Friend Of Court's Policies

Editor, The Neysí ' " I was presenMat the recent public , hearing on the Friend of the Court, and have been quite interested in the things that have been said in The News since the hearing - especially the remarks made by the Friend of the Court and the judges. who make decisions in divorce. ThesgSfficials' remarkiTcertamly seem calculated to convince the community that any complaints from divorced people are just a function of their personal problems, and that divorced people tend to be immature and unreliable. Is this line of defense typical of the attitudes faced by divorcing families with minor children in this community? If so, is it any wonder the complaints have , produced an organized public hearing? I'm a mathematician, not a social or political scientist, but I'd like to make a I few observations about what was brought I out at the hearing. (1) It seems to be developing the characteristics of a class action. The effects of the Friend of the Court's policies and practices are of cour se I enced first and most deeply at the perIsonal level. This is true of ALL disIcriminatory practices against a class or Isubpopulation of persons. (Also common in such cases are countercharges that Ithe affected class is really at fault - le g is irresponsible, incompetent, etc.) Isuch discrimination is demonstrated Iwhen the class can be defined, and it can Ibe shown that the class is subject to lunusual treatment not imposed on the Ipopulation at large, or on similar subIpopulations. It appears this might be I demonstratecl (2) As noted at the hearing, within 1 Washtenaw county, the current caseload ■ of the Friend of the Court (i.e., the class ■ membership) represents 24,000 persons ■ which is 10 per cent of the overall county ■ population. However, the total affected ■ sub-population is not limited to the ■ rent caseload; it also includes both the ■ parents and the children whose cases ■ were closed when the children reached the age of 18. With the divorce rate ■ climbing, this might be a pretty large I population. I hope ttaat future elections will see ■ creasing demands from this rapid ly I growing population for accountabüity ■ from all elected officials responsible for I the operations of the office of the Friend ■ of the Court - County Commissioners, I Circuit Court Judges, state ■ tives (who can revise statutes relatmg to ■ the Friend of the Court), and the ■ nor, who appoints each local Friend of ■ the Court.