Subcommittee proposes standardized pretrial orders, higher mediator training and pilots for family court reforms

A House Committee on Children and Family Law subcommittee reviewed proposals to standardize pretrial procedures, increase mediator training and oversight, and pilot reforms in selected counties during a work session. Members did not take a formal vote; the group plans to circulate reports and accept preliminary unofficial responses by email.

The proposals grew from testimony that current practice gives judges broad discretion to waive procedures, producing inconsistent discovery, variable mediator training and oversight, and confusion for parties who are self-represented. Presenters said families report delays, unclear instructions about mediation rights and limited screening for domestic violence before mediation begins.

Representatives Grama and Raymond presented the subcommittee’s findings and recommendations. Among the key recommendations were: require a pretrial case-management order for family cases within 30 days; set clear, plain-language deadlines for evidence, witness lists and hearings; adopt a mandatory domestic-violence screening tool before mediation; and provide a plain-language information sheet explaining mediation rights and options.

The presenters urged tighter mediator certification and supervision. Recommendations discussed included raising initial training to about 60 hours, requiring roughly 20 hours of supervised practice, instituting continuing education in trauma-informed care, child development and domestic abuse, and creating a mentorship program (the presenters cited a two‑year mentorship model used in other states).

On oversight, the subcommittee discussed creating an independent board to maintain a public roster of mediators, investigate complaints consistently and remove mediators who repeatedly fail to meet standards. Members also recommended piloting the revised training, screening and oversight in a small number of counties before any statewide rollout to allow data collection and adjustment.

The presenters and other members described alternative dispute-resolution reforms that jurisdictions have used elsewhere, including neutral case evaluation using retired judges who review evidence and give parties an early assessment of how a case is likely to resolve. Subcommittee members said such processes can shorten time in court compared with full litigation.

The group also discussed improving materials and supports for pro se litigants. One subcommittee member described an outreach project informally called “baby’s first book on going to court” to deliver simpler, practice‑focused guidance and suggested video materials and shorter plain-language forms as complements to existing packets and the child-impact seminar that is already provided in cases with children.

Two related items were raised: (1) a subgroup’s work on the cost to litigants of obtaining trial transcripts when transcripts are produced by outside vendors rather than the courts, and (2) presentations on how different states structure family-court services — from specialized family courts to family divisions inside general courts — and the tradeoffs between specialization, continuity ("one case, one judge") and judicial staffing.

No formal motions or roll-call votes were recorded at the session. Members were told reports and cliff notes would be circulated to absent members and that preliminary, unofficial reports could be collected by email; the subcommittee will continue work informally and may be reconvened next year or absorbed into a standing committee.

Proponents and other members emphasized piloting changes before committing to statewide implementation in order to match reforms with available funding and staffing.