Family Court: Critics call for reforms in mediation, evaluation center

      The Family Court agency that performs evaluations in contested child custody cases has come under a barrage of criticism in recent months.
      Critics claim workers at the Family Mediation & Assessment Center produce misleading and inaccurate reports, lack knowledge of relevant legal standards, and fail to conduct independent research into disputed facts.
      Last year Las Vegas attorney Marshal Willick wrote and circulated an 18-page letter full of complaints about the agency and its workers, known as family specialists. In the letter, addressed to the court's presiding judge, Willick called for the "immediate reformation or elimination" of the center's evaluation services.
      "The evaluations now being performed have broken down so completely that many of them are a farce," wrote Willick, chairman of the State Bar of Nevada's Family Law Section.
      LaDeana Gamble, the center's manager, acknowledged the widespread criticism in a December letter to Family Court Judge Terrance Marren, then the court's presiding judge.
      "Given the growth in the domestic arena, the growth of our city, the growth in the complexity of domestic cases, and the adversarial nature of the domestic arena, our center has been unable to keep up with the demands for FMAC services," Gamble wrote. "In our attempts to meet the demands of our primary customer -- the court -- the quality of services has been compromised."
      Gamble said the annual number of cases referred to the center has increased from 558 in 1986 to 1,509 in 1996. She said the center had one staffing increase during that time, raising the number of full-time family specialists from seven to nine.
      The manager said some critics lack understanding of the center's role. She said the agency, known as the Child Custody Division until 1992, stopped calling its workers "investigators" in 1985.
      "FMAC is now being criticized because we do not conduct investigations," Gamble said. "Our center is not an investigative unit. It is being defined as that by the community. We do not have the resources to even be considered an investigative unit."
      Gamble said the agency's evaluations assess the quality of the relationship between children and parents. Judges use the reports to help them determine which parent should receive custody, and they sometimes ask the family specialists to include a recommendation.
      In Willick's letter, he accused the center's specialists of engaging in "intellectual dishonesty." He said their reports sometimes imply they have investigated allegations, when in fact they have not.
      Las Vegas attorney Andrew Myers, who earns about one-third of his income from domestic cases, said the specialists worry more about pleasing the judges than acknowledging their own limitations.
      "They would maintain their integrity a whole lot better if they would say they don't have time or the manpower or the skills to do a particular type of evaluation," Myers said.
      In response to the recent criticism, Gamble has proposed to revamp the agency. Her plan calls for Family Court to begin using private sources for custody evaluations by July, allowing her agency to focus almost entirely on mediation.
      "I do not believe that additional staff would necessarily resolve the problems of FMAC," she wrote in her letter to Marren.
      Some attorneys have blamed judges for unnecessarily creating the center's heavy caseload. They say judges, in an effort to avoid making tough or politically unpopular decisions, are referring too many cases for evaluations.
      "If they can follow a recommendation made by the so-called experts of FMAC, it's very difficult to fault them," Myers said.
      Gamble disagreed with the notion that judges are referring an excessive number of cases to the agency. "The ones that are being referred here are some of the most damaged families," she said.
      Although the center's workers include recommendations in their reports only when judges specifically ask for them, attorneys say the documents usually make it clear that the author favors one parent over the other.
      In his letter, Willick accused the family specialists of using their reports, either consciously or unconsciously, to justify a decision they believe the judge has already made but not stated.
      "While reports doing such pandering are probably convenient for a judge who would like to reach a particular conclusion, they are violations of the very reason for the existence of FMAC evaluations -- providing objective factual investigatory material which would actually assist the court in reaching a correct decision with less expenditure of court time," the lawyer wrote.
      Two other family law practitioners, who spoke on the condition of anonymity during a December interview, complained that the agency's workers waste clients' time and money by creating reports full of "he said-she said," without any further investigation to substantiate the claims of either side.
      "Their individual attorneys are perfectly capable of getting their stories out of them and preparing them for court," one of the lawyers said.
      Although the center's specialists do not conduct full investigations, Gamble said their work goes beyond interviews with the two parents involved in a custody dispute.
      She said the specialists routinely check police, child care, school and protective services records. They also interview any children over the age of 3. Gamble said the workers conduct home visits only when someone has raised serious allegations regarding one party's residence, or when a judge specifically requests a home visit.
      Other complaints about the agency center around a lack of consistency.
      Willick cited a number of cases in his letter to illustrate his concerns. One of those cases involves a custody battle between Barbara and Todd Lofink, who are divorcing after nearly nine years of marriage.
      During a January interview, 35-year-old Barbara Lofink said she left her husband in September 1995 and filed for divorce early last year. She said the couple then began fighting for custody of their two sons.
      Willick, who represents Barbara Lofink, said Family Court Judge Fran Fine referred the case to the assessment center in May for an evaluation. The case, assigned to family specialist Marge DiOrio, involved allegations of domestic violence, alcohol abuse and drug abuse.
      According to Willick's letter, DiOrio interviewed both parents and several other third parties "but did not bother to speak with any third party or resource on behalf of Mrs. Lofink."
      "Apparently prior to commencing any investigation she decided that the father's self-evaluation and comments were true and proceeded without any further concern and apparently no follow-up investigation into both parties' allegations," the lawyer wrote.
      According to court records, Domestic Violence Commissioner Jack Fields granted Barbara Lofink's request to move out of state with the children in November 1995. At the same time, Fields granted a one-year extension of a temporary protective order that Barbara Lofink had received against her husband.
      Willick's letter faulted DiOrio for failing to investigate claims of domestic violence.
      Todd Lofink, 36, said DiOrio did investigate the allegations, but Willick "didn't like the results."
      Barbara Lofink said she moved to Worland, Wyo., with her sons in December 1995. She said DiOrio later concluded that the children, now ages 5 and 7, should live with their father in Las Vegas.
      "FMAC did not hear anything I had to say," Barbara Lofink said.
      According to Willick's letter, DiOrio stated in her report that a number of the father's relatives reside in Las Vegas, but the family specialist neglected to inform the judge that many of the mother's relatives reside in Wyoming.
      Court rules prohibit lawyers from disseminating copies of custody evaluations, even to their clients. The clients may read the reports but not obtain copies.
      Barbara Lofink said the judge awarded her husband primary physical custody of the children in December.
      Willick said he expects to appeal the judge's decision, but he must wait until the couple's divorce is final. He said he anticipates a delay of one to three years before the Nevada Supreme Court rules on the case.
      The lawyer attacked DiOrio specifically in his letter to Marren.
      "In my opinion, Ms. DiOrio is as dangerous to the well-being of children in the Family Court system as any incompetent or misguided person can be, and has no place doing the evaluations that she is performing," Willick wrote. "No matter whether those results are from incompetence, laziness or bad intent, the result is the same."
      The lawyer also claimed DiOrio has a reputation for favoring fathers.
      DiOrio denied Willick's allegations but declined to discuss any of the particular cases he mentioned in his letter. "I know that I'm not perfect, and I'm open to learning how to do things better," she said. "We all are here."
      DiOrio said she worked in private practice as a licensed marriage and family therapist from 1989 until 1994, when she joined the staff of the Family Mediation & Assessment Center. She said she has master's degrees in experimental psychology and counseling psychology.
      Gamble said Willick's letter raised some valid concerns about at least two of the cases DiOrio handled, including the Lofink case. The manager said she has spoken with DiOrio about those cases and believes the family specialist has learned from her mistakes.
      "I don't think two cases are reflective of someone's professional career," Gamble said.
      Las Vegas attorney Bruce Shapiro, who represents Todd Lofink, said Willick's letter made some good points about general problems at the assessment center. But Shapiro said he believes Judge Fine made the correct decision in the Lofink case.
      Shapiro, who practices family law exclusively, said the judge based her decision more on information presented at a lengthy evidentiary hearing than on DiOrio's report.
      The lawyer said he agrees with those who say the family specialists often fail to include more in their reports than the allegations each party has made.
      "They don't really have any independent verification," he said. "They're weighing the credibility of the parties. That's what the judge is supposed to do."
      Shapiro said lawyers could help ease the agency's workload by resolving more issues outside of court.
      Clark County Family Court judges have differing views on the usefulness of the assessment center's reports.
      Judge Gerald Hardcastle said he believes judges should use the services of the center sparingly. He said the evaluation process causes delays in divorce cases but does not necessarily help judges make better decisions.
      "I think FMAC is based on a fundamental defect," Hardcastle said. "The burden is no longer on the attorneys to gather information and present it to the court. The burden is now on a governmental agency."
      Although judges typically give specialists 90 days to complete their evaluations, Gamble said the workers in her office spend an average of about 50 days on each case.
      Judge Gloria Sanchez said she believes the family specialists provide "an invaluable service." She said she asks the specialists to include recommendations in the reports they prepare for her.
      "They know more about the case than anyone else, so I want to know what their insights are," Sanchez said. "That doesn't mean I always follow their recommendations."
      Fine said she has stopped asking the specialists for recommendations.
      "The litigants felt like they were getting a decision from FMAC -- they weren't getting a decision from the judge, and they were right," she said.
      In Willick's letter, he questioned whether the family specialists have the qualifications to evaluate certain types of cases. He said the agency's administration "has completely stonewalled" his requests for background on the workers.
      Although attorneys may question the specialists about their qualifications during evidentiary hearings, Willick said they need the information sooner to prepare questions. He said judges routinely require other expert witnesses to turn over their rŽsumŽs to lawyers in advance of their testimony.
      "Every individual hired by the state should have nothing to hide about their background, education, training, experience and prior work," the lawyer said. "And that should be disclosed upon request to anybody who asks for it."
      Gamble initially denied the Review-Journal's request for complete information on the specialists' qualifications, providing only a list of their college degrees. She turned over the workers' rŽsumŽs after a county lawyer advised her to do so.
      All nine of the center's full-time specialists have bachelor's degrees, and seven also have master's degrees. A job announcement for the position states that applicants should have the equivalent of a master's degree in one of the behavioral sciences or a closely related field, and three years of professional casework, counseling or related experience in the social welfare field.
      Gamble said all but one of Clark County's specialists have gone through at least 60 hours of mediation training and 40 hours of evaluation training.
      She said the specialists attempt mediation in all cases the judges refer to them. If that fails, they proceed with an evaluation. The center charges $600 for its services, and the parents usually split that fee.
      As part of Gamble's proposal to restructure the assessment center, she is calling for the implementation of a mandatory conciliation program by July.
      Under the plan, all parties in contested custody cases would be required to attempt mediation before proceeding through the court system. Washoe County has a similar program.
      "Mediation empowers the clients, and they get to participate in the process," Gamble said.
      The manager said her proposal would allow her office to focus solely on mediation and emergency evaluations. Private sources would handle all other custody evaluations, she said.
      Many of the agency's critics have advocated plans similar to the one Gamble has proposed, although some fear the private evaluations will raise costs for litigants.
      "I personally believe that if we relieved FMAC of its evaluation responsibilities the public would experience a tremendous benefit," Marren wrote in response to Willick's letter.