[Senate Report 107-107]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 257
107th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 107-107
_______________________________________________________________________
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FAMILY COURT
ACT OF 2001
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 1382
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
December 5, 2001.--Ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
99-010 WASHINGTON : 2001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MAX CLELAND, Georgia PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Staff Director and Counsel
Cynthia Gooen Lesser, Counsel
Marianne Clifford Upton, Staff Director and Chief Counsel,
Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of
Columbia
Hannah S. Sistare, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Johanna L. Hardy, Minority Counsel
Mason C. Alinger, Minority Professional Staff Member,
Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of
Columbia
Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
Page
I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
II. Background.......................................................1
III. Legislative History.............................................10
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis.....................................11
V. Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office................16
VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact.................................20
VII. Changes to Existing Law.........................................21
VIII.Appendix........................................................36
Calendar No. 257
107th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 107-107
======================================================================
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FAMILY COURT ACT OF 2001
_______
December 5, 2001.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Lieberman, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1382]
The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was
referred the bill (S. 1382) 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,
reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that
the bill do pass.
I. Purpose and Summary
The purpose of S. 1382, the District of Columbia Family
Court Act of 2001, is 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.
II. Background
Crisis of abused and neglected children in the District of Columbia
The crisis of abused and neglected children has challenged
the District of Columbia for many years. The Washington Post
reported recently that 229 children died between 1993 and 2000
while under the watch of the city's child protective services
agency, Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA).\1\ The role of
the District of Columbia Superior Court in handling abused and
neglected children attracted heightened scrutiny after 23-
month-old Brianna Blackmond, a child under court supervision,
died in January 2000 at the hands of her mother's housemate
only two weeks after a Superior Court judge returned the child
to her troubled home without conducting a formal hearing.\2\
Although the District of Columbia Inspector General found in an
April 30, 2001 report that Brianna's death could be traced to
errors and omissions by officials throughout the District of
Columbia government--not only the judge who handled the case--
including CFSA,\3\ the case raised concerns about how the
Superior Court handled its abuse and neglect cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ `` `Protected' Children Died as Government Did Little; Critical
Errors by City's Network Found in 40 Fatalities; Confidential Files
Show Wide Pattern of Official Neglect,'' Washington Post, September 9,
2001.
\2\ `` `Failure After Failure'; Foster System Betrayed Brianna,''
Washington Post, February 21, 2000.
\3\ ``Report of Investigation Into the Role of the Child and Family
Services Agency and the Circumstances Leading to the Death of BB,''
District of Columbia Office of the Inspector General, April 30, 2001
(OIG No. 2000-0227 (S)), pp. 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abuse and neglect cases had been posing a serious challenge
to the court for some time before Brianna's death. The sheer
number of the cases had been steadily growing in number since
the early 1990's due to the crack cocaine epidemic in the
District of Columbia at that time.\4\ In 1992, the number of
child abuse and neglect cases increased by more than 60 percent
from the year before, from 833 \5\ to 1351 \6\; 1994 saw a
similar jump, from 1376 \7\ the year before to 1786.\8\ The
steady increase of this caseload was more than the family
division judges could handle alone effectively. To help ease
the docket, the chief judge assigned each of the 59 sitting
judges a share of the child abuse and neglect caseload. As a
result, judges outside the Family Division currently hear their
abuse and neglect cases between their ``regular'' calendars, in
some cases squeezed in during lunch breaks.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Child Neglect, Abuse Up 60% in D.C.; Sharp Increase in Court
Cases Linked to Crack Cocaine, Recession,'' Washington Post, May 20,
1992.
\5\ ``For D.C. Child Abuse Caseload, a Troubling Milestone,''
Washington Post, September 24, 1992.
\6\ ``District Child Abuse Reports Arriving in Record Numbers,''
Washington Post, April 11, 1994.
\7\ ``District Child Abuse Reports Arriving in Record Numbers,''
Washington Post, April 11, 1994.
\8\ ``D.C. Court Workers Shocked by Child Sex-Abuse Cases,''
Washington Post, April 25, 1994.
\9\ ``D.C. Judges Try to Raise 3,200 Abused or Neglected
Children,'' Washington Post, January 9, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Superior Court has not been as effective
as it could be in moving cases involving abused and neglected
children. Currently, according to analysis done by the District
of Columbia Superior Court in July 2001, there are 3592 abuse
and neglect cases in review status that have been pending for
two years or more, only 11 percent of which involve children
living at home under the protective supervision of CFSA; all of
the other more than 3200 cases involve children who have been
removed from their homes.\10\ Moreover, the Superior Court
indicated that it expected less than half of these long-
standing abuse and neglect review cases to be closed within 12
months.\11\ The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) requires
that, with certain exceptions, cases of children in foster care
or other temporary placement must reach permanency within a
certain timeframe, which is less than 2 years. It is impossible
to know how many of these cases genuinely qualify under the
ASFA exceptions that permit them to remain pending beyond the
required deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Abuse and Neglect Caseload Data,'' District of Columbia
Superior Court (unpublished), July 2001, p. 1.
\11\ ``Abuse and Neglect Caseload Data,'' District of Columbia
Superior Court (unpublished), July 2001, p. 2 (based on an internal
survey of the judges handling the outstanding cases).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dispersal of abuse and neglect cases to all 59 judges
and to some of the 18 senior judges of the Superior Court has
contributed to these shortcomings. It has caused
logisticalproblems for CFSA social workers, Office of Corporation
Counsel attorneys, guardians ad litem, and others involved in child
welfare who must be present for hearings in all of their cases.\12\
Hearings can take place at any time of the day, in any courtroom--
sometimes simultaneously--not only making it difficult for these
individuals to attend all their hearings, but also making it hard for
social workers to spend the necessary time in the field, visiting
children and families. If the necessary participants are not present or
have not had adequate preparation time, it can be difficult for judges
to move cases forward.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Written Testimony of Olivia Golden, Director of the District
of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency, to the Senate Committee
on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, October 25,
2001, at p. 9.
\13\ ``Judges Describe Agonizing Decisions,'' Washington Post,
January 16, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to point out, however, that lapses on the
part of CFSA cannot be laid solely at the doorstep of the
Superior Court. The crisis of abused and neglected children in
the District of Columbia can be traced largely to long-standing
problems within CFSA and other city agencies dealing with child
welfare. In 1989, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a
class action lawsuit in federal court on behalf of all abused
and neglected children in the District of Columbia to force
reforms in the system. At that time, children awaiting foster
care placements were left for days at a time in the office of
the child and family services agency (then a division of the
District of Columbia Department of Human Services) to sleep on
the floor, chairs or cots,\14\ and the average stay in foster
care for a District of Columbia child was nearly five years,
more than three times the national average.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``Conditions `Shocking' for District Children Awaiting Foster
Care; Welfare System Needs Leaders, Receivers Say,'' Washington Post,
March 2, 1995.
\15\ LaShawn A. v. Dixon, 762 F. Supp. 959, 968 (D.D.C. 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the 1991 trial, United States District Judge Thomas
Hogan found that as a result of indifference and poor
management, the city had failed to comply with reasonable
professional standards in almost every area of its child
welfare system.\16\ Specifically, the court found that due to
dire staffing and resource shortages, the child welfare agency
had failed to conduct timely investigations of reports of
neglect or abuse, failed to find appropriate placements for
children, failed to monitor their care, and failed to ensure
that these children had permanent homes. The Division was put
into receivership in 1995,\17\ and emerged on July 15, 2001,
after a May 21, 2001 order by Judge Hogan finding that the
District had met preconditions to regain control of CFSA set by
an earlier order. The preconditions included prohibiting budget
cuts and layoffs; increasing the number of home visits by
social workers; passing legislation that would place the
responsibility for investigating abuse and neglect cases with
Child and Family Services rather than splitting the duty
between the police and the agency; developing licensing
standards for foster care and group homes; and elevating the
agency to cabinet-level status.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 762 F. Supp. at 982-983.
\17\ LaShawn A. v. Kelly, 887 F. Supp. 297 (D.D.C. 1995).
\18\ ``D.C. Regains Control of Foster Care; Child Welfare Goes to a
New Agency,'' Washington Post, October 24, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, according to a December 2000 report by the
United States General Accounting Office (GAO), federal
receivership did not offer the solution the LaShawn plaintiffs
had sought in 1989.\19\ GAO found that more than five years
after the inception of the receivership, CFSA had still not
addressed its problems with high turnover, hiring shortfalls,
and inadequate training. As of one year ago, caseloads were
still much too high: in some cases, double or triple the limit
set by the court. While the number of children under the
agency's care increased, the number of social workers covering
their cases declined: in December 1997, 2,900 children were in
foster care with 289 social workers at the agency; by August
2000, 3,271 children were in foster care with only 241 social
workers employed by the District to address their needs.\20\
Thus, child welfare reform cannot be complete without resolving
these long-standing problems at CFSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ District of Columbia Child Welfare: Long-Term Challenges to
Ensuring Children's Well-Being,'' GAO Report to the House of
Representatives Committee on Governmental Reform Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia, December 2000 (GAO-01-91) (``GAO Report'').
\20\ GAO Report at p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, the tragic death of Brianna Blackmond put a
fresh face on the crisis. A media spotlight on a Superior Court
judge's decision to return the child to her troubled home
without a hearing sparked interest in addressing the court's
administration of abuse and neglect cases. Unlike CFSA, which
is under District control, Superior Court reform can only be
legislated by Congress.
Family matters and the District of Columbia court system
The District of Columbia local court system is a federal
responsibility pursuant to Congress' constitutional authority
over the District.\21\ It was created by statute in 1801, and
since that time, has gone through a number of reforms.\22\ For
over 60 years, the District of Columbia court system had a
separate Juvenile Court, which had jurisdiction over cases
regarding children under 18, contributing to the delinquency of
minors, paternity matters, and later, cases of desertion and
criminal non-support,\23\ though many family cases, including
divorce, adoption, custody and domestic violence, were heard by
the Court of General Sessions.\24\ According to Congresswoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, one of the House sponsors of the
District of Columbia Family Court Act, ``[t]he old Family
Court, then called `Juvenile Court,' was a stand-alone court,
that had become a place apart, in effect a ghetto court, to
which the city's most troubled children and families were sent
away from the `real' judicial system. Out of sight left
children and families out of mind until the Juvenile Court was
abolished as hopelessly ineffective and poorly funded.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States
Constitution gives Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District of
Columbia; Congress retained its authority over the local courts in the
District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization
Act of 1973 and took exclusive budget authority over the courts
pursuant to the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Act
of 1997.
\22\ For a detailed description of the history of the courts in the
District of Columbia, see the attached appendix, which is incorporated
by reference herein.
\23\ Hearing Report, Committee on the District of Columbia and
Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Committee on
the Judiciary, United States Senate, 91st Congress, First Session, May
19-22, July 25-27, and August 7, 1969 (``D.C. Courts Hearing Report''),
at p. 580.
\24\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at 575.
\25\ Written Testimony of Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, to the
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia,
October 25, 2001 (``Norton Testimony''), at p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the late 1960's, the Senate Committee on the District of
Columbia became concerned about the District of Columbia
courts, and began looking into avenues of reform. The Committee
conducted an exhaustive review of the courts, and sought
recommendations from a number of groups and commissions about
what form a new court system should take. Some, such as the
President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia,
believed that the Juvenile Court should be retained and
strengthened into a Family Court for all family cases, separate
from the court of general jurisdiction.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 581.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This recommendation was not shared by the Ad Hoc Committee
on the Administration of Justice, a group comprised of
attorneys and court experts established by the Judicial Council
of the District of Columbia. The Ad Hoc Committee criticized
the notion of a splintered court,quoting Roscoe Pound:
``Multiplicity of courts is characteristic of archaic law.'' \27\ The
Ad Hoc Committee pointed out that ``[t]he Juvenile Court has been in
trouble for many, many years, and is at the moment in serious trouble.
It lacks strength and cannot be adequately managed since it is not a
part of the central court system of our city.'' \28\ Instead, the Ad
Hoc Committee advocated for including the family bench under the
umbrella of a single court of general jurisdiction. Specifically, it
claimed that ``[h]aving a larger pool of judges who could move in and
out of the Juvenile division and other parts of the court would broaden
a judge's judicial experience, keep him abreast of general development
of the law, and ensure a higher quality of judiciary, because judges
who might refuse to specialize in a steady diet of one aspect of the
law would be willing to serve for shorter periods of time.'' \29\ The
Ad Hoc Committee also recommended that the family bench be fully
integrated into the court to allow the chief judge the necessary
flexibility to manage it. It criticized the then-current domestic
relations branch of the Court of General Sessions, which had its own
list of judges and clerks, and operated separately from the Court,
because the chief judge had ``no power to rotate judges in and out of
the domestic relations branch.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 582.
\28\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 583.
\29\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 581.
\30\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 582.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1970, Congress took the advice of the Ad Hoc Committee
and passed the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal
Procedure Act of 1970,\31\ which abolished the Juvenile Court
and established the unified court system that exists today. The
District of Columbia Superior Court was established as a court
of general jurisdiction, with five branches: family, civil,
criminal, tax and probate. Currently, the Superior Court is
composed of 58 judges and one chief judge. In addition to its
five divisions, it recently established a cross-jurisdictional
domestic violence unit. In an average year the Court may
dispose of upwards of 160,000 cases, with 14,000 in the family
division alone.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ P.L. 91-358, 84 Stat. 473.
\32\ 2000 Annual Report, District of Columbia Courts, p. 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, Superior Court judges, who are appointed for a
total term of 15 years after a rigorous selection process,\33\
fit the model recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on the
Administration of Justice: they are generalists who serve
extendable one-year terms in the different divisions of the
Court, with assignments left to the discretion of the chief
judge. All of the 59 judges have some of the current caseload
of the approximately 4,500 abuse and neglect cases on their
dockets, even if they have never sat on the family bench.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Superior Court judges are appointed by the President and
confirmed by the Senate. The President makes his selection from a list
of three names provided to him by the District of Columbia Judicial
Nominations Commission, which chooses from among a pool of applicants,
who must be residents of the District who have practiced there for a
certain number of years. This process usually involves extensive
screening by the District of Columbia Nominations Commission, a Federal
Bureau of Investigation background investigation and a thorough review
by this Committee of the candidate's qualification and background.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The need for legislation
The bill's sponsors were concerned about how abused and
neglected children with cases before the Superior Court are
affected by its current system. They noted that many of those
with the weighty responsibility of deciding the fate of abused
and neglected children are not well acquainted with the
intricacies of family law, the tangled bureaucracy responsible
for children in the District of Columbia, or the complex
network of resources available to families and children in
trouble.\34\ Despite the rigorous and extensive judicial
selection process,\35\ few candidates with family law
experience are nominated to the Superior Court bench. Further,
with abuse and neglect cases dispersed throughout the entire
court, most judges who have these cases do not sit in the
Family Division; if they ever have, they rotated through that
division for only an ``average judicial term [of] about one
year.'' \36\ Thus, as Senator DeWine, the lead sponsor of the
Senate bill, put it, under the current system, ``[j]udges don't
get the training, the technical support, nor the experience
they need to properly handle these cases.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ According to Congressman Tom DeLay, lead sponsor of the House
version of the bill, ``Judges outside of the Family Division don't have
the current knowledge about the availability or quality of service
options or new laws and new regulations impacting the children before
them. . . . I believe the best thing we can do for abused children in
the District is to return all cases to a family court made up of
committed judges who are all volunteers. Only their specialized
knowledge of relevant federal and district laws will result in better
decisions for abused children.'' Written Testimony of the Honorable Tom
Delay, to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of
Columbia, October 25, 2001 (``DeLay Testimony''), at p. 5.
\35\ See footnote 33 above.
\36\ Written Testimony of the Honorable Mike DeWine, to the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia,
October 25, 2001 (``DeWine Testimony''), p. 3.
\37\ DeWine Testimony at p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, as Senator DeWine has said, ``the currently
spread-out system is a structural nightmare.'' \38\
Caseworkers, attorneys from the District of Columbia
Corporation Counsel's Office, guardians ad litem, and other
participants necessary for hearings in neglect and abuse cases
must accommodate the schedules of all 59 judges of the Superior
Court, shuttling between courtrooms and waiting for their cases
to be called. This time-consuming system not only makes it
difficult for caseworkers and others to make it to all the
hearings they must attend, it also takes a significant amount
of time away from their fieldwork responsibilities.\39\
Dispersing abuse and neglect cases throughout the court also
means that a cohesive and integrated case management system
cannot be maintained.\40\ In addition, mixing family cases with
other types of matters on a judge's calendar can mean that
children and families waiting for hearings may be occupying the
same hallways together with criminal defendants and others, in
an atmosphere that neither facilitates open and meaningful
discussion of their most personal problems nor guarantees their
cases receive the focused attention of the court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ DeWine Testimony at p. 2.
\39\ Written Testimony of Deborah Luxenberg, Council for Court
Excellence, to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and
the District of Columbia, October 25, 2001 (``Luxenberg Testimony''),
at p. 6.
\40\ DeLay Testimony at p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, cases involving the same family are often heard by
different judges, which means that the knowledge one judge may
have gained over time about the problems unique to that family
will not be drawn on.\41\ As Congressman Tom DeLay, sponsor of
the House version of the bill, has said, ``We must put together
all the pieces of the child's life before we determine whether
it's safe for a child to go home, remain in a particular foster
home or facility, or be placed for adoption. A child is safer
when a single judge understands the whole story of his or her
life. Multiple judges increase the chance of errors or vital
information not being considered.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Senator Mike DeWine testified that ``at the heart of the bill
is the one-judge/one-family concept, which is designed to create
judicial continuity, so that families aren't shuffled from one judge to
another. This allows one judge to stay with one family throughout that
family's experience in the welfare system. The simple fact is that if a
judge who knows the entire history of a family, he or she can better
protect the interests of the children and the parents involved.''
DeWine Testimony at p. 3.
\42\ DeLay Testimony at p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rufus G. King III, the current chief judge of the Superior
Court, has made an effort to answer critics of this system. He
has issued administrative directives which increase Family
Division terms to three years beginning in January 2002,
provide enhanced and additional training for Family Division
judges, institute an alternate dispute resolution mechanism,
and establish stronger working relationships between the court
and city agencies responsible for child and family
services.\43\ While the chief judge has made significant
strides to achieve positive change, more is required to ``give
these judges the tools they need to do their jobs--to protect
the lives of these innocent children.'' \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Written Testimony of the Honorable Rufus King III, Chief Judge
of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, October 25,
2001, (``King Testimony'') at pp. 3-4.
\44\ DeWine Testimony at p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of S. 1382 as introduced
S. 1382, as introduced, would have changed the structure of
the Court by redesignating the Family Division of the Court as
a ``Family Court'' comprised of 12 to 15 judges and a number of
magistrates. Under that version of the bill, the guiding
principle of the Family Court would be ``one family, one
judge,'' dictating that all family members would see the same
judge or magistrate--barring conflicts of interest that may
arise--for all family-law matters they had pending before the
court. Family Court judges appointed after enactment would
serve five-year terms, and sitting Superior Court judges would
serve three-year terms, and the judges sitting on the family
bench would have to be trained or expert in family law.
After an 18-month transition period, all family cases
pending in Superior Court would have been transferred to the
dockets of judges or magistrates sitting on the Family Court
bench. The hiring of magistrates with significant expertise in
family law would be authorized, and current hearing
commissioners would be treated as magistrates to give them
additional power to move cases. Appointment of a special master
would be required to help dispose of the thousands of neglect
and abuse cases currently pending. The court would be required
to create for the Family Court a ``family friendly''
environment, have a social services liaison on-site at all
times, and establish an electronic case management and tracking
system to be integrated with the systems of District of
Columbia agencies providing social services to children and
families. The chief judge would be required to submit a
transition plan to Congress on an 18-month timetable within 90
days of enactment. GAO would be required to submit a report
assessing the procedures used to make initial judicial
appointments, the impact of magistrates, and the number of
judges needed for the Family Court.
Concerns raised about S. 1382 as introduced
For the most part, the District of Columbia Family Court
Act of 2001 as introduced would take important steps towards
improving the court system. Nonetheless, some concerns have
been raised about its specific terms from, among others,
Superior Court judges and administrators and members of the
Family Law Section of the District of Columbia Bar. Some
contended that the five-year terms for Family Court judges were
too long for the emotionally taxing work of the family
bench.\45\ Concerns ranged from fears of ``burn-out'' as judges
approached the final years of their terms, to deterring strong
candidates without significant family law backgrounds from
seeking judgeships on a court with such daunting term
requirements.\46\ Another concern about the bill was that it
unduly restricted the discretion of the chief judge as the top
administrator by not allowing him to make important court
management decisions.\47\ For example, the bill set a minimum
number of judges for Family Court and permitted the chief judge
to reassign a Family Court judge only if he determined that the
judge was ``unable, for cause, to continue serving in the
Family Court.'' Particularly given the long term, this could be
overly restrictive because the negative connotations of
requiring a determination of cause to remove a judge might
deter the chief judge from reassigning judges--even where
warranted--except in the most extreme of circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See, e.g., Written Testimony of Margaret McKinney, Family Law
Section of the District of Columbia Bar, to the Senate Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of
Columbia of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, October 25, 2001
(``McKinney Testimony''), at pp. 3-8;. Written Testimony of Kathy
Patterson, District of Columbia City Councilmember and Chairman of
Council Committee on the Judiciary, to the House Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia of the Committee on Government Reform, June 26,
2001 (``Patterson Testimony''), at p. 3.
\46\ The Florida Supreme Court's Family Court Steering Committee,
after a seven year study, recommended three-year terms, with an
opportunity for the judge to rotate out of the family division for a
period of time following his or her term, before returning to the
family bench. See ``A Model Family Court for Florida: Recommendations
of the Florida Supreme Court's Family Court Steering Committee,'' June,
2000, at p. 15.
\47\ See, e.g., McKinney Testimony at pp. 8-9; Luxenburg Testimony
at p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another concern about the bill as introduced was that all
pending family cases would have to be transferred into the
Family Court by the end of the 18-month transition period, with
no exceptions.\48\ In the October 25, 2001 hearing on this bill
in the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia,
questions were raised about two aspects of this provision:
first, all family cases would include divorce, child support,
and mental health cases, which would mean that the new court
would be inundated with thousands of new cases unrelated to
abused and neglected children; and second, no exception would
exist for a judge who does not sit in the Family Court to keep
a case on her docket where she has formed a special
relationship with or understanding of a troubled child, whose
case cannot be resolved within the transition period. Finally,
some were concerned that the language of S. 1382, as
introduced, might have dismantled the cross-jurisdictional
Domestic Violence Unit by divesting it of jurisdiction over
family cases, or might have prevented the court from
instituting other cross-jurisdictional units.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Patterson Testimony at pp. 5-6; King Testimony at p. 6.
\49\ Norton Testimony at p. 3; Luxenberg Testimony at p. 8; King
Testimony at p. 7; McKinney Testimony at p. 16; ``Steamrolling the
Superior Court,'' Washington Post Editorial, October 25, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How the amendment refines the bill
To address these concerns, the Committee adopted an
amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 1382, which was
introduced by Senator Durbin, with Senators DeWine and
Landrieu, the sponsors of the bill. Although the term lengths
for Family Court judges were left at five years for new judges
and three years for current judges, the bill as amended would
provide the chief judge more flexibility to reassign judges on
the family bench when he ``determines in the interest of
justice the judge is unable'' to finish the full term. This
change would protect the interests of children in two ways: it
would retain the requirement that judges seeking a seat on the
Family Court demonstrate a serious commitment by agreeing to
devote a substantial part of their career to it, but it would
allow the chief judge to reassign a judge when he or she is
simply not serving the interests of children and families. The
amendment also gives the chief judge more flexibility by
removing the minimum number of judges required to serve on the
Family Court. It will be in the chief judge's discretion to
determine, over time, how many judges up to 15 are required on
the family bench to appropriately serve the needs of families
and children of the District. If necessary, the chief judge may
expand the Family Court beyond 15 judges on an temporary basis.
The chief judge is also provided flexibility by being able
to allow judges to retain abuse and neglect cases outside the
Family Court under certain circumstances. Such cases should be
rare exceptions because a primary goal of the legislation is to
have family cases--particularly cases involving abuse and
neglect--handled by Family Court judges under the one family,
one judge principle. Nevertheless, S. 1382 as amended would
give the chief judge the flexibility to permit a judge outside
the Family Court to retain a case he or she has had for more
than 18 months, where the judge has special knowledge of the
child's needs and reassignment would be harmful to the child,
so long as the case remains at all times in full compliance
with the Adoption and Safe Families Act. In addition, under
similar exceptional circumstances, cases may be retained by
Family Court judges who complete their full Family Court term
and are rotating to another Superior Court division. The chief
judge must determine, in consultation with the presiding judge
of the Family Court, that retention is in the best interest of
the parties, the judge has special knowledge of the child's
needs and reassignment would be harmful to the child. Finally,
the amended bill would ensure that the Domestic Violence Unit
is kept intact.
Despite the many areas of concern that the amended bill has
addressed, there are a number of issues unresolved, including
the effect of the five-year term of service for Family Court
judges on the morale and recruitment of judges, the ability of
the chief judge to rotate judges in and out of the Family
Court, and the exceptions allowing judges outside of the Family
Court to retain cases within the jurisdiction of the Family
Court. These concerns echo those expressed by the Ad Hoc
Committee on the Administration of Justice in connection with
the 1970 restructuring of the District of Columbia courts,
relating to fragmentation in the court and hindering the
flexibility of the chief judge to manage the court. S. 1382
would provide that the Superior Court report periodically to
this Committee on its progress in putting the reforms into
place; the Committee will carefully review these reports and
monitor the Superior Court's implementation of the reforms with
particular emphasis on the unresolved concerns discussed above.
III. Legislative History
S. 1382, the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001,
was introduced on August 3, 2001 by Senators Michael DeWine and
Mary Landrieu and referred to the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs. On September 10, 2001 the Committee on
Governmental Affairs referred the bill to the Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the
District of Columbia.
On October 25, 2001, the Oversight of Government
Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia
conducted a hearing on ``Promoting the Best Interests of
Children: Proposals to Establish a Family Court in the District
of Columbia Superior Court.'' This hearing was an opportunity
to consider the components of S. 1382 and a similar House bill,
H.R. 2657, including placing all cases involving one family
before one judge, assigning a team of magistrates and social
workers to assist the judicial function, mandating minimum
terms for service for judges on the ``family court,'' and
transferring all child abuse and neglect cases now dispersed
across the court back under a ``family court'' helm.
Member witnesses testifying before the subcommittee were
Senator Michael DeWine and Senator Mary Landrieu, the lead
sponsors of S. 1382, and Congressman Tom DeLay and
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, the lead sponsors of H.R.
2657. Representatives of the District of Columbia judicial and
social services systems and legal community directly involved
in handling and litigating child abuse and neglect matters also
testified: the Honorable Rufus G. King III, Chief Judge of the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia; the Honorable Lee
Satterfield, Presiding Judge of the Family Division of the
Superior Court; Dr. Olivia Golden, Director of the District of
Columbia Child and Family Services Agency; Deborah Luxenberg,
Chairman of the Children in the Courts Subcommittee of the
Council for Court Excellence; and Margaret McKinney, Chairman
of the Family Law Section, District of Columbia Bar.
S. 1382 was polled out of the Oversight of Government
Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia
Subcommittee on November 12, 2001. On November 14, 2001, S.
1382 was considered by the full Committee on Governmental
Affairs. A substitute amendment was offered by Senator Richard
Durbin. The Durbin amendment was adopted by voice vote, with no
Members present dissenting. S. 1382, as amended, was ordered
reported out of the Committee of Governmental Affairs by voice
vote, with no Members present dissenting. Present were Senators
Akaka, Durbin, Cleland, Carper, Carnahan, Thompson, Voinovich,
Cochran, Bunning and Lieberman.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis (As Amended)
Section 1 entitles the Act as the ``District of Columbia
Family Court Act of 2001.''
Section 2 re-designates the existing family division of the
District of Columbia SuperiorCourt as the Family Court and
makes conforming amendments to the District of Columbia Code. It
reorganizes the current structure of the court, establishing a
specialized group of judges, assisted by a team of magistrates, to
focus on making expeditious decisions in litigation involving families
and children, including abused and neglected children. The nationally-
acclaimed Domestic Violence Unit, which handles cross-jurisdictional
criminal, civil, and family issues, would be retained intact as a
separate unit of the Superior Court, permitting appropriate cases to be
assigned to such unit and not subsumed by or brought within the new
Family Court.
Section 3 sets out the composition of the Family Court,
including appointment and assignment of judges, the number of
judges, and qualifications for Family Court judges. This
section addresses concerns expressed about the present practice
of giving each of the 59 judges of the Superior Court a child
welfare caseload in addition to his or her other
responsibilities. It also aims to keep all child abuse and
neglect cases, with very limited exceptions, within the Family
Court, promoting the principle of ``one family, one judge.''
The intent of the ``one family, one judge'' language is for the
case to be assigned to a specific judge in the Family Court at
the time the case is first brought to court, and for this judge
to conduct all subsequent hearings, conferences and trials. The
Committee believes that use of a single judge or magistrate
rather than a multitude of judges as the case progresses can
ensure that a case plan is developed in a logical, step-by-step
manner and provide greater consistency and continuity for
families involved in the process. Such reforms can aid
compliance with Federal law for the timely placement and
adoption of children.
Subsection 3(a) adds a new section to the District of
Columbia Code that sets forth special rules regarding
assignment and service of judges of Family Court. It requires
that the number of judges serving in the Family Court be no
more than 15. The amendment adopted by the Committee removes
the minimum number of 12 judges set forth in the underlying
bill, to afford the chief judge flexibility to address
unforeseeable future needs of the court. Although a minimum
number is not imposed, the Committee understands that the Court
should maintain a minimum of 12 judges in the Family Court to
meet the needs of the current case flow.
Should the case flow of the Family Court increase to a
point where 15 judges cannot keep up with their dockets, this
subsection allows the chief judge to expand the number of
judges serving on the Family Court beyond 15 judges by
temporarily assigning to the Family Court qualified judges from
other divisions in emergency circumstances in order to meet the
intent of the law. Such judges temporarily reassigned under
such circumstances would be encouraged, but not required, to
serve the full term of a Family Court judge, but they must have
training or experience in family law. To the greatest extent
possible, the qualified judges enlisted by the chief judge to
fill the need on the Family Court under this subsection should
be volunteers.
Subsection 3(a) also modifies the restriction in Sec. 11-
903 of the District of Columbia Code on the total composition
of the Superior Court to allow the chief judge to exceed the
overall cap of 59 judges if necessary to maintain a full
complement of 15 judges in the Family Court. The chief judge
may do this, however, only if the number of judges on the
Family Court is less than 15, the chief judge is unable to
secure a volunteer judge from another division to transfer to
the Family Court bench, the chief judge obtains approval from
the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration, and the chief
judge reports to Congress about why it is necessary to exceed
the cap.
Subsection 3(a) also establishes the qualifications for a
judge serving on the Family Court. It requires that a Family
Court judge have training or expertise in family law, as well
as a certified intention to serve the full term and participate
in training. This subsection also sets forth the term of
service for judges on the Family Court. For judges sitting on
the bench at the time of enactment, the term of service would
be three years, including any period of time served on the
Family Division immediately preceding the enactment. For judges
who take the bench after enactment, the term of service would
be five years. This subsection permits assignment for
additional service at a judge's request, including service for
a judge's full 15 year term, with the approval of the chief
judge. This subsection also permits the chief judge to reassign
any Family Court judge if the chief judge determines that in
the interest of justice the judge is unable to continue serving
in the Family Court. Senior judges are exempted from the three-
year term requirement; however, in assigning senior judges to
the Family Court, the Committee encourages the chief judge to
keep in mind the goals of this legislation to have judges on
the Family Court for a sufficiently lengthy period to provide
consistency to the operation of the Family Court.
Subsection 3(b)(1) requires the chief judge of the Superior
Court to submit a transition plan to Congress and the President
not later than 90 days after enactment. The plan should analyze
and describe the role of the presiding judge of the Family
Court, the number of judges and magistrates needed in the
Family Court, the appropriate functions and compensation for
the magistrates, a plan for case flow and case management, a
plan for space and equipment, a plan for the disposition or
transfer of child abuse and neglect cases pending before judges
serving in other divisions of the Court, and an estimate of the
number of cases for which the transfer or disposition deadline
of 18 months cannot be met and why.
Subsection 3(b)(2) specifies that the chief judge may not
take any action to implement the transition plan until 30 days
after filing such plan with the President and the Congress.
Subsection 3(b)(2) provides for the implementation of the
plan to dispose of or transfer the child abuse and neglect
cases within 18 months after filing a transition plan as
outlined in subsection 3(b)(1). It adds a rule of construction
that this 18-month deadline does not preclude transfer of cases
well before the deadline, or even immediately. Indeed, the
Superior Court is encouraged to begin the process of
transferring appropriate cases outside the Family Division into
the Family Court as soon as practicable.
Subsection 3(b)(2) also allows cases pending before judges
serving in other divisions to be retained by those judges in
special circumstances. Retention is permitted provided if (1)
the case retained remains at all times in full compliance with
the Adoption and Safe Families Act [42 U.S.C. 675(5)(E)]
(``ASFA''); (2) the case has been assigned continuously to that
judge for 18 months or more; and (3) the judge has a special
knowledge of the child's needs, such that reassignment would be
harmful to the child. The Committee intends that only a very
small number of cases be retained under this provision; to the
greatest extent possible, cases under the jurisdiction of the
Family Court that are on the dockets of non-Family Court judges
should be transferred into the Family Court. This will
facilitate not only the needs of the children and families
involved in those cases, but also will help the entire system
to operate more smoothly.
Subsection 3(b)(2) also requires that the Superior Court
provide progress reports to Congress at six-month intervals for
two years. The purpose of the reports is to monitor the
implementation of the reforms set forth in the bill, including
the court's transfer of cases into theFamily Court.
Subsection 3(c) establishes the process for filling
judicial vacancies on the Family Court and the role of the
District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission.
Subsection 3(d) requires the Comptroller General to prepare
and submit to Congress not later than two years after enactment
of the Act a report which includes an analysis of the
procedures used to make initial appointments to the Family
Court, the impact of the magistrates, and the number of judges
needed for the Family Court. The Comptroller General is
required to provide to the chief judge a preliminary copy of
the report and take the comments and recommendations of the
chief judge into consideration in preparing the final version
of the report.
Section 4 sets forth the jurisdiction of the Family Court,
encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution, and
establishes a ``one family, one judge'' requirement where it is
practicable, feasible, and lawful. It establishes a training
program for judges, magistrates, attorneys, and non-judicial
personnel. It requires the establishment of a ``family-
friendly'' environment and an integrated computerized case
tracking system. This Section also requires the Mayor of the
District of Columbia to establish an on-site social services
liaison to coordinate with the Court and to provide information
about relevant city services. This Section further requires the
chief judge to submit annual reports to Congress on the
activities of the Family Court during the year.
Subsection 4(a) adds several new sections to the District
of Columbia Code. One section enumerates the specific areas of
Family Court jurisdiction. Another section specifies that until
disposition, cases must remain within the Family Court governed
by the ``one family, one judge'' principle, but cases must also
remain in the Family Court even after the judge handling those
cases completes his or her full term on the Family Court and
rotates out to another division.
Subsection 4(a) provides an exception to this rule, which
would permit certain narrowly defined cases to stay on that
judge's docket. For a judge leaving the Family Court to retain
a case, (1) the case must be in compliance with ASFA; (2) it
cannot stay on the judge's docket for more than 18 months after
leaving the Family Court; (3) the judge must have special
knowledge of the child's needs, such that reassignment would be
harmful to child; and (4) the chief judge, in consultation with
presiding judge of the Family Court, must determine that
retention of the case is in the best interests of the parties.
As with the exception provided under subsection 3(b)(2), the
Committee intends that only a very small number of cases be
retained by judges pursuant to this provision. In addition, the
Committee recommends that any further proceedings in family
cases retained by a judge rotating out of the Family Court be
conducted in courtrooms or space designated for the Family
Court, to the greatest extent possible. The Committee believes
that this will minimize the burden on litigants and social
workers involved in these cases, and be conducive to
maintaining a family-friendly environment.
Subsection 4(a) also establishes a new District of Columbia
Code section requiring the chief judge to submit annual reports
to Congress on Family Court activities, including information
on compliance with deadlines and performance measures as well
as information on the number of judges serving in Family Court,
how long each judge has served, the number of cases retained
outside the family court, the number of judicial reassignments
to and from the Family Court bench, and the ability to recruit
qualified sitting judges from within the Superior Court to
serve on the Family Court bench.
Subsection 4(b) provides for expedited appeals for orders
of the Family Court terminating parental rights or granting or
denying a petition to adopt.
Subsection 4(c) requires that not later than six months
after enactment of the Act, the Mayor of the District of
Columbia must submit a plan to the President and Congress for
integrating the computer systems of relevant District of
Columbia government agencies with the computer systems of the
Court and authorizes funds to be appropriated for completion of
the plan.
Subsection 4(d) makes clerical amendments to the table of
sections in chapter 11 of title 11 of the District of Columbia
Code.
Section 5 re-designates hearing commissioners as
magistrates in the District of Columbia Code.
Subsection 5(b) allows any individual serving as a hearing
commissioner as of the date of enactment of the Act to be
reappointed as a magistrate. It also permits hearing
commissioners appointed prior to enactment of this Act to
become magistrates without meeting the residency requirement.
Subsection 5(c) makes the amendments of this section
effective on the date of enactment of this Act.
Section 6 outlines special rules for magistrates of the
Family Court. It requires certified social workers on the
Advisory Merit Selection Panel to assist in the hiring of
magistrates, establishes special qualifications for magistrates
in the Family Court, and provides magistrates for the Family
Court and Domestic Violence Unit with additional powers and
authorities. Magistrates will have expertise in family law, and
will be able to address the problems facing the children and
families of the District of Columbia. It requires the chief
judge, in consultation with the presiding judge of the Family
Court, to ensure that magistrates receive training. The
Committee strongly encourages that magistrates serving in the
Family Court or Domestic Violence Unit serve their entire terms
in the Family Court or Domestic Violence Unit to maximize case
continuity and advance the guiding principle of one family, one
judge.
Subsection 6(b) makes conforming amendments to the District
of Columbia Code.
Subsection 6(c) makes a clerical amendment to the table of
sections for subchapter II of chapter 17 of title 11 of the
District of Columbia Code.
Subsection 6(d) establishes an expedited initial
appointments process for appointing the first five magistrates
serving in the Family Court within 60 days of enactment. It
also sets forth the transition responsibilities of those first
five magistrates, which include working with the judges outside
the Family Court to whom child abuse and neglect cases are
currently assigned to help make case disposition or transfer
decisions.
Section 7 is a sense of the Congress that Maryland,
Virginia, and the District of Columbia should promptly enter
into a border agreement to facilitate the timely and safe
placement of children in District of Columbia welfare system in
foster and kinship homes and other facilities in Maryland and
Virginia.
Section 8 is a sense of the Congress that the chief judge
of the Superior Court and the presiding judges of the Family
Division take all steps necessary to encourage, support, and
improve the use of Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) in
family court actions or proceedings. CASAs play a unique and
important role in ensuring that children are protected andtheir
needs met.
Section 9 requires the chief judge and the presiding judge
of the Family Court, not later than 12 months after enactment
of the Act and in consultation with the General Services
Administration, to submit to Congress a feasibility study for
the construction of appropriate permanent courts and facilities
for the Family Court and an analysis of the success of the use
of magistrates under the expedited appointment procedures. The
feasibility study is intended to be the first step towards
establishing a permanent ``family-friendly'' environment for
those served by the Family Court. The Committee expects that,
upon completion, the study will be used to begin the process of
actual construction of space pursuant to established federal
property and procurement principles.
Section 10 authorizes appropriations of such sums as
necessary to the District of Columbia Courts and the District
of Columbia to carry out the amendments of the Act.
Section 11 makes the amendments of the Act effective upon
the appropriation of funds specifically designated by the
Federal law for the purposes of carrying out the Act.
V. Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, November 27, 2001.
Hon. Joseph L. Lieberman,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1382, the District
of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact are Matthew
Pickford and Lanette J. Walker (for federal costs), Susan Sieg
Tompkins (for the state and local impact), and Paige Piper/Bach
(for the private-sector impact).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
S. 1382--District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001
Summary: S. 1382 would redesignate the Family Division of
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia as a distinct
entity called the Family Court of the Superior Court. The bill
would require that all proceedings under the jurisdiction of
the Family Division be heard by that new entity. Under current
law, other divisions of the Superior Court regularly handle
proceedings of the Family Division when necessary. In addition,
the bill would authorize the appropriation of such sums as
necessary to the District of Columbia to implement the bill.
CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $92 million
over the 2002-2006 period, assuming appropriation of the
necessary amounts. Because the bill would not affect direct
spending or governmental receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures
would not apply.
S. 1382 contains intergovernmental mandates as defined in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) but CBO estimates that
the costs to comply with those requirements would not exceed
the threshold established in UMRA ($56 million in 2001,
adjusted annually for inflation). Further, S. 1382 would
authorize appropriations to carry out the provisions of the
bill, so the District of Columbia would face no net costs. The
act contains no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Major provisions: In addition to designating the Family
Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia as
the Family Court, S. 1382 would:
Require that representatives of social services
and other related services for individuals and families served
by the Family Court be available on-site at the location of the
Family Court;
Require ``one family, one judge'' for cases and
proceedings to the greatest extent practicable, feasible, and
lawful;
Designate the jurisdiction of the Family Court to
include divorces, child support, custody, adoptions, and
various other proceedings;
Establish certain requirements for judges who
would serve on the Family Court;
Direct the court to establish and operate an
electronic tracking system for cases and proceedings in the
Family Court and expand the system to cover all divisions of
the Superior Court;
Require that representatives from the departments
of the District government related to social and family
services be available on-site at the location of the Family
Court;
Authorize the Mayor of the District of Columbia to
appoint a liaison between the Family Court and the District
government;
Designate all hearing commissioners of the
Superior Court as magistrate judges with the full duties of
that position and establish certain requirements for magistrate
judges serving the Family Court; and
Authorize the appropriation of such sums as are
necessary to support the additional judges and staff authorized
under the bill.
Other provisions would require the court to develop a
master plan for the Family Court, and would require several
reports from the District of Columbia Courts.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: As shown in the
following table, CBO estimates that implementing S. 1382 would
cost $92 million over the 2002-2006 period, subject to
appropriation of the necessary amounts. The costs of this
legislation fall within budget function 800 (general
government).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of
dollars--
---------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in spending subject to appropriation
Judges and Support Staff:
Estimated Authorization 3 6 6 6 6
Level......................
Estimated Outlays........... 3 6 6 6 6
Integrated Justice Information
System:
Estimated Authorization 2 3 2 (\1\) (\1\)
Level......................
Estimated Outlays........... 2 3 2 (\1\) (\1\)
Capital Improvements and Rental
Costs:
Estimated Authorization 12 21 8 6 6
Level......................
Estimated Outlays........... 3 11 16 13 7
Computer Integration Plan:
Estimated Authorization 3 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
Level......................
Estimated Outlays........... 3 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
D.C. Services Representatives
and Liaison:
Estimated Authorization 1 1 1 1 1
Level......................
Estimated Outlays........... 1 1 1 1 1
Total Discretionary
Changes:
Estimated 21 31 17 13 13
Authorization Level..
Estimated Outlays..... 12 21 25 20 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S.
1382 will be enacted by the end of 2001 and that the amounts
necessary to implement the bill will be provided each year. All
spending would be subject to future appropriation actions.
Section 3 would require that most proceedings under the
jurisdiction of the Family Court be held in that court and that
all family law cases pending in other divisions of the Superior
Court (except for certain specific circumstances) be
transferred into the Family Court. The majority of family law
cases are neglect and abuse cases, and about 4,500 such cases
are currently pending. Of those cases, 3,600 are pending before
a judge outside the Family Division of the Superior Court. In
addition, about 1,500 new cases come before the courteach year.
Most of the estimated cost to implement this legislation would be
needed to fund the additional workload that would be imposed on the
Family Court and the capital costs of expanding work space to
accommodate additional judges and support staff. CBO estimates that
implementing S. 1382 would cost about $92 million over the 2002-2006
period. The components of the estimate are described below.
Additional Superior Court judges and support staff
S. 1382 would set requirements for judges that serve the
Family Court, including a minimum length of service. Under the
bill, judges currently serving on the court may choose to
transfer to the Family Court from all divisions of the Superior
Court. Assuming that all 12 of the current Family Division
judges choose to transfer, CBO expects that three additional
judges would be necessary to implement the bill. CBO estimates
that the salaries and benefits of the judges and judicial
support staff would cost about $1 million each year over the
five-year period.
The bill would designate all Superior Court hearing
commissioners as magistrate judges and would authorize the
court to appoint additional magistrate judges if needed. Based
on information from the District of Columbia Courts, CBO
expects that nine additional magistrates would be required to
implement the bill. Based on the historical ratio of magistrate
judges to support staff, CBO estimates that the additional
magistrate judges and staff would cost about $3.4 million each
year over the five-year period.
Section 4 would require cases and proceedings in the Family
Court to be resolved through alternative dispute resolution
procedures to the greatest extent practical. Based on
information from the court, CBO expects that the court would
request that about 1,500 new cases each year enter the
alternative dispute resolution process. Based on the operation
of the current alternative dispute resolution program, CBO
estimates that implementing this provision would cost about
$500,000 each year over the five-year period for stipends and
training for mediators and additional court support staff.
Section 4 also would require the Family Court to develop an
ongoing program to train judges and other staff in matters
related to family law, such as child development, family
dynamics, and risk factors for child abuse. Based on
information from the District of Columbia Courts, CBO estimates
that implementing this provision would cost about $50,000 in
2002 and $100,000 each year over the 2003-2006 period.
In addition, CBO estimates that security and office
supplies for the additional judges and staff would cost about
$500,000 each year over the five-year period.
Integrated Justice Information System
Section 4 would require the District of Columbia Courts to
establish and operate an electronic tracking and management
system for cases and proceedings in the Family Court and to
expand this system to all divisions of the Superior Court.
Based on information from the court, CBO estimates that the
complete system would cost $7 million. The court has received a
grant over $1 million for the system; therefore, CBO estimates
that an additional $6 million would be needed to complete the
system.
In addition, CBO estimates that additional support staff
would be necessary to administer the Integrated Justice
Information System and analyze the data for the various reports
required under the bill. CBO estimates that the new staff would
cost about $300,000 each year over the 2002-2006 period,
assuming the appropriation of the necessary amounts.
Capital improvements
Based on information from the District of Columbia Courts,
CBO expects that implementing the bill would require the court
to construct new courtrooms and upgrade electrical, plumbing,
and other systems within existing court buildings. In addition,
the District Courts expect to rent office space in commercial
buildings to accommodate the staff increases authorized by the
bill.
Based on information from the District of Columbia Courts,
CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost about
$25 million over the 2002-2006 period for construction and
renovation, and about $6 million per year for the rental of
office space. We estimate that capital improvements and rental
payments authorized by S. 1382 would cost about $2 million in
2002 and $52 million over the 2002-2006 period, subject to the
availability of appropriated funds.
Computer integration plan
S. 1382 would require the District government to submit to
the Congress a plan for integrating certain computer systems of
the District government not more than six months after the date
of enactment. Under the planned computer system, the Family
Court and the relevant social services agencies in the District
would be able to access and share information related to the
individuals and families they serve. Based on information from
the District government, CBO estimates that preparing this plan
would cost $3 million in 2002.
D.C. services representatives and liaison
S. 1382 would require that representatives from the
departments of the District government related to social and
family services be available on-site at the location of the
court. Based on information from the District government, CBO
expects that 10 representatives would be required to implement
this provision of the bill. The bill also would require the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to appoint a liaison between
the Family Court and the District government. CBO estimates
that the additional personnel would cost about $1 million each
year over the five-year period, assuming the appropriation of
the necessary amounts.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments:
S. 1382 would place new requirements on the Superior Court and
the Mayor of the District of Columbia as part of redesignating
the court's Family Division as Family Court. Among these
requirements, the Superior Court would be required to develop a
transition plan that would address appointment and
qualification of judges, case flow management, and disposition
of actions pending before the Family Division. The court also
would be required to prepare status reports, provide certain
training to judges serving on the Family Court, and update its
data management systems. The Mayor would be required to make
representatives of certain city agencies available to
individuals served by the court, and to develop a plan for
integrating certain city data systems with data systems of the
court.
Those requirements would be mandates under UMRA but CBO
estimates that the cost to comply would not exceed the
threshold established in the act ($56 million in 2001, adjusted
annually for inflation). The bill would authorize
appropriations to pay for the mandates, so the District of
Columbia would face no net costs as a result of the bill if
those appropriations are provided.
Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill contains
no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Previous CBO estimate: On September 12, 2001, CBO
transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 2657, the District of
Columbia Family Court Act of 2001, as approved by the
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, House Committee on
Government Reform on August 13, 2001. The provisions of S. 1382
would require a lesser workload for the Family Court, which
would lower staffing costs. In addition, because we are now
assuming a later enactment date, costs over the 2002-2006
period would be $7 million lower.
On November 27, 2001, CBO prepared a cost estimate for H.R.
2657, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs on November 14, 2001. S. 1382 and H.R.
2657 are identical, as are the estimated costs.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford and
Lanette J. Walker; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal
Governments: Susan Sieg Tompkins; Impact on the Private Sector:
Paige Piper/Bach.
Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact
Paragraph 11(b)(1) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate requires that each report accompanying a bill
evaluate the ``regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out this bill.'' According to the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO), S. 1382 contains intergovernmental mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). The Mayor
of the District of Columbia would be required to make
representatives of certain city agencies available to
individuals served by the court, and to develop a plan for
integrating certain city data systems with data systems of the
court. CBO estimates that the costs to comply with those
requirements would not exceed the threshold established in
UMRA. S. 1382 has no additional regulatory impact.
VII. Changes to Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic and existing law, in which no
change is proposed, is shown in roman):
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE
TITLE 11, ORGANIZATION AND JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS
Chapter 7. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
Sec. 11-721. Orders and judgments of the Superior Court
(a) The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has
jurisdiction of appeals from--
(1) all final orders and judgments of the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia;
* * * * * * *
(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.
* * * * * * *
Chapter 9. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
[Sec. 11-902. Organization of the court
[The Superior Court shall consist of the following
divisions: Civil Division, Criminal Division, Family Division,
Probate Division, and Tax Division. The divisions of the
Superior Court may be divided into such branches as the
Superior Court may by rule prescribe.]
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.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 11-906. Administration by chief judge; discharge of duties
(a) The chief judge shall administer and superintend the
business of the Superior Court, as provided in chapter 17 of
this title. The chief judge shall attend to the discharge of
the duties pertaining to the office of chief judge and perform
such additional judicial work as the chief judge is able to
perform.
(b) The chief judge shall, insofar as is consistent with
this title, arrange and divide the business of the Superior
Court and fix the time of sessions of the Family Court and the
various divisions and branches of the Superior Court.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I. CONTINUATION AND ORGANIZATION
Sec.
11-901. Continuation of courts; court record; seal.
11-902. Organization of the court.
* * * * * * *
11-908. Designation and assignment of judges
11-908A. Special Rules regarding assignment and service of judges of
Family Court.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 11-908. Designation and assignment of judges
(a) [The chief judge] Subject to section 11-908A, the chief
judge may designate the number of judges to serve in any
division and branch of the Superior Court and may assign and
reassign any judge to sit in any division or branch. When
making assignments to the Family Division and TaxDivision, the
chief judge shall consider the qualifications and interest of the
judges. Each associate judge shall attend and serve in the division and
branch to which assigned.
* * * * * * *
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) Exception.--If the chief judge determines that,
in order to carry out the intent and purposes of this
Act, 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, the chief judge may temporarily
reassign qualified judges from other divisions of the
Superior Court or qualified senior judges to serve on
the Family Court. Such reassigned judges shall not be
subject to the term of service requirements of this
Act.
(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;
(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.--
(A) Sitting judges.--An individual assigned
to serve as a judge of the Family Court of the
Superior Court who is serving as a judge in the
Superior Court on the date of enactment of the
District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001
shall serve in the Family Court for a term of
not fewer than 3 years as determined by the
chief judge of the Superior Court (including
any period of service on the Family Division of
the Superior Court immediately preceding the
date of enactment of such Act).
(B) New judges.--An individual assigned to
serve as a judge of the Family Court of the
Superior Court who is not serving as a judge in
the Superior Court on the date of enactment of
the District of Columbia Family Court Act of
2001 shall serve for a term of 5 years.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
Chapter 11. FAMILY DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Chapter 11. [Family Division] Family Court of the Superior Court.
* * * * * * *
Chap Sec.
1. General Provisions...................................11-101 to 11-102
3. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit.............................................11-301
* * * * * * *
11. [Family Division] Family Court of the District of Columbia...11-1101
* * * * * * *
Chapter 11. [Family Division] Family Court of the District of Columbia
Sec.
11-1101. Exclusive Jurisdiction.
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. 11-1101. Exclusive Jurisdiction
[The Family Division of the Superior Court shall be
assigned, in accordance with chapter 9, exclusive jurisdiction
of--
[(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 11 of title 21
relating to the commitment of the substantially
retarded; and
[(16) proceedings under Interstate Compact on
Juveniles (described in title IV of theDistrict of
Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970).]
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 11 of title 21
relating to the commitment of the substantially
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)(C).
(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
to whom the action or proceeding is assigned
for the duration of the action or proceeding to
the greatest extent practicable, feasible, and
lawful.
(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 18 months after
ceasing to serve if--
(i) the case remains at all times in
full compliance with section 103(a)(3)
of Public Law 105-89 (42 U.S.C.
675(E)), if applicable, and the case
has been assigned continuously to the
judge for 18 months or more and
the judge has a special knowledge of
the child's needs, such that reassignment
would be harmful to the child; and
(ii) the chief judge, in consultation
with the presiding judge of the Family
Court determines that such retention is
in the best interests of the parties.
(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.
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.
Chapter 17. ADMINISTRATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS
SUBCHAPTER I. COURT ADMINISTRATION.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II. COURT PERSONNEL.
Sec.
11-1721. Clerks of courts.
* * * * * * *
11-1732. [Hearing commissioners] Magistrate judges.
11-1732A. Special Rules for magistrate judges of the Family Court of the
Superior Court and the Domestic Violence Unit.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 11-1732. [Hearing commissioners] Magistrate Judges
(a) With the approval of a majority of the judges of the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia in active service
and subject to standards and procedures established by the
rules of the Superior Court, the chief judge of the Superior
Court may appoint [hearing commissioners] magistrate judges,
who shall serve in the Superior Court and perform the duties
enumerated in subsection (j) of this section (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)) and such other functions incidental to
these duties as are consistent with the rules of the Superior
Court and the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
the District of Columbia.
(b) [Hearing commissioners] magistrate judges shall be
selected pursuant to standards and procedures adopted by the
Board of Judges. Such procedures shall contain provisions for
public notice of all vacancies in [hearing commissioner]
magistrate judge positions and for the establishment by the
Court of an advisory merit selection panel, composed of lawyer
and nonlawyer residents of the District of Columbia who are not
employees of the District of Columbia Courts, to assist the
Board of Judges in identifying and recommending persons who are
best qualified to fill such positions.
(c) [No individual] Except as provided in section 11-
1732A(b), no individual shall be appointed as a [hearing
commissioner] magistrate judges unless that individual--
(1) is a citizen of the United States;
(2) is an active member of the unified District of
Columbia Bar and has been engaged in the active
practice of law in the District for the five years
immediately preceding the appointment or for such five
years 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; and
(3) is a bona fide resident of the District of
Columbia and has maintained an actual place of abode in
the District for at least ninety days immediately prior
to appointment, and retains such residency during
service as a [hearing commissioner] magistrate judge,
except that [hearing commissioners] magistrate judges
appointed prior to the effective date of this section
shall not be required to be residents of the District
to be eligible to be appointed to one of the initial
terms under this section or to be reappointed.
(d) [Hearing commissioners] magistrate judges shall be
appointed for terms of four years and may be reappointed for
terms of four years. Those individuals serving as [hearing
commissioners] magistrate judges on the effective date of this
Act shall be automatically appointed for a four year term.
(e) Upon the expiration of a [hearing commissioner's]
magistrate judge's term, the [hearing commissioner] magistrate
judge may continue to perform the duties of office until a
successor is appointed, or for 90 days after the date of the
expiration of the [hearing commissioner's term]magistrate
judges', whichever is earlier.
(f) No individual may serve as a [hearing commissioner]
magistrate judge under this section after having attained the
age of seventy-four.
(g) The Board of Judges may suspend, involuntarily retire,
or remove a [hearing commissioner] magistrate judge, during the
term for which the [hearing commissioner] magistrate judge is
appointed, only for incompetence, misconduct, neglect of duty,
or physical or mental disability. Suspension, involuntary
retirement, or removal requires the concurrence of a majority
of the judges in active service. Before any order of
suspension, involuntary retirement, or removal shall be
entered, a full specification of the charges and the
opportunity to be heard shall be furnished to the [hearing
commissioner] magistrate judge pursuant to procedures
established by rules of the Superior Court.
(h) If the Board of Judges determines that a [hearing
commissioner] magistrate judges position is not needed, the
Board of Judges may terminate the position.
(i) (1) [Hearing commissioners] Magistrate judges may not
engage in the practice of law, or in any other business,
occupation, or employment inconsistent with the expeditious,
proper, and impartial performance of their duties as officers
of the court.
(2) [Hearing commissioners] Magistrate judges shall abide
by the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
(j) A [hearing commissioner] Magistrate judge, when
specifically designated by the chief judge of the Superior
Court, and subject to the rules of the Superior Court and the
right of review under subsection (k), may perform the following
functions:
(1) Administer oaths and affirmations and take
acknowledgements;
(2) Determine conditions of release pursuant to the
provisions of title 23 of the District of Columbia Code
(relating to criminal procedure);
(3) Conduct preliminary examinations and initial
probation revocation hearings in all criminal cases to
determine if there is probable cause to believe that an
offense has been committed and that the accused
committed it;
(4) (A) In any case brought under Sec. 11-1101(1),
(3), (10), or (11) of the District of Columbia Code
involving the establishment or enforcement of child
support, or in any case seeking to modify an existing
child support order, where a [hearing commissioner]
magistrate judge in the Family Division of the Superior
Court finds that there is an existing duty of support,
the [hearing commissioner] magistrate judge shall
conduct a hearing on support, make findings, and enter
judgment as provided by law, and in accordance with
guidelines established by rule of the Superior Court,
which judgment shall constitute a final order of the
Superior Court.
(B) If in a case under paragraphs [paragraph] (A),
the [hearing commissioner] magistrate judge finds that
a duty of support exists and makes a finding that the
case involves complex issues requiring judicial
resolution, the [hearing commissioner] magistrate judge
shall establish a temporary support obligation and
refer unresolved issues to a judge of the Superior
Court.
(C) In cases under subparagraphs (A) and (B) in which
the [hearing commissioner] magistrate judge finds that
there is a duty of support and the individual owing
that duty has been served or given notice of the
proceeding under any applicable statute or court rule,
if that individual fails to appear or otherwise
respond, the [hearing commissioner] magistrate judge
shall enter a default order, which shall constitute a
final order of the Superior Court;
(5) Subject to the rules of the Superior Court and
with the consent of the parties involved, make findings
and enter final orders or judgments in other
uncontested or contested proceedings, in the Civil,
Criminal, and Family Divisions of the Superior Court,
excluding jury trials and trials of felony cases.
(k) With respect to proceedings and hearings under
paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) of [subsection (j),]
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), a review
of the [hearing commissioner's] magistrate judge's order or
judgment, in whole or in part, may be made by a judge of the
appropriate division (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) sua sponte and must be
made upon a motion of one of the parties made pursuant to
procedures established by rules of the Superior Court. The
reviewing judge shall conduct such proceedings as required by
the rules of the Superior Court. An appeal to the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals may be made only after a judge of the
Superior Court has reviewed the order or judgment.
(l) The Superior Court shall ensure that all [hearing
commissioners] magistrate judges receive training to enable
them to fulfill their responsibilities (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).
(m) (1) The chief judge of the Superior Court, in
consultation with the District of Columbia Bar, the City
Council of the District of Columbia, and other interested
parties, shall within one year of the effective date of this
section, make a careful study of conditions in the Superior
Court to determine--
(A) the number of appointments required to provide
for the effective administration of justice;
(B) the divisions in which hearing commissioners
shall serve;
(C) the appropriate functions of hearing
commissioners; and
(D) the compensation of, and other personnel matters
pertaining to, hearing commissioners.
Upon completion of the study, the chief judge shall report the
findings of such study to the appropriate committees of the
Congress.
(2) After the study required by paragraph (1), the chief
judge shall, from time to time, make such studies as the Board
of Judges shall deem expedient, giving consideration to
suggestions of the District of Columbia Bar and other
interested parties.
(n) With the concurrence of the District of Columbia Court
of Appeals, the Board of Judges of the Superior Court may
promulgate rules, not inconsistent with the terms of this
section, which are necessary for the fair and effective
utilization of [hearing commissioners] magistrate judges in the
Superior Court.
(o) For purposes of this section, the term ``Board of
Judges'' means the judges of the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia. Any action of the Board of Judges shall require a
majority voteof the sitting judges.
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 as a magistrate judge
for the Family Court of the Superior Court or assigned to
handle Family Court cases 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 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 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
presiding judge of the Family Court.
(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.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 16, PARTICULAR ACTIONS, PROCEEDINGS AND MATTERS
Chapter 9. DIVORCE, ANNULMENT, SEPARATION, SUPPORT, ETC.
Sec. 16-916.1. Child Support Guidelines
(a) In any case brought under paragraph (1), (3), (10), or
(11) of section 11-1101 that involves the establishment or
enforcement of child support, or in any case that seeks to
modify an existing child support order, if the judicial officer
finds that there is an existing duty of child support, the
judicial officer shall conduct a hearing on child support, make
a finding, and enter a judgment in accordance with the child
support guideline (``guideline'') established in this section.
* * * * * * *
(o) A child support order issued under this section or
section 5 of the District of Columbia Child Support Enforcement
Amendment Act of 1985, effective February 24, 1987 (D.C. Law 6-
166; D.C. Code, 30-504), shall be subject to modification by
application of the guideline subject to the following
conditions or limitations:
(1) A party to a child support proceeding shall
exchange relevant information on finances or dependents
every 3 years and shall be encouraged to update a child
support order voluntarily using the updated information
and the guideline. Relevant information is any
information that is used to compute child support
pursuant to the guideline.
* * * * * * *
(6) If a petition to modify a child support order
pursuant to this section is accompanied by an affidavit
that sets forth sufficient facts and guideline
calculations, and is accompanied by proof of service
upon the respondent, the [Family Division] Family Court
of the Superior Court may enter an order to modify the
child support order in accordance with the guideline
unless a party requests a hearing within 30 days of
service of the petition for modification. No order
shall be modified without a hearing if a hearing is
timely requested.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 16-924. Expedited judicial hearing
(a) In any case brought under D.C. Code, section 11-
1101(1), (3), (10), or (11), involving the establishment or
enforcement of child support, or in any case seeking to modify
an existing child support order, where a [hearing commissioner]
magistrate judge in the [Family Division] Family Court of the
Superior Court finds that there is an existing duty of support,
the [hearing commissioner] magistrate judge shall conduct a
hearing on support and, within 30 days from the conclusion of
the hearing, the [hearing commissioner] magistrate judge shall
issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law that
shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) The name and relationship of the parties;
(2) The name, age, and any exceptional information
about the child;
(3) The duty of support owed;
(4) The amount of monthly support payments;
(5) The annual earnings of the parents;
(6) The social security number of the parents;
(7) The name, address, and telephone number of each
parent's employer;
(8) The name, address, and telephone number of any
person, organization, corporation, or government entity
that holds real or personal assets of the obligor; and
(9) A statement that a responsible relative is bound
by this order to notify the Court within 10 days of any
change in address or employment.
(b) The alleged responsible relative may be represented by
counsel at any stage of the proceedings.
(c) If in a case under subsection (a) of this section the
[hearing commissioner] magistrate judge finds that the case
involves complex issues requiring judicial resolution, the
[hearing commissioner] magistrate judge shall establish a
temporary support obligation and refer unresolved issues to a
judge, except that the [hearing commissioner] magistrate judge
shall not establish a temporary support order if parentage is
at issue.
(d) In cases under subsections (a) and (c) of this section
in which the [hearing commissioner] magistrate judge finds that
there is a duty of support and the individual owing that duty
has been served or given notice of the proceedings under any
applicable statute or court rule, if that individual fails to
appear or otherwise respond, the [hearing commissioner]
magistrate judge shall enter a default order.
(e) Subject to subsection (f) of this section, the findings
of the [hearing commissioner] magistrate judge shall constitute
a final order of the Superior Court.
(f) A review of the [hearing commissioner's] magistrate
judge's findings in a case under subsections (a) and (c) of
this section may be made by a judge of the [Family Division]
Family Court sua sponte and shall be made upon the motion of 1
of the parties, which shall be filed within 30 days after the
judgment. An appeal to the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals may be made only after a hearing is held in the
Superior Court.
* * * * * * *
Chapter 23. FAMILY DIVISION PROCEEDINGS
SUBCHAPTER I. PROCEEDINGS REGARDING DELINQUENCY, NEGLECT, OR NEED OF
SUPERVISION
Sec.
16-2301. Definitions.
16-2301.1. References deemed to refer to Family Court of the Superior
Court.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 16-2301. Definitions
* * * * * * *
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.
VIII. Appendix
HISTORY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUPERIOR COURT
Introduction
The last major restructuring of the District of Columbia
court system occurred in 1970. As part of this reform effort,
the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia received
testimony and studies from a number of groups about how best to
proceed. One group, the Ad Hoc Committee on the Administration
of Justice, comprised of a group of attorneys and court
experts, prepared an extensive report on the history of the
District of Columbia court system.\50\ The following is a
summary of its findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Hearing Report, Committee on the District of Columbia and
Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Committee on
the Judiciary, United States Senate, 91st Congress, First Session, May
19-22, July 25-27, and August 7, 1969, pp. 562-587.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to 1970, the original jurisdiction over legal matters
in the District of Columbia was split among 3 separate courts:
the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions, the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, and the
Juvenile Court. At that time, the jurisdiction of these courts
in some cases overlapped and in other cases were fragmented.
This appeared to be a result of a long history of reforms in
the court system.
United States District Court
The history of the District of Columbia court system began
with the Organic Act of 1801 which established a Circuit Court
for the District of Columbia. The Circuit Court was given
jurisdiction over all federal and local cases, criminal and
civil, within the District of Columbia.\51\ The Organic Act
also established justices of the peace with jurisdiction over
all petty civil claims and petty criminal offenses.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Organic Act of 1801, 2 Stat. 103, ch. 15.
\52\ Organic Act of 1801, 2 Stat. 103, ch. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1802, Congress established a District Court for the
District of Columbia. The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was
vested in the newly established District Court; however the
decisions of the District Court were appealable to the Circuit
Court and the Circuit Court retained original jurisdiction over
local cases.\53\ Then in 1838, Congress established the
Criminal Court of the District of Columbia and gave it original
jurisdiction over criminal cases in the District of Columbia.
This left the District Court with appellate jurisdiction over
criminal cases and original jurisdiction over civil cases.\54\
In 1863, Congress created the Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia and transferred all of the jurisdiction of the Circuit
Court to this new Court. Even though the Criminal Court and the
District Court still existed, their powers were also
effectively transferred to the Supreme Court.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Hearing Report, Committee on the District of Columbia and
Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Committee on
the Judiciary, United States Senate, 91st Congress, First Session, May
19-22, July 25-27, and August 7, 1969 (``D.C. Courts Hearing Report''),
p. 566 (citing Act of April 29, 1802, ch. 31, sec. 24, 2 Stat. 166).
\54\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 566 (citing Act of July 7,
1838, ch. 192, 5 Stat. 306).
\55\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at pp. 566-67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1870, the Criminal Court was formally merged with the
Supreme Court but a new criminal court, the Police Court was
established. The Police Court was given jurisdiction over the
criminal offenses covered by the justices of the peace.\56\
This jurisdiction was very limited and included all offenses
against the United States not punishable by imprisonment and
all offenses against the laws of the District of Columbia.
Later, in 1891, the Police Court lost exclusive jurisdiction
over these offenses and the Supreme Court was given concurrent
jurisdiction with the Police Court.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 574 (citing Act of June 17,
1870, 16 Stat. 153).
\57\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 575 (citing Act of March 3,
1891, 26 Stat. 848).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This new Supreme Court, like the original Circuit Court in
1801, was given appellant and original jurisdiction over
federal and local actions. In 1936, the name of the Supreme
Court was changed to the District Court for the District of
Columbia and, in 1948, District of Columbia was recognized a
federal judicial district which resulted in the District Court
becoming the official federal court as we know it today.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 567.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
District of Columbia Court of General Sessions
Beginning in 1801, the jurisdiction of the justices of the
peace established by the Organic Act, increased. They heard
small civil claims and over time the amount of claims under
their jurisdiction increased and, in 1901, a Justices of the
Peace Court was officially established.\59\ In 1909, the
Justices of the Peace Court was reconstituted as the Municipal
Court and, in 1942, the Police Court merged with the Municipal
Court giving the Court limited jurisdiction over criminal
offenses. Over the years, the size of the civil claims over
which the court had jurisdiction increased and, in 1956, the
Municipal Court also received general jurisdiction over
domestic relations matters (formerly under the jurisdiction of
the District Court).\60\ In 1962, the Municipal Court was
renamed as the District of Columbia Court of General
Sessions.\61\ This Court, unlike the Circuit and then District
Court, had jurisdiction over small civil claims and petty
criminal cases in addition to domestic relations. The reason
for the gradual increase in jurisdiction was due, in part, to
alleviating the increasing caseload in the District Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 573 (citing Act of March 2,
1901, 31 Stat. 1189).
\60\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 575.
\61\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 575.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Juvenile Court
The Juvenile Court was an outgrowth of the Police Court and
was established in 1906. This Court was a legal recognition of
practices that had occurred in Police Court and in society at
the time namely that adult criminal sanctions for juveniles
were too harsh.\62\ The Juvenile Court was given exclusive
jurisdiction over all children under 18 years of age except the
court could waive jurisdiction to the United States District
Court if the child was over 16 or it was a capital offense. The
Juvenile Court also had jurisdiction over paternity and
contributing to the delinquency of a minor cases.\63\ In 1951,
it was given concurrent jurisdiction with the District Court
over desertion and criminal non-support cases.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 579 (citing Act of March 19,
1906, Ch. 960, 34 Stat. 73).
\63\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 580.
\64\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressional Review of Court System in 1960s
This process, which began in 1801, culminated in the courts
that existed prior to the last major restructuring of the
District of Columbia court system in 1970. The District Court
for the District of Columbia, although a federal court, still
maintained significant jurisdiction over local civil and
criminal cases. The District of Columbia Court of General
Sessions only had limited jurisdiction over the small civil
claims (formerly under the Justice of the Peace Court), minor
offenses (formerly under the Police Court), and domestic
relations (formerly under the District Court). The Juvenile
Court had jurisdiction over minors, paternity cases, desertion
and criminal non-support but shared jurisdiction over the
latter with the District Court.
In the late 1960s, several commissions were established to
review the status of the District of Columbia court system.
This was due in large part to a marked increase in crime and
the problem of backlog in the United States District Court due
to local cases. Among the Commissions established to review
this situation and make recommendations on reforming the court
system was the Ad hoc Committee on the Administration of
Justice. This committee was assigned the task of reviewing the
history of the District of Columbia court system.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 562.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Committee highlighted the problems with the Juvenile
Court at the time. They noted that one problem was that the
Juvenile Court was not confined to juveniles because it also
included adults in criminal non-support cases and paternity
cases. It also noted that family matter jurisdiction was
fragmented with the District Court having concurrent
jurisdiction over criminal non-support and children tried as
adults and with the Court of General Sessions having
jurisdiction over divorce, separation, annulment, adoption,
custody, civil support, and domestic violence. Further,
domestic relations cases within the Court of General Sessions
were not a division but only a branch of the civil division
within the Court.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 562.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the fragmentation of family matters in the court
system, in 1967, the President's Commission on Crime in the
District of Columbia recommended that a Family Court be
established to handle all family matters.\67\ The Committee on
the Administration of Justice recommended consolidating family
matters under one umbrella but not as a separate court. The
Committee recommended that the juvenile court be made a
division of the Court of General Sessions. The reasons
included: (1) it would be consistent with the historical trend
of developing a local court of general jurisdiction, (2) it
would reduce duplication of personnel and other activities, (3)
it would reduce scheduling conflicts for police, attorneys,
clients, and witnesses, and (4) it would increase the quality
of judges serving.\68\ Specifically, they noted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 581.
\68\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 581.
Having a larger pool of judges who could move in and
out of the Juvenile division and other parts of the
court would broaden a judge's judicial experience, keep
him abreast of general development of the law, and
ensure a higher quality of judiciary, because judges
who might refuse to specialize in a steady diet of one
aspect of the law would be willing to serve for shorter
periods of time.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 581.
The Committee also noted that, ``[t]he Juvenile Court has
been in trouble for many, many years, and is at the moment in
serious trouble. It lacks strength and cannot be adequately
managed since it is not a part of the central court system of
our city.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 583
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee further quoted Roscoe Pound, rejecting a
further splintering of the court system: ``Multiplicity of
courts is characteristic of archaic law.'' \71\ When
specifically describing the domestic relations branch of the
Court of General Sessions, the Committee noted that it had its
own list of judges, clerks, and is separately run from the
Court in general. The Committee criticized the then-current
system by stating that the chief judge ``has no power to rotate
judges in and out of the domestic relations branch'' and
recommended support for doing away with this restriction.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 582.
\72\ D.C. Courts Hearing Report at p. 582.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, to address what it regarded as the ``wasteful,
disfunctional institutionaldefects'' [sic] in the court system
at the time,\73\ Senate Committee on the District of Columbia issued
its own 893-page publication which consisted of the record of hearings
on court reorganization. Most of the problems the Committee highlighted
related to the crime increase and backlog as well as the effect of the
fragmentation of the courts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ ``Reorganizing the Courts of the District of Columbia, and for
Other Purposes'' (Report No. 91-405, Accompanying S. 2601), Committee
on the District of Columbia, September 16, 1969, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon years of review by various Commissions,
including the Committee on the Administration of Justice and
the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, Congress
passed the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal
Procedure Act of 1970. That Act created the District of
Columbia court system that exists today. The Act vests judicial
power over local legal matters in the District of Columbia
Superior Court and the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. The District of Columbia Superior Court became the
court of general jurisdiction and the District of Columbia
Court of Appeals was made the highest court of the District of
Columbia, whose decisions are appealable to the United States
Supreme Court.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Since then, the local District of Columbia court system
experienced other changes through the District of Columbia Self-
Government and Governmental Reorganization Act of 1973 (Home Rule Act),
P.L. 93-198, 97 Stat. 779, the District of Columbia Prosecutorial and
Judicial Efficiency Act of 1985, P.L. 99-573, and the National Capital
Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (1997
Revitalization Act), D.C. Code sec. 4-192 [recodified in 2001 as D.C.
Code sec. 5-133.17].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current court system
Through Congress' review of the court system in the 1960s,
the current process for the appointment of the judges was
developed. The District of Columbia Superior Court was
established as a court of general jurisdiction, with five
branches: family, civil, criminal, tax and probate. Currently,
the Superior Court is composed of 58 judges and one chief
judge. In addition to its five divisions, it recently
established a cross-jurisdictional domestic violence unit. In
an average year, the Court may dispose of upwards of 160,000
cases, with 14,000 in the family division alone.
Currently, Superior Court judges, who are appointed for a
total term of 15 years, fit the model recommended by the Ad Hoc
Committee on the Administration of Justice: they are
generalists who serve extendable one-year terms in the
different divisions of the Court, with assignments left to the
discretion of the chief judge. Each one of the 59 judges has
some of the current caseload of the approximately 4,500 abuse
and neglect cases on their dockets, even if they have never sat
on the family division bench.
The judges must go through a rigorous process unlike judges
in other local jurisdictions. They are thoroughly screened by
the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission, the
President (including investigations by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation), and the Senate. In addition, during their
tenure on the bench, they are continually monitored by the
Judicial Disabilities and Tenure Commission. This process was
carefully evaluated and recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on
the Administration of Justice and Congress when reorganizing
the Court in 1970.