As family practitioners who practice statewide, we feel compelled to respond to the recent editorial concerning proposed changes to the Connecticut Rules of Court. The proposal before the Rules Committee to amend Section 11-19 of the Practice Book to reduce the time for a family judge to issue a decision from 120 to 30 days is unwarranted.

This proposal is a solution looking for a problem.

At least in the last 10 years, we have appeared in front of countless judges on family short calendar matters and have rarely received a decision that was issued beyond 45 days. The editorial board's proposal (when combined with the proposed 30-day rule change) that a family court must hold a hearing on any scheduled pendente lite or post-judgment contempt matter within 14 days of the date it is "ready" is laudable in theory. This is not possible, however, without sufficient judges and staff to handle the demands created by such timing.

A typical family docket includes—in addition to routine motions—restraining orders, ex parte applications for emergency relief, and GAL report-backs, many of which are required to be adjudicated and heard within specific statutory timelines.

The combined rule and proposal also fail to take into account the inherent complexity of many of the issues presented in family court which often require briefings, extensive testimony and legal argument. While expedience is important, it should not be at the expense of thoughtful and deliberate decision-making. Additionally, the combined rule/proposal fails to take into consideration the frequent need for discovery, especially where the remedies sought may include significant financial sanctions—and even incarceration.

If documents from a nonparty are needed to defend or prosecute such a motion, the current rules require the subpoena to be served no less than 15 days before the date of requested compliance. The proposal would force defending counsel to cobble together a defense (as opposed to preparing a robust and thorough defense) to serve a formulaic rule. In judicial districts where a motion is automatically marked ready (as soon as it calendars), this further compounds the problem.

Chief Administrative Judge for Family Matters Michael Albis recently stated his intention to initiate the "Family Triage Program," which will, among other things, assign one judge and one family relations officer to each case at the commencement of, and for the duration of, the case. This program will empower judges with broad discretion to determine when to schedule motions for hearings.

This initiative, as opposed to the proposed rule changes, permits a thoughtful and tailored case management approach in lieu of being a slave to firm and arbitrary deadlines. We believe that this initiative is the correct approach to address the complexity and sensitivities needed in family court matters.

The writers are with the West Hartford law firms Berman Mickelson Dembo & Jacobs and Taboada Rochlin Govier.