New Hampshire Citizens Commission on State Courts Draft Recommendations for Consideration March 13, March 20 Recommendation #12 Research Committee: Family Court Recommendation: Support for Pro Se Litigants in Family Division Cases That the Family Division make available to pro se litigants critical information about the court process, the availability of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and the impact of family conflict on children as early in the process of a family case as possible in order to improve the efficiency and reduce the adversarial nature of the process. Procedures to provide this information and support should include access to case managers by all pro se litigants, the requirement of early attendance at Child Impact Seminars, and the expanded use of technology to provide information about the court process, including ADR, at the outset of the case. Rationale: For many pro se litigants in family cases, that case is their first contact with the court system. It is in the interest of all that this first contact be respectful and reassuring. Pro se litigants benefit from early access to knowledge and information about court conduct, rules and procedures; all available methods of handling disputes; and the effect that parental disputes has on their families. Basic information on these topics can be readily available to these litigants through the use of case managers. Case managers are trained court personnel who meet with pro se litigants as soon as possible after the case is filed to: (a) ensure that litigants understand the court process, accurately complete court forms, and are prepared for hearings; (b) foster communication between the pro se individual and counsel representing the other litigant; (c) assist the pro se litigant in the preparation of financial information in order to use the court’s time most efficiently; and (d) direct the litigants to ADR or other services. Currently there are only five case managers in the Family Division. As the Family Division expands state – wide, the number of case managers should be increased to ensure their ready availability to all pro se litigants. In addition to the human face of the case manager as a resource for pro se family litigants, much of the basic information about court process and services could be made available economically and efficiently through websites and other technologies, including DVDs or CDs . Each Family Division court site should have a computer station available to the public to provide access to the court website for information and forms. The Child Impact Seminar is now required for all family litigants with children. However, currently litigants can postpone attendance until the court process is complete, which is often much too late. The value of the Seminar would be maximized if litigants were required to complete it at the very beginning of the case. Required early attendance should help reduce the occurrence of common high – conflict parental behavior that is profoundly damaging to children. Recommendation #13 Research Committee: Family Court Recommendation: Expanded and Creative Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Family Division Cases The Committee recommends that the Family Division actively and creatively research and experiment with all reasonable forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in family related cases to expand the availability and use of ADR in Family Division Cases. Rationale: According to the NH Supreme Court Task Force on Self Representation, more that 70% of marital cases involve at least one self represented party. The balance of cases within the jurisdiction of the family division involve an equally high or higher percentage of self represented parties. Each of the major reports issued by various legislative and court committees has recommended the increased use of ADR in family related cases. The Family Court Committee is strongly supportive of the goal to decrease the adversarial nature of family cases. Sensitive issues related to the well being of children cannot be best resolved in an atmosphere of hostility. The committee also feels strongly that the use of ADR should not begin and end with traditionally accepted forms such as mediation and neutral case evaluation. While these are critically important and should be expanded to all cases, not just those involving children, the Committee urges the Family Division to be creative in its search to offer a non-adversarial process in which families find all of the tools necessary to resolve their disputes by agreement rather than by court order. Such initiatives as the First Appearance, use of Parenting Coordinators, and the availability of Child Impact Programs at court locations during the same days that divorcing parents are already scheduled for hearings reflect the types of creative thought and experimentation that we believe need to continue as a priority of the judicial branch. While the Committee is aware of the Supreme Court’s efforts to advance ADR at all court levels, it urges the Court to place a special emphasis on the Family Division. ADR holds the greatest potential for positive change in the current family law process. Recommendation #14 Research Committee: Family Court Recommendation: Use and Oversight of Guardians ad Litem in the Family Division It is recommended that the court critically review its use of Guardians ad Litem in family cases in light of the state – wide expansion of the Family Division and its increased use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). It is further recommended that the training and supervision of guardians ad litem in family cases and the oversight of the quality and cost of these services be improved. Rationale: With the state- wide expansion of the Family Division and its emphasis on one case/one judge and the emphasis on the increased and creative use of ADR, it is crucial that the court critically examine how, when, and why the court appoints guardians ad litem in family cases. The complex issues of how to address concerns about the role, cost, training, supervision and discipline of guardians ad litem have been examined by a number of legislative, judicial and other public entities in the last ten years. It was beyond the scope of the work of this research committee to make definitive recommendations about possible solutions to these issues. However, because of the apparent public concerns with aspects of the current system, it is recommended that the Commission place this topic on a list of concerns that require further review and examination. Possible strategies to address concerns about guardians ad litem in family cases include, but are not limited to: • Require that all guardians ad litem be certified according to a set of best practice standards. • Expand the regulatory authority and funding for the Guardian ad Litem Board. • Development of a variant of a public defender/contract attorney model to provide guardian ad litem services in family cases. Recommendation #15 Research Committee: Family Court Recommendation: Resources Necessary to Support State – Wide Expansion of the Family Division That the Judicial Branch support the state – wide expansion of the Family Division during the transition period by providing sufficient staff resources, including judges, masters and support staff, and training staff on family issues. Adequate staff and training resources are necessary to ensure the successful expansion of the Family Division while maintaining the existing court functions during the transition. Rationale: The transition to a state – wide Family Division over the next several years will be greatly enhanced by training staff on family issues. Knowledge of and sensitivity to family issues are one of the key determinates of client satisfaction and effective practice. In addition, the reorganization and reassignment of staff as part of the expansion of the Family Division is a considerable undertaking. Adequate staff resources must be provided to support both the transition and the ongoing operations of the court system during the period of transition. Our decision to prioritize this recommendation fourth should not be understood to suggest that we believe that staff and training resources are not important to the successful implementation of the state – wide Family Division. Instead, our prioritization reflects our conviction that the Judicial Branch already has the legislative mandate and the administrative authority to allocate adequate resources to the Family Division expansion. The willingness of the Judicial Branch to assume the responsibility to provide the necessary resources to this transition will determine whether the other three recommendations from the Family Court Research Committee will move forward.