section 11-908A, District of
Columbia Code (as added by subsection (a)); and
(ii) are willing and able to serve on the Family Court; and
(B) if the chief judge determines that the number of
individuals described in subparagraph (A) is less than 15, a
request that the Judicial Nomination Commission recruit and
the President nominate (in accordance with section 433 of the
District of Columbia Home Rule Act) such additional number of
individuals to serve on the Superior Court who meet the
qualifications for judges of the Family Court under section
11-908A, District of Columbia Code, as may be required to
enable the chief judge to make the required number of
assignments.
(2) Role of district of columbia judicial nomination
commission.--For purposes of section 434(d)(1) of the
District of Columbia Home Rule Act, the submission of a
request from the chief judge of the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia under paragraph (1)(B) shall be deemed
to create a number of vacancies in the position of judge of
the Superior Court equal to the number of additional
appointments so requested by the chief judge, except that the
deadline for the submission by the District of Columbia
Judicial Nomination Commission of nominees to fill such
vacancies shall be 90 days after the creation of such
vacancies. In carrying out this paragraph, the District of
Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission shall recruit
individuals for possible nomination and appointment to the
Superior Court who meet the qualifications for judges of the
Family Court of the Superior Court.
(d) Report by Comptroller General.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall
prepare and submit to Congress and the chief judge of the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia a report on the
implementation of this Act (including the implementation of
the transition plan under subsection (b)), and shall include
in the report the following:
[[Page H10368]]
(A) An analysis of the procedures used to make the initial
appointments of judges of the Family Court under this Act and
the amendments made by this Act, including an analysis of the
time required to make such appointments and the effect of the
qualification requirements for judges of the Court (including
requirements relating to the length of service on the Court)
on the time required to make such appointments.
(B) An analysis of the impact of magistrate judges for the
Family Court (including the expedited initial appointment of
magistrate judges for the Court under section 6(d)) on the
workload of judges and other personnel of the Court.
(C) An analysis of the number of judges needed for the
Family Court, including an analysis of how the number may be
affected by the qualification requirements for judges, the
availability of magistrate judges, and other provisions of
this Act or the amendments made by this Act.
(D) An analysis of the timeliness of the resolution and
disposition of pending actions and proceedings required under
the transition plan (as described in paragraphs (1)(I) and
(2) of subsection (b)), including an analysis of the effect
of the availability of magistrate judges on the time required
to resolve and dispose of such actions and proceedings.
(2) Submission to chief judge of superior court.--Prior to
submitting the report under paragraph (1) to Congress, the
Comptroller General shall provide a preliminary version of
the report to the chief judge of the Superior Court and shall
take any comments and recommendations of the chief judge into
consideration in preparing the final version of the report.
(e) Conforming Amendment.--The first sentence of section
11-908(a), District of Columbia Code, is amended by striking
``The chief judge'' and inserting ``Subject to section 11-
908A, the chief judge''.
(f) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
9 of title 11, District of Columbia Code, is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 11-908 the
following new item:
``11-908A. Special rules regarding assignment and service of judges of
Family Court.''.
SEC. 4. IMPROVING ADMINISTRATION OF CASES AND PROCEEDINGS IN
FAMILY COURT.
(a) In General.--Chapter 11 of title 11, District of
Columbia, is amended by striking section 1101 and inserting
the following:
``Sec. 11-1101. Jurisdiction of the Family Court
``(a) In General.--The Family Court of the District of
Columbia shall be assigned and have original jurisdiction
over--
``(1) actions for divorce from the bond of marriage and
legal separation from bed and board, including proceedings
incidental thereto for alimony, pendente lite and permanent,
and for support and custody of minor children;
``(2) applications for revocation of divorce from bed and
board;
``(3) actions to enforce support of any person as required
by law;
``(4) actions seeking custody of minor children, including
petitions for writs of habeas corpus;
``(5) actions to declare marriages void;
``(6) actions to declare marriages valid;
``(7) actions for annulments of marriage;
``(8) determinations and adjudications of property rights,
both real and personal, in any action referred to in this
section, irrespective of any jurisdictional limitation
imposed on the Superior Court;
``(9) proceedings in adoption;
``(10) proceedings under the Act of July 10, 1957 (D.C.
Code, secs. 30-301 to 30-324);
``(11) proceedings to determine paternity of any child born
out of wedlock;
``(12) civil proceedings for protection involving
intrafamily offenses, instituted pursuant to chapter 10 of
title 16;
``(13) proceedings in which a child, as defined in section
16-2301, is alleged to be delinquent, neglected, or in need
of supervision;
``(14) proceedings under chapter 5 of title 21 relating to
the commitment of the mentally ill;
``(15) proceedings under chapter 13 of title 7 relating to
the commitment of the at least moderately mentally retarded;
and
``(16) proceedings under Interstate Compact on Juveniles
(described in title IV of the District of Columbia Court
Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970).
``(b) Definition.--
``(1) In general.--In this chapter, the term `action or
proceeding' with respect to the Family Court refers to cause
of action described in paragraphs (1) through (16) of
subsection (a).
``(2) Exception.--An action or proceeding may be assigned
to or retained by cross-jurisdictional units established by
the Superior Court, including the Domestic Violence Unit.
``Sec. 11-1102. Use of alternative dispute resolution
``To the greatest extent practicable and safe, cases and
proceedings in the Family Court of the Superior Court shall
be resolved through alternative dispute resolution
procedures, in accordance with such rules as the Superior
Court may promulgate.
``Sec. 11-1103. Standards of practice for appointed counsel
``The Superior Court shall establish standards of practice
for attorneys appointed as counsel in the Family Court of the
Superior Court.
``Sec. 11-1104. Administration
``(a) `One Family, One Judge' Requirement for Cases and
Proceedings.--To the greatest extent practicable, feasible,
and lawful, if an individual who is a party to an action or
proceeding assigned to the Family Court has an immediate
family or household member who is a party to another action
or proceeding assigned to the Family Court, the individual's
action or proceeding shall be assigned to the same judge or
magistrate judge to whom the immediate family member's action
or proceeding is assigned.
``(b) Retention of Jurisdiction Over Cases.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to the requirement of
subsection (a), any action or proceeding assigned to the
Family Court of the Superior Court shall remain under the
jurisdiction of the Family Court until the action or
proceeding is finally disposed, except as provided in
paragraph (2)(D).
``(2) One family, one judge.--
``(A) For the duration.--An action or proceeding assigned
pursuant to this subsection shall remain with the judge or
magistrate judge in the Family Court to whom the action or
proceeding is assigned for the duration of the action or
proceeding to the greatest extent practicable, feasible, and
lawful, subject to subparagraph (C).
``(B) All cases involving an individual.--If an individual
who is a party to an action or proceeding assigned to the
Family Court becomes a party to another action or proceeding
assigned to the Family Court, the individual's subsequent
action or proceeding shall be assigned to the same judge or
magistrate judge to whom the individual's initial action or
proceeding is assigned to the greatest extent practicable and
feasible.
``(C) Family court case retention.--If the full term of a
Family Court judge to whom the action or proceeding is
assigned is completed prior to the final disposition of the
action or proceeding, the presiding judge of the Family Court
shall ensure that the matter or proceeding is reassigned to a
judge serving on the Family Court.
``(D) Exception.--A judge whose full term on the Family
Court is completed but who remains in Superior Court may
retain the case or proceeding for not more than 6 months or,
in extraordinary circumstances, for not more than 12 months
after ceasing to serve if--
``(i) the case remains at all times in full compliance with
Public Law 105-89, if applicable; and
``(ii) if Public Law 105-89 is applicable, the chief judge
determines, in consultation with the presiding judge of the
Family Court, based on the record in the case and any unique
expertise, training or knowledge of the case that the judge
might have, that permitting the judge to retain the case
would lead to permanent placement of the child more quickly
than reassignment to a judge in the Family Court.
``(3) Standards of judicial ethics.--The actions of a judge
or magistrate judge in retaining an action or proceeding
under this paragraph shall be subject to applicable standards
of judicial ethics.
``(c) Training Program.--
``(1) In general.--The chief judge, in consultation with
the presiding judge of the Family Court, shall carry out an
ongoing program to provide training in family law and related
matters for judges of the Family Court and other judges of
the Superior Court who are assigned Family Court cases,
including magistrate judges, attorneys who practice in the
Family Court, and appropriate nonjudicial personnel, and
shall include in the program information and instruction
regarding the following:
``(A) Child development.
``(B) Family dynamics, including domestic violence.
``(C) Relevant Federal and District of Columbia laws.
``(D) Permanency planning principles and practices.
``(E) Recognizing the risk factors for child abuse.
``(F) Any other matters the presiding judge considers
appropriate.
``(2) Use of cross-training.--The program carried out under
this section shall use the resources of lawyers and legal
professionals, social workers, and experts in the field of
child development and other related fields.
``(d) Accessibility of Materials, Services, and
Proceedings; Promotion of `Family-Friendly' Environment.--
``(1) In general.--To the greatest extent practicable, the
chief judge and the presiding judge of the Family Court shall
ensure that the materials and services provided by the Family
Court are understandable and accessible to the individuals
and families served by the Family Court, and that the Family
Court carries out its duties in a manner which reflects the
special needs of families with children.
``(2) Location of proceedings.--To the maximum extent
feasible, safe, and practicable, cases and proceedings in the
Family Court shall be conducted at locations readily
accessible to the parties involved.
``(e) Integrated Computerized Case Tracking and Management
System.--The Executive Officer of the District of Columbia
courts under section 11-1703 shall work with the chief judge
of the Superior Court--
``(1) to ensure that all records and materials of cases and
proceedings in the Family Court are stored and maintained in
electronic format accessible by computers for the use of
judges, magistrate judges, and nonjudicial personnel of the
Family Court, and for the use of other appropriate offices of
the District government in accordance with the plan for
integrating computer systems prepared by the Mayor of the
District of Columbia under section 4(b) of the District of
Columbia Family Court Act of 2001;
``(2) to establish and operate an electronic tracking and
management system for cases and proceedings in the Family
Court for the use of judges and nonjudicial personnel of the
Family Court, using the records and materials stored and
maintained pursuant to paragraph (1); and
``(3) to expand such system to cover all divisions of the
Superior Court as soon as practicable.
[[Page H10369]]
``Sec. 11-1105. Social services and other related services
``(a) Onsite Coordination of Services and Information.--
``(1) In general.--The Mayor of the District of Columbia,
in consultation with the chief judge of the Superior Court,
shall ensure that representatives of the appropriate offices
of the District government which provide social services and
other related services to individuals and families served by
the Family Court (including the District of Columbia Public
Schools, the District of Columbia Housing Authority, the
Child and Family Services Agency, the Office of the
Corporation Counsel, the Metropolitan Police Department, the
Department of Health, and other offices determined by the
Mayor) are available on-site at the Family Court to
coordinate the provision of such services and information
regarding such services to such individuals and families.
``(2) Duties of heads of offices.--The head of each office
described in paragraph (1), including the Superintendent of
the District of Columbia Public Schools and the Director of
the District of Columbia Housing Authority, shall provide the
Mayor with such information, assistance, and services as the
Mayor may require to carry out such paragraph.
``(b) Appointment of Social Services Liaison With Family
Court.--The Mayor of the District of Columbia shall appoint
an individual to serve as a liaison between the Family Court
and the District government for purposes of subsection (a)
and for coordinating the delivery of services provided by the
District government with the activities of the Family Court
and for providing information to the judges, magistrate
judges, and nonjudicial personnel of the Family Court
regarding the services available from the District government
to the individuals and families served by the Family Court.
The Mayor shall provide on an ongoing basis information to
the chief judge of the Superior Court and the presiding judge
of the Family Court regarding the services of the District
government which are available for the individuals and
families served by the Family Court.
``Sec. 11-1106. Reports to Congress
``Not later than 90 days after the end of each calendar
year, the chief judge of the Superior Court shall submit a
report to Congress on the activities of the Family Court
during the year, and shall include in the report the
following:
``(1) The chief judge's assessment of the productivity and
success of the use of alternative dispute resolution pursuant
to section 11-1102.
``(2) Goals and timetables as required by the Adoption and
Safe Families Act of 1997 to improve the Family Court's
performance in the following year.
``(3) Information on the extent to which the Family Court
met deadlines and standards applicable under Federal and
District of Columbia law to the review and disposition of
actions and proceedings under the Family Court's jurisdiction
during the year.
``(4) Information on the progress made in establishing
locations and appropriate space for the Family Court that are
consistent with the mission of the Family Court until such
time as the locations and space are established.
``(5) Information on any factors which are not under the
control of the Family Court which interfere with or prevent
the Family Court from carrying out its responsibilities in
the most effective manner possible.
``(6) Information on--
``(A) the number of judges serving on the Family Court as
of the end of the year;
``(B) how long each such judge has served on the Family
Court;
``(C) the number of cases retained outside the Family
Court;
``(D) the number of reassignments to and from the Family
Court; and
``(E) the ability to recruit qualified sitting judges to
serve on the Family Court.
``(7) Based on outcome measures derived through the use of
the information stored in electronic format under section 11-
1104(d), an analysis of the Family Court's efficiency and
effectiveness in managing its case load during the year,
including an analysis of the time required to dispose of
actions and proceedings among the various categories of the
Family Court's jurisdiction, as prescribed by applicable law
and best practices, including (but not limited to) best
practices developed by the American Bar Association and the
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
``(8) If the Family Court failed to meet the deadlines,
standards, and outcome measures described in the previous
paragraphs, a proposed remedial action plan to address the
failure.''.
(b) Expedited Appeals for Certain Family Court Actions and
Proceedings.--Section 11-721, District of Columbia Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Any appeal from an order of the Family Court of the
District of Columbia terminating parental rights or granting
or denying a petition to adopt shall receive expedited review
by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.''.
(c) Plan for Integrating Computer Systems.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Mayor of the District of
Columbia shall submit to the President and Congress a plan
for integrating the computer systems of the District
government with the computer systems of the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia so that the Family Court of the
Superior Court and the appropriate offices of the District
government which provide social services and other related
services to individuals and families served by the Family
Court of the Superior Court (including the District of
Columbia Public Schools, the District of Columbia Housing
Authority, the Child and Family Services Agency, the Office
of the Corporation Counsel, the Metropolitan Police
Department, the Department of Health, and other offices
determined by the Mayor) will be able to access and share
information on the individuals and families served by the
Family Court.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Mayor of the District of Columbia
such sums as may be necessary to carry out paragraph (1).
(d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
11 of title 11, District of Columbia Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new items:
``11-1102. Use of alternative dispute resolution.
``11-1103. Standards of practice for appointed counsel.
``11-1104. Administration.
``11-1105. Social services and other related services.
``11-1106. Reports to Congress.''.
SEC. 5. TREATMENT OF HEARING COMMISSIONERS AS MAGISTRATE
JUDGES.
(a) In General.--
(1) Redesignation of title.--Section 11-1732, District of
Columbia Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``hearing commissioners'' each place it
appears in subsection (a), subsection (b), subsection (d),
subsection (i), subsection (l), and subsection (n) and
inserting ``magistrate judges'';
(B) by striking ``hearing commissioner'' each place it
appears in subsection (b), subsection (c), subsection (e),
subsection (f), subsection (g), subsection (h), and
subsection (j) and inserting ``magistrate judge'';
(C) by striking ``hearing commissioner's'' each place it
appears in subsection (e) and subsection (k) and inserting
``magistrate judge's'';
(D) by striking ``Hearing commissioners'' each place it
appears in subsections (b), (d), and (i) and inserting
``Magistrate judges''; and
(E) in the heading, by striking ``Hearing commissioners''
and inserting ``Magistrate judges''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 16-924, District of
Columbia Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``hearing commissioner'' each place it
appears and inserting ``magistrate judge''; and
(B) in subsection (f), by striking ``hearing
commissioner's'' and inserting ``magistrate judge's''.
(3) Clerical amendment.--The item relating to section 11-
1732 of the table of sections of chapter 17 of title 11, D.C.
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``11-1732. Magistrate judges.''.
(b) Transition Provision Regarding Hearing Commissioners.--
Any individual serving as a hearing commissioner under
section 11-1732 of the District of Columbia Code as of the
date of the enactment of this Act shall serve the remainder
of such individual's term as a magistrate judge, and may be
reappointed as a magistrate judge in accordance with section
11-1732(d), District of Columbia Code, except that any
individual serving as a hearing commissioner as of the date
of the enactment of this Act who was appointed as a hearing
commissioner prior to the effective date of section 11-1732
of the District of Columbia Code shall not be required to be
a resident of the District of Columbia to be eligible to be
reappointed.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 6. SPECIAL RULES FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGES OF FAMILY COURT.
(a) In General.--Chapter 17 of title 11, District of
Columbia Code, is amended by inserting after section 11-1732
the following new section:
``Sec. 11-1732A. Special rules for magistrate judges of the
Family Court of the Superior Court and the Domestic
Violence Unit
``(a) Use of Social Workers in Advisory Merit Selection
Panel.--The advisory selection merit panel used in the
selection of magistrate judges for the Family Court of the
Superior Court under section 11-1732(b) shall include
certified social workers specializing in child welfare
matters who are residents of the District and who are not
employees of the District of Columbia Courts.
``(b) Special Qualifications.--Notwithstanding section 11-
1732(c), no individual shall be appointed or assigned as a
magistrate judge for the Family Court of the Superior Court
or as a magistrate judge for the Domestic Violence Unit
handling actions or proceedings which would otherwise be
under the jurisdiction of the Family Court unless that
individual--
``(1) is a citizen of the United States;
``(2) is an active member of the unified District of
Columbia Bar;
``(3) for the 5 years immediately preceding the appointment
has been engaged in the active practice of law in the
District, has been on the faculty of a law school in the
District, or has been employed as a lawyer by the United
States or District government, or any combination thereof;
``(4) has not fewer than 3 years of training or experience
in the practice of family law as a lawyer or judicial
officer; and
``(5)(A) is a bona fide resident of the District of
Columbia and has maintained an actual place of abode in the
District for at least 90 days immediately prior to
appointment, and retains such residency during service as a
magistrate judge; or
``(B) is a bona fide resident of the areas consisting of
Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland,
Arlington and Fairfax Counties, and the City of Alexandria in
Virginia, has maintained an actual place of abode in such
area, areas, or the District of Columbia for at least 5 years
prior to appointment, and certifies that the individual will
become a bona fide resident of the District of Columbia not
later than 90 days after appointment.
``(c) Service of Current Hearing Commissioners.--Those
individuals serving as hearing
[[Page H10370]]
commissioners under section 11-1732 on the effective date of
this section who meet the qualifications described in
subsection (b)(4) may request to be appointed as magistrate
judges for the Family Court of the Superior Court under such
section.
``(d) Functions of Family Court and Domestic Violence Unit
Magistrates.--A magistrate judge, when specifically
designated by the chief judge in consultation with the
appropriate presiding judge to serve in the Family Court or
in the Domestic Violence Unit and subject to the rules of the
Superior Court and the right of review under section 11-
1732(k), may perform the following functions:
``(1) Administer oaths and affirmations and take
acknowledgements.
``(2) Subject to the rules of the Superior Court and
applicable Federal and District of Columbia law, conduct
hearings, make findings and enter interim and final orders or
judgments in uncontested or contested proceedings within the
jurisdiction of the Family Court and the Domestic Violence
Unit of the Superior Court (as described in section 11-1101),
excluding jury trials and trials of felony cases, as assigned
by the appropriate presiding judge.
``(3) Subject to the rules of the Superior Court, enter an
order punishing an individual for contempt, except that no
individual may be detained pursuant to the authority of this
paragraph for longer than 180 days.
``(e) Location of Proceedings.--To the maximum extent
feasible, safe, and practicable, magistrate judges of the
Family Court of the Superior Court shall conduct proceedings
at locations readily accessible to the parties involved.
``(f) Training.--The chief judge, in consultation with the
presiding judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court,
shall ensure that all magistrate judges of the Family Court
receive training to enable them to fulfill their
responsibilities, including specialized training in family
law and related matters.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 11-1732(a),
District of Columbia Code, is amended by inserting after
``the duties enumerated in subsection (j) of this section''
the following: ``(or, in the case of magistrate judges for
the Family Court or the Domestic Violence Unit of the
Superior Court, the duties enumerated in section 11-
1732A(d))''.
(2) Section 11-1732(c), District of Columbia Code, is
amended by striking ``No individual'' and inserting ``Except
as provided in section 11-1732A(b), no individual''.
(3) Section 11-1732(k), District of Columbia Code, is
amended--
(A) by striking ``subsection (j),'' and inserting the
following: ``subsection (j) (or proceedings and hearings
under section 11-1732A(d), in the case of magistrate judges
for the Family Court or the Domestic Violence Unit of the
Superior Court),''; and
(B) by inserting after ``appropriate division'' the
following: ``(or, in the case of an order or judgment of a
magistrate judge of the Family Court or the Domestic Violence
Unit of the Superior Court, by a judge of the Family Court or
the Domestic Violence Unit)''.
(4) Section 11-1732(l), District of Columbia Code, is
amended by inserting after ``responsibilities'' the
following: ``(subject to the requirements of section 11-
1732A(f) in the case of magistrate judges of the Family Court
of the Superior Court or the Domestic Violence Unit)''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for
subchapter II of chapter 17 of title 11, District of
Columbia, is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 11-1732 the following new item:
``11-1732A. Special rules for magistrate judges of the Family Court of
the Superior Court and the Domestic Violence Unit.''.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Expedited initial appointments.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the chief judge of the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia shall appoint individuals to
serve as magistrate judges for the Family Division of the
Superior Court in accordance with the requirements of
sections 11-1732 and 11-1732A, District of Columbia Code (as
added by subsection (a)), for the purpose of assisting with
the implementation of the transition plan under section 3(b)
of this Act, and in particular with the transition or
disposal of actions or proceedings pursuant to section
3(b)(2) of this Act.
(B) Transition responsibilities of initially appointed
family court magistrates.--The chief judge of the Superior
Court and the presiding judge of the Family Division of the
Superior Court (acting jointly) shall first assign the
magistrate judges of Family Court appointed under this
paragraph to work with judges to whom the cases are currently
assigned in making case disposition or transfer decisions as
follows:
(i) The action or proceeding involves an allegation of
abuse or neglect.
(ii) The judge to whom the action or proceeding is assigned
as of the date of enactment of this Act is not assigned to
the Family Division.
(iii) The action or proceeding was initiated in the Family
Division prior to the 2-year period which ends on the date of
enactment of this Act.
(C) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to preclude magistrate judges appointed pursuant
to this subsection from performing upon appointment any or
all of the functions of magistrate judges of the Family Court
or Domestic Violence Unit as set forth in subsection 11-
1732A(d).
SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BORDER AGREEMENT WITH
MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA.
It is the sense of Congress that the State of Maryland, the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and the District of Columbia should
promptly enter into a border agreement to facilitate the
timely and safe placement of children in the District of
Columbia's welfare system in foster and kinship homes and
other facilities in Maryland and Virginia.
SEC. 8. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE USE OF COURT
APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES.
It is the sense of the Senate that the chief judge of the
Superior Court and the presiding judge of the Family Division
should take all steps necessary to encourage, support, and
improve the use of Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA)
in family court actions or proceedings.
SEC. 9. INTERIM REPORTS.
Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, the chief judge of the Superior Court and the
presiding judge of the Family Court--
(1) in consultation with the General Services
Administration, shall submit to Congress a feasibility study
for the construction, lease, or acquisition of appropriate
permanent courts and facilities for the Family Court; and
(2) shall submit to Congress an analysis of the success of
the use of magistrate judges under the expedited appointment
procedures established under section 6(d) in reducing the
number of pending actions and proceedings within the
jurisdiction of the Family Court (as described in section 11-
902(d), District of Columbia).
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Courts of
the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia such
sums as may be necessary to carry out the amendments made by
this Act.
SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall take effect upon
enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
General Leave
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on the measure under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to concur in the Senate amendment to
H.R. 2657, the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001. These
Senate amendments have been approved by the sponsor of the legislation,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and the original cosponsors of
the legislation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the
gentlewoman from District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and myself,
following diligent work between staff of both houses.
The Senate amendments before us raise the ceiling of the number of
judges for the Family Court to 15 judges. This provision would enable
the chief judge to address unforeseeable needs if judges and
magistrates are not able to keep up with the caseload.
The amended bill further allows for emergency temporary reassignment
of certain judges who are qualified to serve on the Family Court and
who would not be subject to the length of term, should the 15 Family
Court judges not be able to keep up with the docket. These temporary
emergency judges are encouraged to volunteer to serve in this capacity
to the greatest extent possible.
These provisions modify the restriction in the District of Columbia
Code to allow the chief judge of the Superior Court to exceed the
overall cap of 59 judges if necessary to maintain a full complement of
15 judges in Family Court. The amendments further provide that cases
outside of the Family Court be allowed an 18-month transition period to
return to the Family Court, and provide limited exception based on the
records of the case.
Additionally, the amended bill establishes a priority for returning
the backlog of cases to the Family Court within the transition period,
and requires that when a Family Court judge leaves the bench, all the
cases must remain in the Family Court, except under extraordinary
circumstances. The judge may have 6 months or 12 months, if it can be
demonstrated to the chief judge that taking the case out of the Family
Court will lead to permanent accomplishment of the child more quickly
than if the case remained in the court.
These cases must be in compliance with the Adoption and Safe Families
[[Page H10371]]
Act. It is hoped that only a small number of cases will be retained
under this provision.
The Superior Court is required to report to Congress at 6-month
intervals for 2 years. This provision will enable Congress to monitor
the implementation of the reforms intended in the bill, including the
transfer of cases back to the Family Court. Other reports are required
by the Comptroller General, the chief judge, and the presiding judge of
the Family Court at varying intervals.
The Senate amendments to the House measure, H.R. 2657, maintain the
requirement of one family-one judge in cases decided by the Family
Court, which include divorces, alimony, child support, adoptions,
custody, writs of habeas corpus, and other proceedings. The core of
this legislation is to serve the children and the families of our
Nation's capital.
This legislation has been the culmination of many individual efforts,
but I must especially thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for
his leadership in making this legislation a reality.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to concur in the Senate amendments to
H.R. 2657, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2657, and to ask the
support of this House for the District of Columbia Family Court Act of
2001, a bill written as a bipartisan effort by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay) and me.
The bill contains the few amendments I informed the House on
September 20 I could not add at that time because of the rush to get
this bill to the floor in time to secure the necessary appropriation. I
want to thank the Senate for assuring that these changes were included
as Senate amendments to the bill.
I especially want to thank the current chairman of the Subcommittee
on the District of Columbia, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs.
Morella), and the former chair, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay),
for their leadership on this bill, but particular thanks are due to my
friend and partner on this bill, the majority whip, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay).
The gentleman from Texas worked long and hard with me on this bill,
and kept at it through tough negotiations when we had differences for
more than a year until we both could agree on a final version. I
appreciate the collegial way in which the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay) worked with me throughout. He has my special gratitude for the
extra $24 million that has been appropriated to fund the reforms that
this bill mandates.
The Mayor and the City Council appreciate and support the work of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) on the bill, as well, and the respect
he has shown for home rule throughout his negotiations with me on this
bill.
The need to update the family division became a priority after the
tragic death of Brianna Blackmond, an infant who was returned to her
troubled mother without a hearing after it was alleged that lawyers
representing all the parties, the social workers and the guardians ad
litem, had certified that the child should be returned.
I must continue to emphasize that the D.C. City Council is far more
familiar with the children and families of the city than we in
Congress, and of course was best qualified to write this bill. However,
when the Home Rule Act was passed in 1973, Congress withheld
jurisdiction over D.C. courts. Therefore, I asked the Council to pass a
resolution in support of the reforms in this bill, after scrutinizing
it and offering recommendations for changes.
We have also worked closely with Mayor Anthony Williams and Chief
Judge Rufus King and the judges of the Superior Court in writing the
bill. We respected the concerns of the District in negotiating this
bill.
The D.C. Family Court Act of 2001 is the first overhaul of our family
division since 1970, when it was upgraded to be part of the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia. No court or other institutions
should go a full 30 years without a close examination of its strengths
and weaknesses. I know that the subcommittee will assure that there is
appropriate oversight to the implementation of the bill by our
subcommittee.
The Family Division has not been able to meet adequately intractable
societal problems and additionally has had to depend on an outside
agency, the Child Family Services Agency, which until recently had been
in a Federal court receivership.
Our bill incorporates what we found in our investigation to be the
best practices from successful independent family courts and family
courts that are integrated into general jurisdiction courts all across
the country.
These courts have in common these basic reforms: An independent
family court or division; ample family court judges to handle family
matters; terms for judges in the family court; family court judges,
magistrate judges, and other court personnel trained or expert in
family law; ongoing training of family court judges; alternative
dispute resolution or mediation in family cases; only one judge for
each family; family cases only in the Family Court; magistrate judges
to assist family court judges with their caseloads; and special
magistrate judges to assist judges with current pending cases.
The D.C. Family Court Act incorporates all these best practices.
Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that I am particularly pleased
that in the amendments to the bill we were able to address several
problems with the House bill that I first raised on this floor.
These Senate amendments are important to ensure that, for example,
the necessary work of disposing of a large volume of pending cases and
continuing intake of new cases coming into the new Family Court does
not overwhelm the new court, while it meets timetables mandated in the
bill.
In addition, the Senate amendments will ensure that the jurisdiction
of the court's successful domestic violence unit is not undermined.
We have all agreed that the successful disposition of these and other
matters resolved with our Senate partners have produced a strong
bipartisan consensus bill. I want to, once again, thank the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for his tireless efforts and partnership with me
on this bill, and for his great concern for the children and families
of the District of Columbia; a concern that was always there, always
evident, and that energized his hard work with me throughout; and, of
course, the Chair of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Maryland
(Mrs. Morella), as well as my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Davis), for their special efforts on this important piece of
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to support this bill, and
thank all who assisted us on it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton), for her wonderful comments and for all the work that she
put into this bill.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), who is not the sponsor but the
genesis of this bill in terms of responding to the great needs in the
District of Columbia, and he has been tenacious.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to
me, and congratulate her on a whole year of very hard work, the work
she put in to bring this bill to the floor today.
I also want to add my thanks to the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton), who was tireless in standing up for the abused
and neglected children of the District of Columbia, understanding that
the District desperately needs to focus on the welfare of these
children and the best interests of these children.
She understands that, and in the name of Brianna Blackmond, and maybe
we should have named this bill for Brianna Blackmond, because this is
the beginning of what I hope is a total reform effort to bring the kind
of services and safe and permanent homes for children that are
seriously abused.
I also thank the staff that worked on it, particularly on my staff,
Dr. Cassie Bevan, who is tenacious in her efforts to see that these
children receive the kind of services that they deserve.
These are children, Mr. Speaker, that are the most oppressed, the
most
[[Page H10372]]
abused, not just in the District of Columbia, but all over the United
States. The effort all over the United States is sort of focused here
in our Nation's capital in trying to do the best we can.
There are 4,500 cases that are currently supervised outside the
Family Division that can now be brought into the Family Division of the
Superior Court upon the signature of the President of this bill, so
maybe we can start working on this backlog and develop a system, a
model system for the Nation's capital to take care of these children.
These are children that are dying, these are children that have been
forgotten, in many cases. I remind my colleagues that this came to our
attention not just through the death of Brianna Blackmond, but the
child welfare system of the District was in receivership. It was in a
mess.
The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) understood
this and worked with us closely, and was the driving force in making
this happen.
But I have to tell my colleagues, this is only the first step in a
reform effort in the District of Columbia that is desperately needed.
Just this last summer, over 100 files were lost, 100 files. Let me
explain what that means.
A child makes an outcry, he or she is being abused and neglected in
one way or another; and the stories that we hear of what is happening
to children, not just in the District of Columbia, but all across the
Nation are just horrendous.
But this child makes an outcry for help, and looking for someone to
help them, and a file is created on this child and then lost. We do not
even know what has happened to these children. The perpetrator of the
abuse and neglect on this child knows now that the child made an
outcry, and who knows what has been done to that child that made the
outcry.
{time} 1115
This is abhorrent and we can not stand for it any longer and we are
not. And by passing this bill, this is the beginning of what I hope is
once and for all a process that we will go through in the District of
Columbia to bring these children out of an abusive situation, give them
the services that they need and, most importantly, find them a safe and
permanent home where they can look forward and have hope for a future
that other children enjoy today. I think that is vitally important.
This is going to be a showcase hopefully for the Nation. And,
colleagues, children and families need a court that focuses exclusively
on their welfare and their best interest. To realize this objective,
the family court absolutely has to keep cases within its boundaries in
order to be effective. This bill before us requires that the backlog of
4,500 cases have to be returned; and, second, that these cases which
are currently under supervision of judges in the family division,
remain there even after the individual judges leave the family bench.
But most importantly, it gives us the opportunity to recruit judges
that want to deal in this area of the law, that want to work with these
children and these families to give these children the kind of future
they deserve.
This bill also requires that each year a report is prepared to
Congress that includes the number of cases retained outside the family
court. It is our intention that this number be very low, because one of
the major purposes of this Act is to keep all the cases in the
specialized family court. So under the D.C. appropriations bill, as the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) has said, there
is $24 million that has been appropriated to implement this
legislation, to upgrade our computer systems, to expand its courtroom
facilities and increase the number of judicial personnel to handle this
huge backlog of cases.
The reforms required in this legislation combined with the money
appropriated to support these reforms was designed with a single vital
purpose, and that is to save the lives of abused and neglected children
in the District of Columbia who are endangered by the status quo.
I am very proud to be associated with the gentlewoman from Maryland
(Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the
delegation that serves the D.C. metroplex and, particularly, the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who has done an
outstanding job in working all this out and bringing this bill to the
floor. The children will appreciate it in the future. We have dedicated
it to Brianna Blackmond.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield back the balance of my time, I would like
to thank two staff members by name, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay), staff member Cassie Bevan, and my own staff member, John
Bouker, because in a very real sense, when Members are as deeply
involved as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and I have been in
this bill, the services of very high qualified, very smart staff people
need to be involved, particularly given the many technical areas that
were involved in this bill and the points of disagreement we had.
I want to, once again, say that I do not need to tell this House that
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is a tough negotiator. And yet,
throughout these negotiations, they were over a year, we never came to
a point where we did not think there would be a bill. And this was
largely because the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), although the
District is not his district, felt so deeply about the children that he
was willing to put personal time into this bill. That is difficult to
do if you are a leader of the House. And I want to express my
appreciation to the gentleman again for his personal involvement in
this bill, and for never letting go of this bill. Although, I will say
on this floor that there were times I wish he would have let go of this
bill. But that is what a bipartisan bill is about. It is about working
together, instead of turning over the tables, until we can get a bill
we can agree upon.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and I probably have parts of
this bill that we would like to have seen done just a little
differently. But in the name of the children who will profit, who will
benefit from what this bill provides, in the name of the many families
in the District of Columbia for whom this bill will mean something very
real in their lives, he and I reached a resolution of any differences
we had.
We are both very proud of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, you can see this has been a collaborative effort that is
going to help the children in the District of Columbia and be a model,
I think, for the rest of the Nation. Anything good does not happen that
easily. And so this is an example of something that has come from a lot
of hard work.
Again, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay) for his
leadership in making sure that this bill was negotiated throughout to
come to this point, and also to the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) for the work, her tenaciousness in having this
bill again crafted and reach this point. The gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Davis) has always been involved with it, and I am certainly
pleased that we have reached this point.
I want to thank the staff also, John Bouker. Certainly Cassie Statuto
Bevan has been there every inch of the way. My staff, Russell Smith and
Heea Vazirani-Fales and the others who worked on it.
Mr. Speaker, I identify myself with the idea that when you touch a
rock, you touch the past; and when you touch a flower, you touch the
present; but when you touch a child, you touch the future. And that is
just what this bill does. So I urge all our colleagues to
wholeheartedly endorse the bill.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 2657, the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001, as
amended. This is an important bill that will provide the Family Court
with the structural and management reforms it needs to efficiently and
effectively serve the children in the District's child welfare system.
After the tragic death of 23-month-old Brianna Blackmond, the D.C.
Subcommittee held two hearing last year, which revealed the dire need
for reforms to the various components of the District's child welfare
system, including the Family Court. The recent series of articles in
the Washington Post highlight long-term systemic problems in the child
welfare system, and reemphasize the need for Court reform.
[[Page H10373]]
The Family Court must be equipped with the strategic tools and
resource to assure the safety and well-being of the city's most
vulnerable children. H.R. 2657 accomplishes this objective. It mandates
longer judicial terms of service to ensure greater continuity in the
handling of cases. New appointees to the Superior Court who are
assigned to the Family Court will serve for 5 years. The bill also
requires that judges appointed to serve on the Family Court have
committed themselves to the practice of family law. Furthermore, it
creates magistrate judges, who will be responsible for handling the
backlog of 4,500 cases.
The bill imposes the critically important ``one family, one judge''
requirement on the Family Court to ensure that a judge is familiar with
a family's history in order to make appropriate decisions regarding the
safety and placement of the child.
The Court will create its own integrated computer system for use by
judges, magistrate judges, and nonjudicial personnel, allowing them
access to all pending cases related to children and their families. The
bill also provides the judges and magistrate judges with access to
information regarding the myriad social services available in D.C.
In addition to these key provisions, I support the Senate amendments.
These include a provision requiring that when judges leave the Family
Court, all of their cases remain in the Family Court. However, the bill
does allow the judges an additional 6 months, and under extraordinary
circumstances and additional 12 months, to retain a case if they can
demonstrate to the Chief Judge that removing the child's case from the
Family Court will result in more expeditious permanent placement. Let
me emphasize that the application of this provision is only intended in
rare situations.
The critical reforms in this legislation will help ensure that the
Family Court can meet the needs of the city's children. I urge all of
my colleagues to support H.R. 2657, as amended.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) that the House
suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R.
2657.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________