Family law in California has been a festering sore in the body politic s

ince 1973. In 1996, the Judicial Council, the folks who run the court of this s
tate, appointed a committee called Family Court 2000, which ran up and down the
state listening to opinions of what was wrong.
“Nothing wrong here,” said Milo De Armey, sent by the Orange County Bar
Association; “Just some people who have mental problems.”
“Nothing wrong here,” said the supervising judge of family law in Los An
geles County; “We settle cases all the time in the hallways on the day of trial.
”
Fifty percent of the people who wanted divorces were going to court with
out lawyers. Family Court 2000 did result in some changes to facilitate the wor
k of the people without lawyers. All courts established self-help centers.
In 2006, Jeffrey Elkins sued the family law court of Contra Costa County
for they way they treated him. He won. The Supreme Court of California said,
“you can’t do that to Jeffrey,” adding in a footnote that the Judicial Council o
ught to look to all the family courts of the state.
In spring 2008, the judicial council appointed 38 judges, lawyers and co
urt employees to a task force named Elkins. October 1, 2009 they released for p
ublic comment a draft of changes proposed to improve the experience of going thr
ough a divorce in California. “Any thoughts on reform? We sure need to do somet
hing as in this economy internal reform will be less painful for everyone than t
he crazed angry pro per litigant methodology,” said Merritt McKeon, a prominent
Orange County lawyer.
Sixty-five percent of the people were doing divorces without lawyers by
spring 2009, and by the end of the case, 80% were without lawyers, according to
the Judicial Council.

In 1993 I assisted a deputy sheriff with custody of his small son. He a

nd the mother had not been married. He had been telephoned by the boy’s materna
l grandmother that her daughter was living with the child in a house with drug u
sers, drug parties, and the daughter was stoned most of the time and the little
boy, she felt, was at risk of abuse from the men in the house. The grandmother
said if the father didn’t come take charge of the boy, she would file for a guar
dianship.
It was a year later that the father came to see me about a legal relatio
nship with the child he had had in his home for that time. Father was Chinese,
raised in Viet Nam. He spoke several languages. He was married and his wife ha
d just given birth to their child.
I negotiated an appropriate parenting plan between the parents of the li
ttle boy. The mother had become more sober. She was getting her life back toge
ther. A month after she signed the parenting agreement, her lawyer filed for cu
stody, saying that now that she had more time with the child, she should have cu
stody.
The court ordered a psychological report. The psychologist over the th
ree months of the evaluation process caused such stress with my client and his w
ife that they nearly divorced. The psychologist used invalid tests, wrote 53 pa
ges, and charged $4,800. I hired another psychologist for $1,000 to rebut the f
irst. I had a dynamite trial brief I had worked and re-worked to perfection.
In court at last for a hearing, the judge–not the one who had ordered th
e psychological report, did not want to hear testimony of any expert. He did no
t read the 53 page report. He did not read the trial brief. Instead, he addres
sed each parent, questioning them as to their interests in their child and in pa
renting. In 20 minutes, he had their mutual agreement to a parenting plan.
I drove back to my office with visions of the climactic scene from “The
Bridge Over the River Kwai,” the scene where after British prisoners of war swe
at blood, toil, tears and sweat to build a bridge for the Japanese army, America
n commandoes blow it up as the first train is crossing.
All that time, all that stress, all that money – for what?! The judge
blew up the whole construction. What that judge did, I reasoned, should
have been done as a first step, not the last step.
I thought of similar cases – people fighting for custody not to get cust
ody but to bargain the children for a better property settlement; filing for cus
tody when the other parent asks for an increase in child support; refusing reaso
nable settlement to run up fees for the other party when you have rich parents t
o pay on your side; and most commonly, hostility created between people by aggre
ssive lawyers. Attorney fees mounting to $100,000 for nothing but two children,
a house and a pension! Children’s college funds gone.
What was needed, I came to think, was a gatekeeper, a guide, a process t
o review the problems between the parents or divorcing couple. A guide. And a
disinterested decision as to whether an issue warranted an evidentiary, adversar
y hearing.
The author:
Judith A. Kaluzny, Mediator and Lawyer
149 West Whiting Avenue
Fullerton, California 92832
714 441 2355
www.judithkaluzny.com
Founder, The Safe and Sane Divorce Project