Committee Debates Family-Court Restructuring as Witnesses Cite Due-Process Failures

Representative Sabourin Deshauney introduced HB 17-17 as a vehicle to address perceived gaps in family-court procedure and to reestablish clearer equity and common-law protections in family cases. He asked the committee to consider HB 6-52 — a related bill that had been recommitted — as the priority for the committee’s work.

Members asked technical and constitutional questions. Representative Greg and others pressed the sponsor on the bill’s treatment of administrative law judges (ALJs) or marital masters, whether the proposed family division would be statutory or constitutional in nature, and how constitutional rights for parents and children would be preserved if the family division were created as a statutory court.

Several witnesses with long family-court histories described denied evidentiary access and long appeals that failed to remedy perceived judicial errors. Testimony emphasized three recurring themes: (1) the need for clearer rules that require judges to receive and weigh evidence (some witnesses said evidence was excluded), (2) concern about referees or non-judge adjudicators exercising quasi-judicial authority without customary due-process protections, and (3) the cost and logistics of reconstituting a marital-master or administrative jurist program.

Representative Timothy Horrigan, speaking from legislative experience, recommended caution and said the bill in its current form "is not even close to being ready for prime time," noting that the marital-master program has largely phased out and that implementation would have fiscal and practical implications. Proponents and supporters argued the bill restores common-law expectations of due process and provides transparency measures; opponents urged focusing on HB 6-52 and further clarifying appellate and constitutional issues.

The committee heard legal and historical arguments referencing Blackstone and common-law principles; public speakers recounted personal, often decades-long disputes as evidence of systemic problems. No committee action was taken at the close of testimony; members indicated they will continue to compare HB 17-17 against HB 6-52 and solicit technical input on constitutional impacts.