Fence-straddling In The Adversary System

(FIRST OF A SERIES) Is divorce really so traumatic tnaPpSaple who ordinarily wouldn't do so, complain about the legal procedures involved in their cases, claiming that the Friend of the Court office through which their case goes if there are minor children involved, is administered unfairly and inefficiently? How many complaints made against the Friend of the Court are legitímate? Or are they merely the results after two people, who never could agree on anything, continue in the same pattern, only now involving the Friend of the Court in their harrassments of each other? Who is responsible for how the Friend of the Court operates? The Circuit Court Judges? The County Commissioners? Or is he responsible only to himself ? Following many telephone calis from News readers who read our Nov. 26 story covering a "public hearing" on the effectiveness, efficiency and need for improvement in the Washtenaw County Friend of the Court office and a follow-up interview with Richard S. Benedek, Friend of the Court, and Michael P. Malley, his assistant and head of the legal section of the office, The News has sought the opinions of others' in the community, has spoken again with Benedek and Malley and has attempted to verify and qualify some of the complaints against that office which have been brought to its attention. "A contested divorce with two parents competing for custody of their children means someone is going to be upset with the decisión," says Presiding Circuit Court Judge William F. Ager Jr. Potential disillusionment may be inherent in the adversary system, he points out, yet thpse decisions have to be made. The concept of a person who could work with the court in recommending to the judge the custody of children, visitation rights and child support payments, origirrated in the late 1870s and 1880s, Circuit Court Judge Ross W. Campbell says. There was a need even around the turn of the century, he says, for someone to work out these recommendations and to act as a collection agency for child support monies. Michigan and Wisconsin were two of the first states to provide Friend of the Court services to those seeking divorces, primarily in cases in which minor children are involved, but also in paternity cases, support cases and some alimony cases (although Judge Ager points out that the granting of aíimony is becoming more and more infrequent). The Friend of the Court operates at the county level but is empowered to provide these services through state and local statutes. Ideally, since the Circuit Court judge deals with criminal as well as civil cases, the Friend of the Court's recommendations can expedite the adjudication of civil cases from the docket. Refereed hearings administered through the Friend of the Court's office also may serve the same purpose of expediting the legal processes before a judge. While some persons may complain that they don't agree with these recommendations, both Circuit judges and Benedek point I out that these persons are entitled to a full hearing before the I Circuit judge when their case comes to co,urt. "I usually try to explain to them that their private j ments become a matter of public record if they air them in the I courtnjom," Judge Ager explains, but he adds, this, doesn't prohibit them from taking advantage of a full hearing in open I court. But - does everyone know that he or she is entitled to this hearing? :: Judge Ager comments, "I'vë been assigned to many circuits E around the state and I feel I can safely state that we have an I excellent Bar Association here in Washtenaw County with I torneys very well-experienced in family law. They would, of k course, inform their clients of the laws and procedures I ent in the system. ■? "What you have to keep in mind, though," he says, "is that I in an adversary proceeding, one side is go ing to lose. " ! In some cases, the final decisión on custody is left up to the i judge. "Those are the nights I lie awake hoping that I've made I the right decisión," Judge Ager says. Making those decisions I isn't easy, hé adds, but the best welfare of the children is I ways primary in his mind . ] If some divorced or divorcing persons feel their calis to the E Friend of the Court's office are handled less than courteously, I both Benedek and Malley make no acknowledgement that this I situation exists. % They point out that the office has two people who come in ■ c$èAnn - ArborNews Dimehsions v ; ra4t . ■ . .. - I five mornings a week to do nothingbut "phone sit." i "They take calis in regard to accounts and try to answer I I questions to the best of their ability," Malley says. 1 I ly, they say, a social worker may answer such a cali and can't 1 I really offer much assistance to the caller because accounts I I aren't in their area of expertise. j "Some credit checking agencies cali in and represent themI selves as something else in order to gain information about our j Iclient's financial standing," says Benedek, so the problem of I I confidentiality is always uppermost in their minds. [ But, he says, "financial records are open to either party or to ; 1 their respective attorneys. All they have to do is to identify I themselves and they're welcome to look." The office will also I I write letters stating the amount a cliënt receives in child supI port payments to a bank or other financial institution if the I party requests that the information be transmitted, but someI one from one of these institutions can't acquire the information I merely by calling the Friend of the Court's office, Benedek and I Malley say. i "We' ve spent two weekends with full crews here getting out I back child support payments," Benedek says. "Right now, I we're about a half day behind; by the end of the week, we'll be I caught up. We had five people working here last Saturday and I Sunday; one of the employés told me she had worked 19 I straight. ! "There are an enormous number of people who are not inI timidated by the Friend of the Court's office," Benedek says,": I but who rather "cali us for help. Starting with the marriage ' counselor, we're offering help that wouldn't ordinarily be available to them. We try not to intimídate people; we provide a relaxed setting for the referee hearing, not in a courtroom." ! But not infrequently, he points out, they are in the situatipn of 1 hearing that if one side feels strongly about something that I I person will request them to intimídate the other person. "We try to be a buffer rather than thrust the case directly 1 I to the courtroom. We talk personally with people. And I ably each party has a lawyer who will outline courtroom proceI dures to them. Our workers and attorneys are not insensitive I I but oriented to resolving controversy outside the courtroom. I I Some problems," he says, "are exceedingly difficult to I I solve." J ,1 Wm wÊÈè