Family Court: Changing roles, defining responsibilities

      Judges in Clark County Family Court do more than render decisions. They also help find solutions for the personal problems that bring many parties before them.
      Observers of the new court system say judges are causing dissatisfaction among litigants and lawyers by stepping outside their traditional roles. They say the judges unnecessarily delay cases and raise costs by forcing parties to participate in social programs.
      "The biggest complaint I hear from attorneys about the Family Court is it takes too long to get something done," said Chief District Judge Myron Leavitt, who began practicing law in Clark County 40 years ago.
      Even the Family Court judges cannot agree on how to define their responsibilities. Judge Gerald Hardcastle said the 1991 Nevada Legislature provided only vague guidelines when it passed the law that created the court, which opened its doors four years ago.
      The law requires Family Court judges to encourage the resolution of disputes through nonadversarial, nontraditional methods. It also calls for the court to "enter into agreements or otherwise cooperate with local agencies ... to assist the Family Court ... in providing the necessary support services to the families before the court."
      "That really tells us that we shouldn't look any longer to be like a court," Hardcastle told his colleagues during a January meeting. "We need to look to be something else, but they really didn't tell us what that something else is.
      "And I think there's a real legitimate dispute in Family Court right now between the traditional model and the social-service model, and we're wrestling with that."
      Hardcastle said he favors a more traditional approach to his job, but other Family Court judges have looked for innovative ways to address the needs of the people who come before them.
      As a result of this new philosophy, the judges have introduced several programs that provide services outside the courtroom. They also have continued using two programs that existed before the creation of Family Court, and some judges have proposed adding still others.
      "My belief is that before we go into any of those programs, we need to make certain that we do the best we can as a Family Court," Hardcastle said.
      Hardcastle recently wrote a paper on the changing role of the Family Court judge for a jurisprudence class at the University of Nevada, Reno. He is working toward a master's degree in judicial studies.
      According to the paper, changes in Clark County's court system have "prolonged and deepened" judges' involvement in domestic cases.
      "The judge must not only decide the case, the judge must now fashion the remedy and choose from the range of available services," Hardcastle wrote. "The judge must monitor progress and compliance."
      That development can postpone the resolution of cases and increase costs for litigants, according to the judge's paper.
      "No one ever really gets finally out of court," he wrote. "Ever present is the family court judge ready with his arsenal of 'services' to intervene."
      According to Hardcastle's paper, Family Court's "social" system is causing discontent.
      "Indications are that what litigants desire most is a final decision, so they can get on living," he wrote.
      Despite his position, Hardcastle helped start three of the more popular programs in Family Court: the Foster Care Review Board, the mandatory "Children Cope With Divorce" class for divorcing parents, and a juvenile drug court.
      Hardcastle said judges have a legal obligation to monitor juvenile cases. Although they have no such obligation in divorce cases, he said he endorses programs -- like mediation and the parenting class -- that help parties solve their problems on their own. He also said the parenting class operates with little involvement from the court.
      The judge recently formed a leadership committee to focus on several Family Court issues, including the differing philosophies regarding the role of the court. The committee -- composed of attorneys, judges and other court officials -- will discuss the issues and make recommendations.
      "I think we need to make a commitment to going back to being courts," Hardcastle said.
      Family Court Judges Fran Fine and Gloria Sanchez support the move to make more social services available through the court.
      "I think that whatever we can do to take the sting out of this process will be well received by the public," Fine said.
      Family Court Judge Robert Gaston said the court has an obligation to direct litigants to agencies that can help them and their children, but "that's different than being a social worker on the bench."
      "There has to be a line drawn, and I'm not sure how fine that line is," Gaston said. "We're here to provide services for the public."
      He said he also worries about delays but believes judges should help create programs if they see a need.
      "Sometimes we have a problem in the court thinking that we -- the court -- are a social agency," Gaston said.
      Sanchez said Family Court needs to provide social services, "mainly because the families are so dysfunctional that we see."
      "I think we're doing a disservice to the parties if all we do is rule on a motion and hope that they go away," she said.
      The judge said she has received criticism for spending too much time on cases, but she believes the extra effort saves time in the long run.
      "My opinion has always been that if we treat the dysfunction on the front, which may take a little longer, then the cases won't come back," she said. "Then we can give them final resolution and hope."
      The judges expressed some of their philosophical differences about the role of Family Court during their monthly meeting in February. Gaston proposed a program that would provide part-time jobs for dropouts who agree to return to school, but his colleagues voted it down. Only Fine supported Gaston's proposal.
      Hardcastle said the judges would make the public happier if they focused on making better decisions, instead of spending taxpayers' money to start more programs.
      "It would be nice if we could cure all the world's problems, but maybe we should cure some of the problems that are closer to home," he said.
      He believes the court is meeting the Legislature's requirements by providing mediation services. LaDeana Gamble, manager of the court's Family Mediation & Assessment Center, has asked the judges to consider implementing mandatory mediation by July.
      Hardcastle wondered aloud if judges are pushing for more court programs to make themselves look better.
      "Our image wouldn't be bad if we did what we should do well," he said.