Family Court Report Summary Letter
December 16, 1994
Honorable Michael D. Zimmerman
Chief Justice
Utah Supreme Court
332 State Capitol
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Re: Final Report of the Family Court Task Force
Dear Chief Justice Zimmerman:
The Family Court Task Force was charged by the Judicial Council in May 1992 with responsibility to develop recommendations regarding the future organization and jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The invitation for the task force study came from two sources. First, in August 1991, the Board of Juvenile Court Judges requested the Council to include the juvenile court within the effort to consolidate the district and circuit courts. Then, in December 1991, the Commission on Justice in the Twenty-first Century issued its final report which recommended, among other things, the long term "full integration of juvenile court jurisdiction with the district court...."
Over the course of 30 months, the task force conducted a thorough study of the alternatives, published preliminary recommendations, and considered the reaction of judges, lawyers, and members of the public to those preliminary recommendations. The task force is now publishing its final report for the consideration and further action of the Judicial Council. The report contains numerous detailed recommendations and the rationale for those recommendations. In summary the task force recommends:
The formation of a family department within the district court.
The assignment to that department of all cases now heard in juvenile court and all domestic cases and a few probate cases now heard in district court.
The appointment of judges to the family department -- or the general department -- of the district court directly by the governor without rotation or reassignment.
A system of case management within the family department designed to provide more and better information to the judges and the parties, to enable parties to negotiate the court system with more ease, and to ensure the timely delivery of services to parties as ordered by the court.
The preliminary report was circulated for several months in order to obtain a broad spectrum of comments regarding the task force recommendations. Because of that wide circulation, I want to highlight the two major provisions of the preliminary report that were modified by the task force as a result of comments received.
First, the preliminary report did not include a recommendation regarding the impact of a family court upon judges appointed to vacancies occurring between now and the effective date of implementing legislation. The task force recommends that lawyers applying for judicial office between now and the effective date of implementing legislation be notified in writing that, if a family department is formed, they will be assigned to that department. This change was the result of a recommendation by the Board of Bar Commissioners.
Second, the preliminary report recommended that legislation to implement the family department not be effective for at least one year after completion of the consolidation of district and circuit courts. In the final report the task force recommends that implementing legislation not be conditional upon the completion of court consolidation. The simple reason for this change is the possibility that court consolidation will occur through attrition in the ranks of circuit court judges rather than by a legislatively declared date. The result of changing this recommendation is that the completion of court consolidation and implementation of the family department may occur simultaneously.
The largest number of comments concerned the recommendation that judges be appointed by the governor to one department or the other for what is in essence a permanent assignment. The task force considered several alternatives: rotation; voluntary rotation; voluntary assignment by seniority; assignment by the presiding judge; and the random, generalist assignment of all judges to all cases -- civil cases, criminal cases, and family cases. The last alternative was suggested by some judges in both the Second and Third Judicial Districts. After further debate, the task force decided to stand by its preliminary recommendation. The report states, and I want to emphasize here, that the appointment of a judge to one department does not prelude that judge from hearing and determining cases from the other department. Judges of both departments are district court judges. This is especially important in the rural parts of Utah, where the large geographic area requires that judges be available for the work of the day, sometimes irrespective of the department to which the judge and the case are assigned.
I have enjoyed the appointment as chair of this task force. It has been a long process of debate on issues that never have an easy answer and seldom have a best answer. I appreciate the willingness of the Judicial Council to take what was first organized as a "fast track" process and allow the task force to take the time necessary to develop a fully reasoned report. I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for the dedication and hard work of the task force members and staff. Through their efforts, the task force has been able to complete a thorough study with well considered recommendations.
Sincerely,
James B. Lee
Task Force Chair