Editor's note: This editorial is the first in a two-part series. Read the second installment here.

Section 11-19 of the Connecticut Rules of Court provides that a trial judge is required to issue a decision on a short calendar matter not later than 120 days after the conclusion of the hearing of that matter unless there is a waiver of that deadline. A proposal is presently pending before the Rules Committee whereby that deadline will be shortened to 30 days for short calendar matters in the family court. That amendment is clearly warranted in family matters.

As this board has recently suggested, the delays in obtaining a hearing date in family court are unacceptable for a variety of reasons including: the potential for a parent to be deprived of financial support and parents being deprived of meaningful access to minor children, sometimes for months, pending a scheduled hearing on a "date certain" after a motion first appears on the short calendar. Those same concerns underlie the proposed amendment to Section 11-19 of the Practice Book. In fact, the combination of unacceptable delays obtaining a hearing coupled with the delays of up to 120 days to obtain a court decision is simply intolerable and seriously undermines the effectiveness of the entire judicial process.

The proposal to limit the deadline for a judicial decision on a short calendar motion in family court to 30 days is particularly important for families facing the frequently disruptive and emotionally upsetting realities of separation and divorce. Allowing judges up to four months to issue a decision after a short calendar hearing unacceptably exacerbates the disruption, stress and uncertainty associated with prolonging the resolution of such essential issues. In fact, it is difficult to conceive of a reason why a judge in any court should not render a decision on a short calendar motion within 30 days. If, however, the matter involves extensive testimony and days of hearings, a waiver provision could be appropriate.

We would further encourage this rule change to require the court to hold a hearing on any scheduled pendente lite or post-judgment contempt matter within 14 days of the date it is "Ready" on the calendar. Effectively, that would mean the seemingly endless delays described herein would be time limited to no more than 45 days from when a party wants to be heard to the date of a decision rendered.

Shortening the time to get a hearing and the deadline for rendering such a decision in short calendar matters, however, is only part of the solution. Because Practice Book §11-19(a) allows a party to seek assignment of the matter to another judge if a decision is not rendered within the requisite time period, this aspect of the rule should also be addressed. Because of the importance of obtaining a prompt decision from the judge who conducted the hearing, it is likewise essential for the judicial branch to adopt policies whereby our judges are strongly encouraged to issue decisions on short calendar matters. To the extent a decision is not made within the time period required, any reassignment or rehearing should be given priority, and scheduling should be expedited.