Unified Family Courts: An Interdisciplinary Framework and a Problem-Solving Approach

Babb, Barbara A.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7403-6_5

Barbara A. Babb³

2338 Accesses
2 Citations

Abstract

Traditional court systems are proving ill-equipped to handle the growing volume and complex scope of family law cases in contemporary American society. Family law matters impact every aspect of a person’s life; thus, having a court system that can holistically address such matters is vitally important.This chapter advocates that a unified family court is the most efficient problem-solving model to address the complex societal issues associated with family legal disputes. The blueprint advanced to design this court is rooted in a theoretical framework derived from the ecology of human development and therapeutic jurisprudential paradigms. This interdisciplinary framework urges family law decision-makers to consider and to aim to achieve outcomes that have positive consequences for families and children and that account for the various systems and connections that influence a family’s life. The chapter outlines a five-part blueprint to construct a unified family court and describes certain aspects of the current landscape of America’s family justice systems based upon the author’s national surveys conducted in 1998, 2002, and 2008. The unified family court blueprint consists of five parts, as follows: First, the court should have some type of specialized structure with judges who fully understand the legal and social issues facing family law litigants. The specialized court should be at the same level as a trial court of general jurisdiction, and the court should receive the same resources and support as the generalist courts. Second, the court should have comprehensive subject-matter jurisdiction over the full range of family law matters. Third, the court must have an efficient case management and case processing system with a one judge/one case or one judge/one team approach. Fourth, the court must offer an array of services, including alternative dispute resolution and other court-connected social services that accommodate the needs of the family. Finally, the unified family court should be user-friendly and accessible by all litigants, including the large proportion of self-represented family law litigants. The author advocates that through the problem-solving court template and the author’s blueprint for a unified family court, decision-makers can better serve the families and children who desperately need and deserve the help from the justice system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 149.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Judith S. Kaye, Delivering Justice Today: A Problem-Solving Approach, 22 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 125, 147 (2004).
2.
Family law matters are defined to include divorce, annulment, and property distribution; child custody and visitation; alimony and child support; paternity, adoption, and termination of parental rights; juvenile cases (juvenile delinquency, child abuse, and child neglect); domestic violence; criminal nonsupport; name change; guardianship of minors and disabled persons; and withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining medical procedures, involuntary admissions, and emergency evaluations. See, e.g., Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §§ 921–925, 927–928 (West 2010).
3.
2008–2009 Statistical Digest, MD Courts.Gov, http://mdcourts.gov/publications/annualreport/reports/20082009/statisticaldigest.pdf (last visited August 18, 2010); see also Annual Statistical Report 2009, Courts.Alaska.Gov, http://www.courts.alaska.gov/reports/annualrep-fy08.pdf (last visited August 18, 2010) (51 %); 2009 New Case Filings and Reopened Cases, Courts.MT.Gov, http://courts.mt.gov/content/dcourt/stats/2009/case_filings.pdfwebsite (last visited September 2, 2010) (49 %).
4.
Barbara A. Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law: A Blueprint to Construct a Unified Family Court, 71 S. Cal. L. Rev. 469, 472–473 (1998) [hereinafter Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law].
5.
Barbara A. Babb, An Interdisciplinary Approach to Family Law Jurisprudence: Application of an Ecological and Therapeutic Perspective, 72 Ind. L.J. 775, 777–780 (1997) [hereinafter Babb, An Interdisciplinary Approach to Family Law Jurisprudence].
6.
Id. at 777.
7.
Paul A. Williams, A Unified Family Court for Missouri, 63 UMKC L. Rev. 383, 383–384 (1994) (citation omitted) (quoting Ann L. Milne, Family Law From a Family System Perspective—The Binary Equation, 21 Pac. L.J. 933, 934 (1990) (detailing Missouri’s legislative efforts to create a unified family court).
8.
See Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law, supra note 4, at 477 (proposing a model structure to create a unified family court based on an ecological and therapeutic approach to family law adjudication); Barbara A. Babb, Reevaluating Where We Stand: A Comprehensive Survey of America’s Family Justice Systems, 46 Fam. Ct. Rev. 230 (2008) [hereinafter Babb, Reevaluating Where We Stand] (updating the surveys conducted in Barbara A. Babb, Where We Stand: An Analysis of America’s Family Law Adjudicatory Systems and the Mandate to Establish Unified Family Courts, 32 Fam. L.Q. 31, 34 (1998) [hereinafter Babb, Where We Stand] (presenting a comprehensive overview of a nationwide survey determining how each state’s courts handle family law matters, illustrating the inconsistency in how America’s courts process family law cases, and suggesting that states consider implementing unified family courts); see generally Babb, An Interdisciplinary Approach to Family Law Jurisprudence, supra note 5 (detailing changes in the structure and function of the American family in the past few decades and proposing a paradigm for family law jurisprudence that utilizes an ecological and therapeutic perspective to family law decision making). For further literature, see Developments in the Law—The Law of Family and Marriage, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 2099, 2099–2122 (2003); Richard Bolt & Jana Singer, Juristocracy in the Trenches: Problem-Solving Judges and Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Drug Treatment Courts and Unified Family Courts, 65 Md. L. Rev. 82 (2006) (examining the developments in the unified family court and drug treatment court systems); James W. Bozzomo & Andrew Schepard, Efficiency, Therapeutic Justice, Mediation and Evaluation: Reflections on a Survey of Unified Family Courts, 37 Fam. L.Q. 333 (2003) (detailing the progression of unified family courts in the 21st century); Deborah J. Chase, Pro Se Justice and Unified Family Courts, 37 Fam. L.Q. 403 (2003) (discussing how the complexity of domestic issues and the increase in pro se litigants has pushed courts toward a unified family system); Jane C. Murphy, Revitalizing the Adversary System in Family Law, 78 U. Cin. L. Rev. 891 (2010) (discussing unified family courts’ ability to resolve family conflicts through therapeutic and adversarial approaches); Jane M. Spinak, Adding Value to Families: The Potential of Model Family Courts, 2002 Wis. L. Rev. 331 (2002) (reviewing New York and other states’ family court systems through different perspectives).
9.
Williams, supra note 7, at 384.
10.
Symposium, American Bar Association Policy on Unified Family Courts, 32 Fam. L.Q. 1 (1998); Resolution Regarding the Unified Model Court Concept Paper of the NCJFCJ Cross-Over Committee, NCJFCJ.org, http://www.ncjfcj.org/images/stories/dept/resolutions/cross-over.comm.resolution.pdf (last visited August 18, 2010).
11.
Babb, Reevaluating Where We Stand, supra note 8, at 231; Barbara A. Babb, Where We Stand Redux: Another Look at America’s Family Law Adjudicatory Systems, 35 Fam. L.Q. 627 (2002) [hereinafter Babb, Where Stand Redux]; Babb, Where We Stand, supra note 8, at 39–40; Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law, supra note 4, at 483–485.
12.
Greg Berman & John Feinblatt, Good Courts: The Case for Problem Solving Justice 42 (2005).
13.
Id. at 9.
14.
Id. at 7.
15.
Id. at 8.
16.
Id. at 5.
17.
Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law, supra note 4, at 471; see also Steven H. Hobbs, In Search of Family Value: Constructing a Framework for Jurisprudence Discourse, 75 Marq. L. Rev. 529, 530 (1992). Hobbs describes the character of family law jurisprudence:

Each case is the real-life drama of a family working out what is valuable and important to it, while at the same time remaining within the bounds of the law. When our lives interact with the law, a discourse arises about who we are, what our hopes and dreams are for our family, how we form companionate relationships, and how we view raising children.

Id.
18.
See generally Bruce J. Winick et al., Judging in a Therapeutic Key: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Courts (2003); Dennis P. Stolle et al., Practicing Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Law as a Helping Profession (2000); Law in a Therapeutic Key: Developments in Therapeutic Jurisprudence (David B. Wexler & Bruce J. Winick eds., 1997); Bruce J. Winick, The Jurisprudence of Therapeutic Jurisprudence, in Law in a Therapeutic Key: Developments in Therapeutic Jurisprudence 645 (David B. Wexler & Bruce J. Winick eds., 1997) [hereinafter Winick, The Jurisprudence of Therapeutic Jurisprudence]; David B. Wexler et al., Essays in Therapeutic Jurisprudence (1991); David B. Wexler et al., Therapeutic Jurisprudence: the law as a Therapeutic Agent (1990); International Network on Therapeutic Jurisprudence, http://www.law.arizona.edu/depts/upr-intj/ (last visited August 19, 2010).
19.
See generally Urie Bronfenbrenner, The Ecology of Human Development (1979).
20.
David B. Wexler, Putting Mental Health Into Mental Health Law: Therapeutic Jurisprudence, in Essays in Therapeutic Jurisprudence 3, 8 (David B. Wexler & Bruce J. Winick eds., 1991) (citation omitted).
21.
Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law, supra note 4; Babb, An Interdisciplinary Approach to Family Law Jurisprudence, supra note 5.
22.
See Winick, The Jurisprudence of Therapeutic Jurisprudence, supra note 18, at 653.
23.
David B. Wexler, Reflections on the Scope of Therapeutic Jurisprudence, in Law in a Therapeutic Key: Developments in Therapeutic Jurisprudence 811–12 (David B. Wexler & Bruce J. Winick eds., 1997) [hereinafter Wexler, Reflections on the Scope of Therapeutic Jurisprudence] (citations omitted).
24.
Christopher Slobogin, Therapeutic Jurisprudence Five Dilemmas to Ponder, 1 Psychol. Pub. Pol’y & L. 193, 196 (1995). But see Wexler, Reflections on the Scope of Therapeutic Jurisprudence, supra note 23, at 827 (“[R]esearch into the therapeutic or antitherapeutic consequences of various arrangements applying or administering existing law has not received very much attention. This is … a most promising avenue of microanalytic therapeutic jurisprudence.”).
25.
Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law, supra note 4, at 509–514; Babb, An Interdisciplinary Approach to Family Law Jurisprudence, supra note 5, at 798–801.
26.
See Winick, The Jurisprudence of Therapeutic Jurisprudence, supra note 18, at 655.
27.
Babb, An Interdisciplinary Approach to Family Law Jurisprudence, supra note 5, at 800.
28.
Winick, The Jurisprudence of Therapeutic Jurisprudence, supra note 18, at 714; David B. Wexler & Bruce J. Winick, Patients, Professionals, and the Path of Therapeutic Jurisprudence: A Response to Petrila, in Law in a Therapeutic Key: Developments in Therapeutic Jurisprudence 707, 708 (David B. Wexler & Bruce J. Winick eds., 1997) (citation omitted).
29.
See Lynne M. Kenney & Diane Vigil, A Lawyer’s Guide to Therapeutic Interventions in Domestic Relations Court, 28 Ariz. St. L.J. 629, 635–38 (1996).
30.
Babb, An Interdisciplinary Approach to Family Law Jurisprudence, supra note 5, at 802.
31.
Id. at 805 & n.187.
32.
Randall M. Kessler, Unified Family Court: A Practitioner’s Perspective on Unified Family Courts: Case Studies, 46 Fam. Ct. Rev. 279–281 (2008).
33.
Id. at 281.
34.
Andrew Schepard, Editorial Note: Special Issues on Unified Family Courts: “The White Flame of Progress,” 46 Fam. Ct. Rev. 217–222 (2008).
35.
Id. at 218.
36.
Claudia Wright, Representation of Children in a Unified Family Court System in Florida, 14 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 179–192 (2003).
37.
See generally Bronfenbrenner, supra note 19.
38.
Gary B. Melton, Child Advocacy: Psychological Issues and Interventions 64 (1983); see also Gary B. Melton et al., Community Mental Health Centers and the Courts: An Evaluation of Community-Based Forensic Services (1985). This book offers a comprehensive examination of the relationship between the mental health professions and the legal system, with suggestions for strengthening that relationship.
39.
James Garbarino & Robert H. Abramowitz, Sociocultural Risk and Opportunity, in Children and Families in the Social Environment 35 (James Garbarino et al. eds., 2d ed. 1992). Application of an ecological perspective may present challenges:

It would be easy to cast aside the many interconnections and pretend that there is just the developing child, or just the family as a social unit, or just the community power structure, or just the professional delivering human services. It would be easy, but we believe it would not be enough. Rather, we seek to capture the whole tangled mass of relationships connecting child, family, and social environment.

James Garbarino & Mario T. Gaboury, An Introduction, in Children and Families in the Social Environment 1 (James Garbarino et al. eds., 2d ed. 1992) [hereinafter Garbarino, An Introduction] (emphasis in original).
40.
Garbarino, An Introduction, supra note 34, at 3.
41.
Bronfenbrenner, supra note 19, at 7, 22.
42.
Id. at 3.
43.
Id. at 7, 22.
44.
Id. at 7–8, 25.
45.
Id.
46.
James Garbarino & Robert H. Abramowitz, The Ecology of Human Development, in Children and Families in the Social Environment 11, 27 (James Garbarino ed., 2d ed. 1992) [hereinafter Garbarino, The Ecology of Human Development].
47.
American Families: Trends and Pressures, 1973: Hearings on Examination of the Influence that Governmental Policies Have on American Families Before the Subcomm. on Children and Youth of the Senate Comm. on Labor and Public Welfare, 93rd Cong. 31962, 31964–65 (1973) [hereinafter Hearings] (statement of Urie Bronfenbrenner, Professor of Human Development and Family Studies and Psychology, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University).
48.
Garbarino, An Introduction, supra note 34, at 9–10; Garbarino, The Ecology of Human Development, supra note 41, at 29–30. The following illustrates the need for a life-course perspective:

Since most data are a cross-sectional snapshot of families, families are assumed to be static. A more realistic (though much more difficult) approach is to recognize and analyze the fluidity, change, and transitions as individuals live in a variety of family patterns. There are periods in the life cycle when an individual family may be one in which the father works and the mother stays home with the children. This stage is relatively short-lived when the total family life course is analyzed. There are periods, also, when women (and men) find themselves raising a family without a spouse present, but again, for many this is a transition period. None of these types or stages, however, should be viewed as the dominant or “ideal” family type. No one family type is superior to another or to be favored over others. Effective policies and services should be sensitive to the needs and stresses of certain types of families and recognize that some families are at greater risk (statistically) than others.

Robert M. Maroney, Families, Social Services, and Social Policy: The Issue of Shared Responsibility 50 (1980).
49.
Garbarino, The Ecology of Human Development, supra note 41, at 19.
50.
Id. at 28.
51.
Bronfenbrenner, supra note 19, at 214; Hearings, supra note 41, at 157 (statement of Urie Bronfenbrenner).
52.
Babb, An Interdisciplinary Approach to Family Law Jurisprudence, supra note 5, at 803.
53.
Barbara A. Babb & Judith D. Moran, Substance Abuse, Families, and Unified Family Courts: The Creation of a Caring Justice System, 3 J. Health Pol’y & L. 1, 25–33 (1999) [hereinafter Babb & Moran, Substance Abuse, Families, and Unified Family Courts].
54.
Id.
55.
See Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law, supra note 4.
56.
Id.
57.
See Roscoe Pound, The Place of the Family Court in the Judicial System, 5 Nat’l Probation & Parole Ass’n J. 161 (1959).
58.
See Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law, supra note 4; Babb, Where We Stand, supra note 8.
59.
See Babb, Where Stand Redux, supra note 11.
60.
See Babb, Reevaluating Where We Stand, supra note 8. These surveys involved a written survey, telephone interviews, and e-mail exchanges with court personnel in all the states including D.C. The goal was to develop an understanding of each state’s system and the way each state defined family law matters and understanding the way the cases are assigned and handled in each state.
61.
Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law, supra note 4, at 514.
62.
Lindsay G. Arthur, A Family Court–Why Not? 51 Minn. L. Rev. 226 (1966) (citation omitted) (advocating, in an early article, consolidation of family law litigation and court treatment of the entire family problem).
63.
Babb, Reevaluating Where We Stand, supra note 8, at 232 (nearly 75 % of states have some form of family court).
64.
Id. The thirteen state include: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming are without a family court. Id. at 240 app. a.
65.
Id. at 231; Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law, supra note 4, at 516.
66.
Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law, supra note 4, at 514–15.
67.
Id. at 515 (footnote omitted).
68.
Babb, Reevaluating Where We Stand, supra note 8, at 234, 249 app. c.
69.
Id.
70.
Sanford N. Katz & Jeffrey A. Kuhn, Recommendations for a Model Family Court 4–5 (1991). But see H. Ted Rubin & Victor Eugene Flango, Court Coordination of Family Cases 77 (1992) (estimating the minimum length of judicial assignment to a family court should be 12 months).
71.
See supra note 2 (defining comprehensive family law subject matter jurisdiction).
72.
Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law, supra note 4, at 518 (footnote omitted); see, e.g., Md. Code Ann., Md. Rule § 16–204 (West 2010).
73.
See Katz & Kuhn, supra note 60. The authors discuss the arguments for and against including criminal jurisdiction over intrafamilial matters as part of the family court:

[w]hile proponents for inclusion of this jurisdiction in family court argued that such a system promotes coordinated delivery of services to the family and discourages multiple interviewing of victims, as well as fragmented delivery, those arguing against such jurisdiction cited possible due process violations and community pressure for a more punitive stance toward offenders as rendering such jurisdiction inappropriate for the family court.

Id. at 8–9. See also Linda Szymanski, Theresa Homisak & E. Hunter Hurst, III, Policy Alternatives and Current Court Practice in the Special Problem Areas of Jurisdiction Over the Family 8–9 (1993). The authors suggest additional arguments against including criminal jurisdiction in the family court:

[i]nclusion of criminal jurisdiction within the family court can present a host of problems… First, there is a philosophical divergence between juvenile court and criminal court. Juvenile court’s intervention is justified on the basis of protecting the child and is not intended as punishment but as remediation. Criminal proceedings seek to punish offenders without regard to family interests. Adult criminal proceedings require the availability of jury trial with the increased administrative burden on the restructured court system, unless the criminal jurisdiction is limited to misdemeanors.

Id. (citation omitted).
74.
Kaye, supra note 1, 143.
75.
Id.
76.
Id.
77.
Babb, Reevaluating Where We Stand, supra note 8, at 233, 245 app. b. (Arizona, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin all assign their family courts comprehensive subject-matter jurisdiction).
78.
Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law, supra note 4, at 519–520.
79.
Id. at 520 (footnotes omitted).
80.
Id. at 520–21 (footnote omitted).
81.
**Spinak at 359 (see footnote 8?)
82.
Robert F. Peckham, A Judicial Response to the Cost of Litigation: Case Management, Two-Stage Discovery Planning and Alternative Dispute Resolution, 37 Rutgers L. Rev. 253, 257 (1985); Babb, Reevaluating Where We Stand, supra note 8, at 253 app. d.
83.
Babb, Reevaluating Where We Stand, supra note 8, at 253 app. d n.3.
84.
Ann H. Geraghty & Wallace J. Mllyniec, Tempering Enthusiasm with Caution, 40 Fam. Ct. Rev. 435, 439 (2002).
85.
Babb, Reevaluating Where We Stand, supra note 8, at 231.
86.
Babb, Reevaluating Where We Stand, supra note 8, at 234, 253 app. d. See supra note 56 for the list of jurisdictions that do not have a family court. The 12 jurisdictions that apply the one judge–one family case assignment method include: District of Columbia, Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin. Id.
87.
Id. The jurisdictions that use the one judge–one case assignment method include: Alabama, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and West Virginia. Id.
88.
Id. These jurisdictions include: California, Connecticut, South Carolina, and Vermont. Id.
89.
The traditional calendar method is defined as the standard procedure utilized by the clerk of court to assign all civil matters to the respective judges on a daily, weekly, monthly, or other regularly scheduled basis. Id. at 253 app. d n. 1.
90.
Id. at 234. These jurisdictions include: Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. Id.
91.
Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law, supra note 4, at 521–22.
92.
Id. at 521.
93.
Id. at 522.
94.
Id. at 523 (footnote omitted).
95.
Stephen Cribari, Therapeutic Power and Judicial Authority, Unified Fam. Chron., Spring 1999, at 1.
96.
Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law, supra note 4, at 522 (footnotes omitted).
97.
Under Md. Code Ann., Md. Rule § 16–204(a)(3) (West 2010), the following services must be available through the family division: “mediation in custody and visitation matters, custody investigations, trained personnel to respond to emergencies, mental health evaluations and evaluations for alcohol and drug abuse, information services, including procedural assistance to pro se litigants, information regarding lawyer referral services, parenting seminars, and any additional family support services for which funding is provided.” Id. The Family Division of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City offers the following programs: substance abuse services, supervised visitation program, medical services office, neutral drop-off, family mediation service, Domestic Violence Ex Parte Project, Protective Order Advocacy and Representation Project, Assisted Pro Se Litigation Project, parenting seminars, Children’s Group, and the Volunteer Attorney Settlement Panel. Babb & Moran, Substance Abuse, Families, and Unified Family Courts, supra note 53.
98.
Md. Code Ann., Md. Rule § 16–204(a)(3)(C) (West 2010) (every jurisdiction must possess a Family Services Coordinator and follow specific designated tasks); A.B.A. Presidential Working Group on the Unmet Legal Needs of Children and Their Families, America’s Children at Risk: A National Agenda for Legal Action 54 (1993).
99.
Babb & Moran, Substance Abuse, Families, and Unified Family Courts, supra note 53, at 25–32; see also Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law, supra 4, at 523 n. 293.
100.
Rubin & Flango, supra note 60, at 9.
101.
Berman & Feinblatt, supra note 12, at 24 (The National Center for State Courts reported that the largest increases in case filing from 1984–1998 were in areas of domestic relations, which grew by 75 %, and juvenile cases, which grew by 73 %).
102.
See Murphy, supra note 8.
103.
Letters: Family Court must be in a Center City location, The Philadelphia Inquirer, http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/99215824.html (last visited August 21, 2010).
104.
See Katz & Kuhn, supra note 60; see also Laura Duncan, Courthouse Day Care Programs Increasing, A.B.A. J., Oct. 1995, at 22–23 (describing some features of the more than 30 child care centers within American courthouses and noting that California, Massachusetts, and New York have legislatively appropriated funding to construct these centers).
105.
See Stephen P. Johnson, Just Solutions: Seeking Innovation and Change in the American Justice System 234 (1994).
106.
Id. at 29. See also Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, The 21st Century Clerk’s Office: A Blueprint for Change 5 (2001), http://www.cookcountyclerkofcourt.org/gifs/transitionreportfinal.pdf; Task Force on Pro Se & Indigent Litigants, Reports and Recommendations of the Supreme Court of Ohio 18 (2006), http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Publications/prose/report_april06.pdf.
107.
Department of Family Administration, 2006 Annual Report 31 (2006), http://mdcourts.gov/family/pdfs/annualreports/annualreport06.pdf.
108.
Committee on the Standard Family Court Act of the National Probation and Parole Association, Standard Family Court Act—Text and Commentary, 5 Nat’l Probation & Parole Ass’n J. 99, 106 (1959).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Center for Families, Children and the Courts, University of Baltimore School of Law, 1420 N. Charles St., 21201, Baltimore, MD, USA
Assoc. Prof. Barbara A. Babb

Authors

Assoc. Prof. Barbara A. Babb
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara A. Babb .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

, Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Burnett Hall 338, Lincoln, 68588-9296, Nebraska, USA
Richard L. Wiener
, Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Burnett Hall 339, Lincoln, 68588-0308, Nebraska, USA
Eve M. Brank

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Babb, B. (2013). Unified Family Courts: An Interdisciplinary Framework and a Problem-Solving Approach. In: Wiener, R., Brank, E. (eds) Problem Solving Courts. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7403-6_5

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7403-6_5
Published: 11 July 2013
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7402-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7403-6
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics