Heated testimony on bill to abolish the Family Division and shift cases to superior court and certified mediators

Representative Timothy Bernardi opened a Feb. 11 hearing on House Bill 652, a sweeping proposal to abolish the Family Division of the circuit court and to move many family-law matters back to the superior court, while creating a state‑run family‑mediation office with certified mediators and an accreditation standard. Bernardi argued that the Family Division — as configured — lacks judicial accountability in some proceedings, allows nonconstitutional officers (such as marital masters or referees) to make factually consequential findings in informal settings, and has procedural rules that, in his view, permit the exclusion of evidence and limit normal equity protections.

The hearing featured extended, often emotional testimony from dozens of parents, advocates and practitioners describing cases of alleged judicial misconduct, protracted litigation, perceived denials of due process, and situations in which parents said they or their children were harmed. Several witnesses urged abolition of the Family Division or major statutory reform; among their claims were examples where testimony was not sworn, discovery was limited at the court’s discretion and appeals to the Supreme Court offered limited factual review.

A number of attorneys and retired judges who appeared urged caution. The court system’s general counsel, Erin Cregan, told the committee that the circuit court is a properly constituted court and observed that the state has tried several reforms over time. She emphasized that the legislature can change court structure by statute and that the judiciary has supported training, mediation services and other reforms. Judges and court officials described institutional steps already under way — including training and increased staffing — designed to improve uniformity and oversight.

Witnesses on both sides urged improvements to transparency, oversight and training. Representative DeRoy (cosponsor) and others recounted cases where parents said the Family Division had assigned visitation or decision‑making in ways they considered unsafe; cosponsors framed the bill as a remedy to systemic problems not solved by prior fixes. A number of practicing attorneys noted that discovery rights and motions already exist in the rules but that inconsistent application and short, multi‑issue hearing calendars can leave litigants feeling unheard.

The bill would phase changes in across two years, create standards for certified family mediators (drawing on the Academy of Family Mediation Professionals), and return abuse/neglect adjudications and other high‑stakes matters to superior court while leaving mediation and other lower‑conflict services in a formal mediation office. Committee members heard both calls for wholesale abolition and proposals for narrower reforms, and the committee did not vote. Several members said they would create a working subcommittee to pursue specific reforms and to study options including oversight, training, mediation standards and possible statutory changes.