FLAFCC NEWSLETTER APRIL 2004

Transcription

1 FLAFCC NEWSLETTER APRIL 2004 This is a "newsy" newsletter! No hard-core articles or theories that that will tax your overstressed mind. Just a little organizational gossip and (hopefully) useful and interesting information about what we are doing. If you see some part of what's discussed that you like, volunteer by contacting me, and we'll put you to work! First, a note about AFCC's annual conference in exciting San Antonio! This is shaping up as one of the most thrilling conferences ever. It's going to be supremely educational, with incomparable networking, fulfilling personal contacts, cutting-edge ideas and practices, and spectacular entertainment opportunities. Can you think of any other superlatives? Use them, it will be that good! Many of our Florida members will be presenters. You don't want to miss this conference! JOIN OTHER FLORIDIANS AT THE FABULOUS ANNUAL CONFERENCE. THERE IS STILL TIME TO MAKE YOUR RESERVATIONS!!!! AFCC 41 st ANNUAL CONFERENCE Best Interests Revisited: Challenging our Assumptions SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS MAY 12-15, 2004 SEE FOR MORE INFORMATION AND FULL CONFERENCE BROCHURE. Next, I'd like to introduce two new Board members: Judge Moses Baker, Jr., who is a Circuit Judge from Palm Beach county. He currently sits in Juvenile Dependency Court, and is attracted to FLAFCC because he wants to help children. He has earned the respect and admiration of the judiciary and attorneys in his Circuit because of his devotion to doing his job in a way that benefits the children and families that come before him. He also has had extensive experience in the legislative process in Florida, and we look forward to his assistance in helping us with legislative issues. Richard West, an Orange County family-law attorney, and currently the Chair of the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar. Richard is well known to family law practitioners, and was

2 a participant at a pre-conference institute at last year's FLAFCC annual conference, titled "neutral financial experts". We welcome both of these fine additions to our Board of Directors. Two new committees are being formed as a result of the January retreat held by the Board of Directors. One committee will address our desire to have more involvement in the juvenile dependency area. Initially, this committee will be composed of Marsha Freeman, a law school professor at Barry University in Orlando, Cynthia Schuler, also from Orlando and a District Director for the Department of Children and Families, and Judge Moses Baker, Jr., introduced above. This committee will explore how FLAFCC can be a "player" in the improvement of Florida's abuse and neglect system, whether it's by direct involvement in initiatives, or by convening other groups in a collaborative process. Certainly, a part of anything we do includes inter-disciplinary involvement. Any member of FLAFCC who is interested in this effort can contact me or one of the above committee members with ideas or offers to help. Another new committee will be headed by Dr. Greg Firestone, Psychology Professor at the University of South Florida in Tampa. This committee will address whether FLAFCC can achieve an expanded role in convening all groups involved in family law issues in an effort to find common ground and issues toward improving the family law system, and seeking more collaborative activities and relationships toward this goal. Too often, opportunities for correcting problems or creating innovations are lost because of a lack of contact and sustained relationships between the many groups involved in family law work. By being a "convener of groups", perhaps FLAFCC can create a better climate for statewide progress in interdisciplinary cooperation, better working relationships, and actual implementation of good ideas. Our parenting coordination legislation effort shows how much can be done with creative cooperation. Speaking of parenting coordination, and we are just chatting here, I'm pleased to report that the proposed statute has continued to survive and that our sponsors feel good about where we are in the legislative process. With about 10 days left in the session, we think our proposal has a fair chance of being enacted. Keep your fingers crossed! Work is progressing on our next annual conference, to be held at the Tampa Airport Marriott on November 12th and 13th. The committees for our annual conference, and for the proposed PC statute, meet regularly by conference call, usually at 8:00AM, for about an hour at a time. This does not include the substantial work the committee members do in between meetings. Dr. Deborah Day and Dr. Mercedes McGowan are the co-chairs of the conference committee, while Linda Fieldstone, Dr. Greg Firestone, and Dr. Deborah Carter have been the point persons on the legislative committee. Another of our proud achievements is the facilitating of a quarterly meeting of the Family Court Coordinators. We arrange for meeting space at the Florida Bar office in Tampa and invite the family court administrators from each of Florida's 20 judicial circuits. Subjects to be discussed are selected by the group at the previous meeting, and very valuable networking and sharing of information occurs. Our last meeting was on January 23rd, and I am enclosing the minutes of that meeting below. The discussions give an indication of the difficult funding and staffing issues the family courts face, as well as the need for collaboration and cooperation with other agencies. This is a particularly challenging scenario where large numbers of unrepresented parties are appearing in the courthouse needing attention and services.

3 MINUTES OF FAMILY COURT COORDINATOR S MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2004 Present: Tom Genung (17 th ), Bob Sterner (7 th ), Marisa Parra (16 th ), Pam McLeod (12 th ), Judy Cantwell (12 th ), Nancy Hanshaw (12 th ), Walt Smith, Court Administrator, (12 th ), Lynn Meehan (13 th ), Marty Merrill (13 th ), Audrey Egalton (20 th ), Lillian Caffrey (20 th ), Elizabeth Hall (20 th ), Mia Heiney (4 th ), Arlene Huszar (8 th ), Mark Juzwiak (8 th ), Karen Schiavone (18 th ), Karen Gatto (6 th ), Barbara Ceryak (3 rd ), Judge Hugh Starnes (20 th ). Office of State Court Administration staff Dacia Roberts, John Crouch, and Sandra Neidert participated by conference phone. The first subjects discussed were pro se and the role of the Clerk, and funding under Proposition 7. Walt Smith is a member of the Trial Court Budget Commission and initiated the discussion by reporting the recently released Governor s budget proposal would fully fund case management. The theory currently proposed is that the Clerk s role would be to handle the public role of dispensing forms and having contact with the public for this purpose. Theoretically, the Clerk would answer questions and assist in obtaining the right form. Case management by court staff would review files, schedule hearings, and handle similar activities for the court. The concept is that the Clerk would handle intake and the court case management. Since the Clerks are self-funded, fears were expressed that there would be incentive for them to do the minimum possible. Particularly, courts in the small counties fear that pro se s will lose what services exist, and there is so little help for them that this will be a devastating loss for the court system and the pro se family law customer. The new system is effective July 1, The group discussed the attitude of the Clerk in the various Circuits represented at the meeting; there was great diversity of commitment and desire on the part of Clerk to take on this intake service. In most Circuits, it appeared the Clerk was not particularly interested in having this duty, and most had done very little in planning. In a few Circuits, the Clerk has taken a real interest in the function and plans to provide a serious service. Some Clerks appear interested in contracting with Court Administration to provide the service. Many Clerks have asked the Court for information about the current status of pro se services furnished by the Court, numbers of consumers for the service, and expenses for furnishing it. Walt Smith observed that if we have a State court system, shouldn t these services be the same in all parts of the State? The group came up with the following definitions of function: Intake: Furnishing forms, assisting in choosing forms, maintaining a public counter, and meeting with the public. Case Management: Attending hearings, drafting orders, post-filing case review, reviewing cases for differential case management, setting cases for fearing, referrals to mediation or to a General Master, referrals to community based services, checking for related cases, as requested by the court, criminal records check, monitoring compliance with court orders, free notary service, checking timeliness of case events to keep the cases moving. Conclusions of the group: Most of the Clerks want to limit their duties to only furnishing forms. The Court already does a considerable amount of case management and could furnish more Authority should be granted to allow service fees to be collected by the local court for case management services where appropriate. This could be a method of overcoming the lack of funding for the great demand for case management services.

4 The services to help pro se litigants beyond merely making forms available could be funded in this manner if the Clerk chooses not to provide this as an intake service. This could apply to services such as workshops for assistance in completing forms. The fees should be on a sliding scale. The Court should collaborate with the Clerk at the County level on what services each will furnish to maximize effective and efficient assistance to the pro se consumer. Discussion with the Clerk s State Association on the same subject matter should occur. Consideration should be given to offering joint training with the Court staff and the Clerk s personnel at the local level covering what services the pro se consumer needs and desires and how to best provide those services. Also, this education could lead to collaboration for protocols for cross referrals between the Clerk and the Court services and how to create synergy between the two organizations in furnishing services. The Family Court Coordinator s group wishes to have this information passed on to OSCA and the Supreme Court for further consideration. The next subject discussed by the group was Unified Family Court and case flow management and case coordination. There was interest in which Circuits are combining all related cases before one judge and what their experience has been. Virtually every Circuit has some system of cross checking for related cases, and having either an assignment to one judge if appropriate or at least providing an opportunity for the judges to discuss how the cases should be handled and coordinated. Some Circuits have counties where one judge automatically handles all related cases because there is only one or very few judge. Sandy Neidert observed that even a one family - one judge assignment doesn t necessarily fulfill the objectives of a Unified Family Court; if there are no services and if the process is not less adversarial, then the goals of the unified family court are not necessarily achieved. As a sub-issue of this area, the group discussed DOR paternity/child support establishment and enforcement and the need to deal with requests for establishment of or enforcement of visitation. This arises because the agency bringing the action (DOR) does not handle issues of visitation or custody, while the implicit basis for the support award is that one party is established as having custody. Unfortunately, the orders do not normally make any express ruling on parenting: custody or visitation. We arrived at a consensus that the DOR paternity orders should contain an award of custody or primary residential care, and that some method should be in place for addressing contact with the respondent and the child. This could be done by referral to a mediator or General Master at a later date, by having on the spot mediation, or a referral to pro se services including some case management service to make certain the issue is appropriately addressed. One creative solution could be to have the Child Support Hearing Officer appointed as a General Master, so that if the parties agree, the Master can deal with the visitation issue at the support hearing, if necessary. On-site mediation has been very effective for solving this problem. On another related issue, the group wishes to relay to the Supreme Court that there is a need to streamline editing or changes to the forms. There is also a real need and demand for forms to deal with extended family requests for custody under chapter 751. The next meeting will be April 23 rd and will cover mediation, and length of stay in out of home care in dependency cases, and what the Court can do to reduce the length of stay. We will also hope to have reports on contacts at the local level with Clerks on the pro se issues.

5 That's it for this month, see you at San Antonio! Hugh Starnes, Editor