This is a status report provided by the New Jersey State Bar Association on recently passed and pending legislation, regulations, gubernatorial nominations and/or appointments of interest to lawyers, as well as the involvement of the NJSBA as amicus in appellate court matters. To learn more, visit njsba.com.
The New Jersey State Bar Association testified last week on several state Supreme Court reports. Representatives of the Association provided commentary on the Family Practice Committee and the Report of the Committee on Diversity, Inclusion and Community Engagement (DICE).
DICE Report
NJSBA Trustee Valerie Jackson presented the Association’s comments on proposed recommendations of the Supreme Court’s DICE report. She testified to the NJSBA’s strong support for the recommendations in the report, pointing out its suggestions to strengthen diversity initiatives in the courts. She praised the report’s advice to change the word “indigent” to focusing on the ability of litigants to pay and urged a more generalized approach to implement recommended language changes across the board.
In addition, the Association supported the following recommendations:
- encouraging the formation of a working group to address the effect and relevance of true poverty calculations to the courts in place of the federal poverty level;
- identifying those court proceedings where participation can be effectively accomplished remotely, adding that additional consideration should be given to partnering with public libraries and other local and state organizations to further assist court participants in connecting remotely, allowing those who generally struggle to access the technology needed to appear remotely to be able to do so without having to travel to court for otherwise administrative appearances;
- supporting the use of confidential hearings for name change applications to address the privacy concerns of people who are transgender, gender non-conforming and non-binary; and
- encouraging efforts to increase the number of law clerks who are diverse to provide valuable training and experience for new attorneys, recommending that the collection of demographic data to better understand the composition of the applicant pool and effectiveness of outreach and recruitment efforts be expanded to include additional groups and characteristics critical to ensuring diversity among law students and law clerks.
The NJSBA offered additional recommendations for the Judiciary’s consideration including continued or expanded outreach to affinity bar associations to increase the diversity of the law clerk applicant pool; expansion beyond the state’s law schools to law schools in the region to recruit law clerks; and the implementation of timeframes for law clerk diversity initiatives.
Changes to Family Practice
Former Family Law Section Chair Derek M. Freed testified on several rules dealing with co-parent adoptions and parenting coordinators, speaking favorably on the recommendations of the Court’s committee. On co-parent adoptions, the NJSBA supported amendment to R. 5:10-17, which clarifies that no background checks of any kind, nor the provision of social security numbers are required.
Much of the focus of the testimony was on proposed new rule 5:8D dealing with parenting coordinators. The NJSBA drafted a proposed rule addressing the use of parenting coordinators in family court. The Association supports the rules as a way to regulate and make uniform the parenting coordination process. The proposed new rule would clearly define who may serve as a parenting coordinator and the scope and limits of their authority. The NJSBA presented the Supreme Court with recommendations to clarify the rule including:
- a reference to the appendix of the Court Rules to include an administrative directive and sample form of order;
- clarifying language as to when and why a parenting coordinator may be appointed and specifying that one only be appointed when parenting issues arise;
- including language to clarify how parenting coordination appointments would be terminated in instances involving domestic violence;
- amendatory language to clarify when and whether a parenting coordinator’s recommendations shall be binding or non-binding;
- clarifying that a retired Superior Court judge is precluded from serving as a parenting coordinator; and
- barring parenting coordinators from serving in dual sequential roles in a matter including as an attorney, guardian ad litem, mediator, arbitrator, custody evaluator, therapist, coach, consultant, or other mental health role for either party or a child in the matter.