Separate Courts Are Inherently Unequal
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.
May 11, 2022 at 08:42 AM
4 minute read
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.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Time for Action: Attorneys Must Answer MLK's Call to Defend Bar Associations and Stand for DEI Initiatives in 2025
4 minute readThe Public Is Best Served by an Ethics Commission That Is Not Dominated by the People It Oversees
4 minute readThe Crisis of Incarcerated Transgender People: A Call to Action for the Judiciary, Prosecutors, and Defense Counsel
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250