New York state has a two-tiered system of justice. Supreme Court is well-funded and respected both within the court system and by advocates and court users. Meanwhile, some have called Family Court a second-class court, a designation especially troubling because of the racial and social demographics of the litigants we serve. The individuals who appear in the Family Courts are disproportionately Black or Brown, and the majority lack the financial resources to hire an attorney. Wealthier people typically have access to Supreme Court, where high-paid private lawyers prefer to work and where, unlike Family Court, filing fees are imposed.

The Family Court bench increasingly looks like the population we serve. More than two-thirds of Family Court judges are female, and more than half self-identify as Black, Latinx or Asian-American. On the other hand, our courtrooms leak and flood on rainy days. We interact with litigants in a respectful, courteous manner, regardless of how overworked we may be, but we cannot control how long people sit in the waiting rooms because there are too many cases and too little time to address them fully.

We also cannot control how long litigants wait between court appearances because there are too few lawyers carrying too many cases. Nor can we control how long it takes for them to get orders or information from the court because Family Court is not able to fill vacant clerical and court attorney positions for months at a time, a problem Supreme Court does not have.

The Legislature is currently considering an amendment to the state constitution that would rationalize our court structure, making it more equitable for all users, regardless of their wealth or the type of legal problems they face. The New York City Family Court Judges Association strongly supports this proposal, because it will demonstrate that the families we serve, our staff, and our judges are equal in status to those in Supreme Court. The amendment would fold Family Court into Supreme Court, immediately giving our litigants access to the same resources enjoyed for decades by their wealthier fellow New Yorkers and rectifying a decades-old structural inequity in our judicial system.

For years, Family Court has been hampered by constraints on our authority to make the best possible decisions for children and families. Our litigants commonly must go to other courts to get full access to justice. For example, if a foster care agency cancels a foster parent's license, Family Court cannot examine this action let alone reverse it, even though it could have a detrimental impact on a child whose life course we are charged with deciding. As Supreme Court judges, we could solve the administrative, housing, and criminal law issues that frequently encircle and complicate family matters, delivering comprehensive justice in one place.

Some have argued that the solution to Family Court's problems is to give us more resources without restructuring the court system. But in the current inequitable structure, Family Court is seen as lesser, and in any debate over resource allocation, the group seen as "supreme" will win out. When the people of the state speak in favor of court simplification, it will provide Family Court the leverage and status that it has never had before to get the resources that we need. A change in culture will follow and flow from a change in the structure of the court system.

More to the point, giving us more resources without restructuring the system will keep us "separate but equal." As that other Supreme Court once said, separate but equal is inherently unequal.

The New York City Family Court Judges Association consists of the full-time, appointed Family Court judges who sit in the five boroughs, as well as judges elected or appointed to other courts who have been temporarily assigned to sit in Family Court.