Empowering Survivors: Guidance for Self-Represented Litigants in Court

This episode tackles the challenges faced by self-represented litigants in domestic violence cases and how courts can ensure procedural justice and safety for victims. Three legal experts join the conversation to discuss the role of technology and training in improving legal responses and empowering survivors.

The content of this episode is for informational purposes and should not be considered legal advice.

The Honorable Lora Livingston, the Honorable Mary Madden, and Attorney Darren Mitchell guide us through the intricacies of supporting self-represented litigants, shedding light on the critical responsibilities of judicial officers. Discover how separating victims from perpetrators, addressing intimidation, and maintaining a safe court environment can empower those seeking justice without legal representation. 

Our discussion also ventures into the transformative effects of remote court proceedings, a shift hastened by the pandemic. Learn how this transition has eased logistical burdens, enhanced safety, boosted participation in domestic violence cases, and how virtual hearings continue to shape the future of justice access, offering a dignified platform for victims and ensuring procedural fairness remains intact.

Furthermore, we unravel the delicate balance between providing legal information and advice, especially for non-lawyer advocates assisting victims. Through examples and practical tips, we explore the permissible roles of advocates while underscoring the importance of collaboration with legal services. This episode is a treasure trove of strategies and insights aimed at improving court support for domestic violence survivors, ensuring they are equipped with the tools necessary to navigate their cases effectively.

You might want to take notes as you listen! Key resources from this episode include:

lawhelp.org
womenslaw.org
ncjfcj.org

Episode highlights:
• Discussing the statistics of violence against women
• Exploring the importance of procedural justice
• Highlighting judges' roles with self-represented litigants
• Examining courtroom management considerations for safety
• Learning about technology's role in enhancing access to justice
• Understanding the benefits of trained advocates for victims
• Sharing insights on systemic changes to support litigants
• Providing resources for further information and assistance

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The subject matter of this podcast will address
difficult topics multiple formsof violence, and identity-based
discrimination and harassment.
We acknowledge that thiscontent may be difficult and
have listed specific contentwarnings in each episode
description to help create apositive, safe experience for
all listeners.

Speaker 2 (00:22):
In this country, 31 million crimes 31 million crimes
are reported every year.
That is one every second.
Out of that, every 24 minutesthere is a murder.
Every five minutes there is arape.
Every two to five minutes thereis a sexual assault.
Every nine seconds in thiscountry, a woman is assaulted by
someone who told her that heloved her, by someone who told

(00:43):
her it was her fault, by someonewho tries to tell the rest of
us it's none of our business andI am proud to stand here today
with each of you to call thatperpetrator a liar.

Speaker 1 (00:53):
Welcome to the podcast on crimes against women.
I'm Maria McMullin.
As victims and survivors ofdomestic violence seek justice
to obtain safety, possibly gainfull custody of their children,
apply for protective orders andultimately hold offenders
accountable, they are oftentimespursuing legal recourse without
an attorney.
Unfortunately, most of theselitigants are not lawyers and do

(01:16):
not know the various and manytimes complex intricacies of
court proceedings.
Because of these challenges, itis imperative that
self-represented litigants areequipped with as much
information, tips and techniquesas possible to give them the
best chance at a favorableoutcome that could ensure their
safety and security.
This episode will be aconversation with two judges and

(01:39):
an attorney from the NationalCouncil of Juvenile and Family
Court Judges to talk about theimportance of procedural justice
and safety for domesticviolence victims and survivors
within a legal framework.
I am joined today by threeguests with distinguished law
and judicial careers, includingdirect experience with domestic
violence in family courts theHonorable Laura Livingston, the

(02:02):
Honorable Mary Madden andAttorney Darren Mitchell.
Darren Mitchell is the NationalCouncil of Juvenile and Family
Court Judges Fellow FVDR at theNational Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges.
In this role, he engages in thedevelopment and implementation
of effective research that willresult in the use of its

(02:23):
findings to build and helpimplement an array of
evidence-based practices injuvenile and family courts
across the country.
Mr Mitchell received hisBachelor of Science in
Biochemistry from the Universityof California, los Angeles, and
is a graduate of Stanford LawSchool.
Darren, welcome to the podcast.

Speaker 3 (02:43):
Hi, thank you for having me.

Speaker 1 (02:44):
Before we dive into the topic of self-represented
litigants, tell us a little bitabout the work of the National
Council of Juvenile and FamilyCourt Judges.

Speaker 3 (02:52):
Sure.
The National Council ofJuvenile and Family Court Judges
, or we call it NCJFCJ, is theoldest judicial membership
organization in the country andwe've worked on improving court
responses to domestic violenceand other topics for more than
30 years.
We provide training, technicalassistance.
We've provided that trainingand technical assistance to tens

(03:14):
of thousands of judges andother professionals involved in
both juvenile and family anddomestic violence courts all
across the country.
We also provide cutting edgepublications, practitioner tools
and other resources forprofessionals, all of which are
available on our website,wwwncjfcjorg.

Speaker 1 (03:36):
Prior to joining the NCJFCJ, mr Mitchell worked asa
consultant on domestic violenceand other violence against women
issues with a focus on childcustody and domestic violence,
firearms and domestic violence,interstate child custody
protection order issuance andenforcement and full faith and
credit.

(03:56):
So from what I understand inyour background, you have
extensive experience workingwith issues related to domestic
violence.
Help us build a framework forour conversation today with
retired judges Livingston andMadden about self-representation
in domestic violence cases andwhat information we can expect
from this discussion.

Speaker 3 (04:16):
Yeah, absolutely.
I'd be very happy to set thestage for the conversation.
As you mentioned at thebeginning, today we're planning
to focus on how courts and howother professionals as well in
domestic violence cases canbetter respond to
self-represented litigants.
We sometimes refer to those asSRLs, folks who don't have
lawyers, who make up the vastmajority of litigants,

(04:38):
especially in domestic violencecases.
We're going to explore howcourts, judges and other
stakeholders can help ensurethat victims of domestic
violence who engage with thelegal system experience a
process that both provides forsafe outcomes and what we call
procedural justice, which meansan experience in which they're

(05:00):
treated with dignity and respect.
They were given a voice in theprocess, they understand what
was happening at each stage ofthe legal process and they
perceive it to, overall, be fairand neutral and we're very
fortunate to have twoexperienced, accomplished
judicial officers with us todayas well and most of what we
discuss will be aimed at judgesand courts, but will also

(05:22):
explore opportunities for othercourt-affiliated professionals
opportunities they have tosupport self-represented
litigants in domestic violencecases as well.

Speaker 1 (05:30):
That's really helpful context for this conversation
and just to build on that a bitmore domestic abuse offenders
manipulate and exploit the legalsystem all the time and in many
ways they still yield power andcontrol over their victims In
cases involving domesticviolence.
What are some generalconsiderations for judicial
officers regarding courtmanagement?

Speaker 3 (05:53):
Yes, well, whether or not the parties have legal
representation, but especiallywhen the victim is not
represented, there are many,many things that judicial
officers should be on thelookout for in domestic violence
cases.
As you mentioned, the courthousemay just be yet another forum
in which the person who'sengaging in domestic violence is

(06:13):
attempting to exert power andcontrol over the victim, and so
it's really important forjudicial officers to consider
how to make the courthouseoverall and the courtroom safe
spaces for victims, and this caninclude things like instructing
security personnel to monitorhallways and other spaces
outside of the courtroom itselfto ensure that they're safe, by

(06:35):
seeing the victim and theperpetrator in particular ways
apart from each other, maybeseparate with other people in
between them from each other,maybe separate with other people
in between them as the hearingis going on, not letting one
party speak over the other, andtypically in domestic violence
cases, that would be the personwho's actually causing harm,

(06:56):
although sometimes, you know,victims act in ways that we
maybe don't expect, and they'llbe agitated and loud in the
courtroom too.
So making sure to manage thecourtroom in that way can be
very important and also ensuringwhich we see many times
attempts by the perpetrator toask direct questions of the
victim in the court.
Judicial officers should bestopping that practice.

(07:17):
They're the ones, if theparties are unrepresented or
self-represented, who should beasking those kinds of questions
as well.
And the final thing I'd mentionthat I think is really critical
and I know our judges todayhave additional strategies
around this is judicial demeanorhow judges speak to the victims
in their court and whether theycan use that as an opportunity

(07:39):
to help the victims regain someagency, some autonomy and some
sense of protection.
And that can include explainingwhat's happening in the
courtroom at each stage so theyunderstand that, what the judge
is going to be making theirdecision based upon.
And also really the importantway making advocacy, taking
judicial leadership to make surethat there's an advocate

(08:01):
available, ideally in thecourtroom and accessible, or in
the courthouse and accessible tovictims, can be an important
way to help make thisenvironment safe for someone who
has been subject to power andcontrol in many instances for
years.

Speaker 1 (08:15):
That is really helpful information.
I hope people were taking notesbecause I think those were some
very good tips for people whomight need them that are
listening today.
The Honorable Mary Maddenrecently retired after serving
six years as a district courtreferee in two Minnesota
district family courts.
She practiced family lawexclusively for 20 years before

(08:36):
joining the family court benchin 2008.
While serving as a referee from2013 to 2021, referee Madden
was the lead judicial officer onthree grants funded by the
Department of Justice Office ofViolence Against Women and
received by Minnesota's 4thJudicial District, specifically
the Family Court EnhancementProject Grant, a Mentor Grant

(08:59):
and a Justice for Families Grant.
Referee Madden is a former chairof the district's Domestic
Violence Coordinating Counciland Advisory Board.
She has been an adjunctprofessor at the University of
St Thomas School of Law teachingdomestic violence and the law
and is a consultant and trainerwith the Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges and theCenter for Justice Innovation.

(09:20):
Judge Madden, thank you forjoining us and welcome to the
show.
Thank you for having me as well.
You also have an extensivehistory with family law and
victims may bring misconceptionsand inaccurate expectations
with them to court about what ajudge will and will not do as it
relates to their case.
In your experience, what is theappropriate role of a judge in

(09:43):
a case with self-representedlitigants?

Speaker 4 (09:48):
I will reiterate many of the things that Darren just
said.
All of those things are veryimportant.
This is also a very big topic,so I'm just going to touch on
some of the basics that I thinkare important, especially in
these types of cases.
One of them, as Darrenmentioned, is safety.
Now, the role of the judge inthe courtroom is different than

(10:12):
what other actors in thecourthouse might be, but I think
for a judge it requiresminimally additional added
observation of things going onin the courtroom.
So where are the parties goingto sit?
They should not sit next toeach other unless there's
significant amount of spacebetween them.

(10:33):
They should not sit across fromeach other.
Where are they going to testifyfrom?
Typically, a courtroom is set upwhere there is the witness in
the witness stand and thendirectly across from them are
the other party or parties orattorneys etc.
I sort of suspend that practicewhen I'm doing civil protective

(10:53):
orders and just have partiestestify from where they are
sitting to avoid that.
Any intimidation factor reducesthe stress of both parties etc.
Also, monitoring intimidatingbehavior by any observers that
may be sitting in the courtroom.
We've received information overthe years about intimidating

(11:14):
behavior by supporting peoplewho attend a hearing with the
respondent, which we as judicialofficers don't necessarily see,
but we can obviously, if we'repaying attention, see it in the
courtroom and put a halt to thator excuse observers if
necessary, observing forviolations.

(11:35):
If someone is a respondent isdirectly looking at a petitioner
when they're testifying, makingsure to call that person out so
they understand that boundarieswill be set in the courtroom so
that everyone remains safe and,I think, really remaining
active and engaged in thehearing.
That is certainly possiblewithout compromising neutrality,

(11:59):
and I'll talk a little bit moreabout that.
But I think it's reallyimportant to play a more active
role in these types of cases,especially with self-represented
litigants, than the morepassive roles that judges may
play in other types of cases.
So procedural justice is areally important part of

(12:19):
especially where there'sself-represented litigants who
don't have the benefit ofcounsel to advise them and
inform them about what's goingon.
So it's important for judges toexplain the process.
Don't assume anything.
This may be parties first timein court, they're nervous,
they're traumatized, and thelist goes on and the list goes

(12:47):
on.
But explaining what we are herefor the day, how the hearing
process is going to work, whospeaks when addressing things
like exhibits and witnesses interms and with an explanation
that makes them less dauntingand intimidating for parties.
Explain that there's a recordbeing made, the decision-making
process and explain the resultif an order is issued from the

(13:10):
bench immediately following thehearing, because it's important,
for if you're in a situationwhere you are doing that, it's
important for both parties, inparticular in these cases and in
particular, beingself-represented is to
understand, so that both partieshave the same information and
they can ask any questions andthings are clear for everyone.

Speaker 1 (13:34):
Thank you for giving us all of that context.
I want to ask one questionabout this, and that is is there
anything additional that youmay have to do, or something you
might not do, if one side isrepresented and one is not?

Speaker 4 (13:48):
I think, for purposes of this discussion, whether one
side is represented or not, thesame principles apply, because,
especially for the party, whois self-represented is going to
feel most likely at adisadvantage.
So I think, if you use the sameprocess of explaining things,

(14:10):
setting the stage for proceduralfairness, that I don't think
there's a significant amount ofdifference.
You don't want to use terms oflegalese when there's one
attorney present so that theself-represented litigant
doesn't understand.
That's not going to bebeneficial.
So, using plain language,explaining terminology if you

(14:32):
have to use some type oflegalese, critical is treating
everyone with respect and thatincludes explaining the
courtroom decorum, explaining,as Darren mentioned, one person
speaking at a time, explainingnot speaking over the other
person, so that we have a clearand accurate record and
everybody has an opportunity tosay what they want to say.

(14:53):
And all of that creates aperception of fairness that is
so critical to how peoplerespond in these proceedings.
That is so critical to howpeople respond in these
proceedings.

(15:16):
It's important to activelyelicit information that's needed
for decision making, which is arole that a lot of judges may
or may not be comfortable with.
Some judges see their role asjust taking in information
that's presented to them withoutplaying an active role in
eliciting information, and thatis really, I think, doing a
disservice to the process anddoing a disservice to the
parties.
I think the judges who do thatdon't necessarily aren't doing

(15:38):
it maliciously or anything.
It's just it feels like it'scrossing a boundary.
But judges have a vestedinterest in procedural justice
and a vested interest in gettingall of the pertinent
information available withoutrelying on someone who's not
represented or someone who'straumatized, etc.

(15:58):
Be able to give thatinformation off the top of their
head.
So to make good decisions aboutchildren and families, judges
need to engage in the hearings.
Neutrality, treating parties inthe same manner as I touched on
when you asked, maria, aboutwhether we do anything

(16:19):
differently where one party'srepresented and another's not.
It's important to treat bothparties in the same manner.
Procedurally.
Now, that doesn't mean that youultimately order the same
services or include the sameprovisions in a civil protective
order for both parties, butit's to provide some meaningful

(16:43):
information and support tospecifically assist a family
that's in front of you withrespect to their specific needs
and circumstances.
I think it's important when youare playing an active role in
obtaining information usingnon-confrontational questioning
is explain to me what happened.

(17:05):
You referred to an incident onthis date.
Can you elaborate what happened?
And to the respondent, you'veheard the information that the
petitioner provided.
What would you like to sayabout that?
And asking I typically ask atthe end of a hearing where both

(17:28):
parties have had a chance totestify is if either of them has
any questions or if there's anyadditional information that we
did not cover that they think isimportant for me to know.
There's a couple of other pointsthat I think are important in
presiding over hearings withself-represented litigants is
being culturally responsive,work on eliminating bias and

(17:50):
ensuring language access, whichsome courts have a lot of
resources to ensure that that isavailable and others not so
much, but we have many membersof marginalized communities who
appear before us that don'ttrust government systems, and
obviously the court is one ofthose systems.

(18:12):
There's historic oppressionbased on race, ethnicity and
gender.
There's negative interactionswith other justice partners or
other parts of the system,disproportionate rates of
incarceration many, many reasonswhy someone appearing in front
of us does not have trust in thesystem, and so I think,

(18:34):
promoting culturalresponsiveness as we move
forward in these hearings andcontinuing to educate ourselves
on that issue, as well as theissue of eliminating bias, which
is a constant challenge for allof us on a daily basis, we all
bring our own biases to thetable.
And lastly, beingtrauma-informed as a court is

(18:59):
important.
Most, if not all, of theparties and that includes
petitioners and respondents mostlikely have experienced trauma
in their lives, and so, asDarren referenced, survivors of
domestic violence can appear ina variety of ways.
They can be emotionless, theycan be angry, they can be the

(19:23):
whole gamut, and if wemisinterpret their behavior and
have it dictate our assessmentof credibility, we can issue a
decision that is a disservice tothe parties and to the families
and the children involved, andagain, training is an ongoing
issue with respect to that.

Speaker 1 (19:44):
And again, training is an ongoing issue with respect
to that.
This is so complex andimportant and I hope that people
listening, whether they are avictim of domestic violence or
have some other purpose forbeing in the courtroom
understand that there's a lotthat goes into it and there's a
lot of responsibility on judgesand others to make sure that
people understand why they'rethere and how they're supposed

(20:06):
to conduct themselves and whatinformation is important.
So I appreciate you providingso much information for our
listeners to understand aboutthis topic.
Judge Livingston is a 1982graduate of the UCLA School of
Law.
She began her legal career as aReginald Heber Smith Community
Lawyer Fellow, assigned to theLegal Aid Society of Central

(20:30):
Texas in Austin, texas.
After completion of thetwo-year fellowship, she
continued to work in the area ofpoverty law until she entered
private practice, with anemphasis on family law.
She was an associate at the lawfirm of Joel B Bennett and a
partner at the law firmLivingston and Parr.
She began her judicial serviceas an associate judge for the

(20:51):
district courts of Travis County, texas and, after her
successful election, judgeLivingston was sworn in as judge
of the 261st District Court inJanuary 1999.
She is the firstAfrican-American woman to serve
on a district court in TravisCounty, texas.
Her judicial colleagues electedher to serve as the local
administrative district judgefor the Travis County Courts,

(21:13):
and she led the Council ofJudges for nine years.
Her crowning achievement wasoverseeing the design and
construction of the new TravisCounty Civil and Family Courts
facility.
Judge Livingston retired in2022 and is now serving in the
judiciary as a senior judge.
I'd like to welcome JudgeLivingston to the show.
Thank you for being here.

Speaker 5 (21:32):
Thanks so much for having me.

Speaker 1 (21:34):
You've been practicing law for about 40
years and one would assume youhave witnessed many changes over
those decades, not the least ofwhich was the changes within
the courts during the recentCOVID pandemic, based on the
need for all the facets of courtproceedings to pivot during the
pandemic.
What lessons about court accessdid we learn from the pandemic

(21:56):
that can help improve access forself-represented litigants.

Speaker 5 (22:00):
Well, the pandemic certainly required a major pivot
in our typical operations, butI think in many ways it was a
good pivot, a time for us toreevaluate the way in which we
were delivering justice andproviding our services to the
community.
And so, while some people sawthe pandemic as a huge challenge
and it was in certainly manyways challenging but it was also

(22:25):
an opportunity for us to take afresh look at our business
operations and our ability toprovide justice in new and
different ways.
Technology became ever soimportant, but instead of being
overwhelmed by the pivot thatthat required, it turns out your
phone is a computer and so inmany ways, everybody had equal

(22:48):
access, because even those thatare marginalized, in
marginalized communities or inpoverty stricken circumstances,
many people have access to asmartphone and can connect and
participate in the court processin ways that in-person
participation limited theirability to do so.
So technology became superimportant.

(23:10):
Our ability to move quicklyfrom an in-person environment to
a virtual environment becamereally important, but it turns
out we were able to make thatpivot very quickly and very
easily.
The biggest thing I think thatcame out of the shift from
in-person proceedings to remoteproceedings, in my mind, was the

(23:31):
participation of litigants.
We had greater participationacross all dockets, including
family law, including familyviolence, but really all across
the dockets.
We had greater participation.
We did fewer default judgmentsduring the pandemic when we were
operating in 100% remoteenvironments.

(23:52):
It eased transportation worries, it eased child care worries,
it eased problems that peoplehad taking time off from work
and, frankly, we were able tobetter predict the ways in which
we were going to conducthearings.
So we still had in some caseswhat we like to call cattle call

(24:13):
dockets, where everybody showsup at the same time and you work
through 30 or 50 cases in a day, in a morning or something.
We still had some of thatvirtually, but less of that
virtually.
We were able to modify it.
Even if you had a kind ofcattle call docket first thing
in the morning, you might beable to say and better schedule
and be, frankly, much moreefficient in the way in which we

(24:47):
conducted proceedings in thisremote environment.
Participation went upsignificantly during this period
of time.
We still met all the legalrequirements.
We still were able to impose adignified and formal proceeding
for litigants, but we were ableto do it in a way that made it

(25:08):
easily accessible to everyone.
I don't have hard and faststatistics on this, but
anecdotally I can tell you thatwe also experience better
compliance with some of ourcourt orders.
When people participate in aprocess, even if they don't get
everything they want, there's asense of buy-in to the process,

(25:30):
a sense that they were heard,they were listened to, they got
to say their piece.
They got to was a sense thatthey got a fair treatment and
that led to better compliancewith the orders that we entered

(25:52):
at the end of the day.
So again, I don't have reallyhard and fast statistics, we
didn't really capture that data,but that's certainly the
anecdotal experience of myselfand many of my colleagues.
The other thing that I would sayabout the pivot during the
pandemic, with regard toparticularly domestic violence
cases, our civil protectionorder docket was safer for

(26:15):
litigants in many ways, and youheard Judge Madden and Darren
talk about safety and how.
We're always concerned aboutproviding a safe environment for
litigants, particularly infamily violence cases.
But when you are appearingonline from a remote location
and your perpetrator has no ideawhere you are or how to reach
you, it's a lot safer for you.

(26:37):
You're less intimidated by theface on the screen than you
might be the face staring nextto you at counsel table inside a
courtroom in person.
So there was a real heightenedsense of safety and security in
this remote environment.
Fear lessened, People'sshoulders dropped a little
because they were safer and feltmore secure during this period

(27:00):
of time.
Their physical safety was justenhanced by these remote
proceedings.
There was still an opportunityfor the accused to be, you know,
to have the opportunity toconfront his or her witnesses
against him.
We still were able to providethat level of constitutional
protection.
Yet we did it in this remoteproceeding where they were still

(27:20):
face to face, but in a safe way, not physically intimidated,
face-to-face, but in a safe way,not physically intimidated, and
that, I think, made a very,very important difference during
this pandemic time frame.
So you know, in the old dayswhen we had in-person hearings I
can't tell you the number oftimes when I finished a hearing
I would say okay, ma'am, youleave first and sir, you're

(27:45):
going to be required to stay inthe courtroom for 20 minutes
until she safely left the areaand then you may leave.
And I would have a deputy standby to make sure that you know
the person against whom thisorder was entered wouldn't be
able to leave and follow thevictim or the survivor out the
door and that sort of thing.
I didn't have to worry aboutthat in a remote context.

(28:07):
She could be anywhere and stillparticipate.
He had his rights protected,she had her rights protected,
but everybody was protected in away that was just physically
safer for everyone.
So the pandemic did require, inmany ways, a new way of
delivering justice, but we wereable to do it with all the
procedural safeguards that theConstitution and our laws

(28:28):
required, and we were able to doit in a safe way in a dignified
proceeding.
And so I think we learned a lotof really important lessons
during the pandemic pivot, andwe were able to improve access
to justice for victims ofdomestic violence, for
self-represented litigants and,frankly, for those who both
showed up with lawyers.

Speaker 1 (28:50):
Yeah, I think you're right, obviously, but I think
you offer some very interestinginformation about how victims
kind of got.
You know they got agency back alittle bit by doing those
proceedings virtually.
Are you still doing virtual?

Speaker 5 (29:08):
proceedings.
Yes, in some cases we areconducting virtual proceedings.
Every state has a differentsort of rule about that.
Even within states, there maybe some local jurisdictions who
do things a little differently.
In some cases it's a rule forthis kind of case or this kind
of docket.
In some communities it's, youknow, based on some other

(29:29):
criteria set out by theirsupreme courts and so forth.

Speaker 1 (29:33):
but there are remote proceedings being conducted
every day so, judge, you have alot of interesting information
and background on this and Ithank you for that, and I I want
to open it up to to DarrenMitchell and Judge Madden for
their input about theirexperiences during COVID and in
the courtroom.

Speaker 3 (29:54):
Thank you, maria, and thank you, judge, for that
really excellent description ofkind of the state of the art
around virtual hearings now, andI can tell you, I do court
observations around the countryand work with courts all over
the country, and I just to.
I do court observations aroundthe country and work with courts
all over the country and I justto emphasize or reemphasize a
couple of things that you said,judge Livingston.
One is that you know this ideathat you have anecdotal evidence

(30:15):
of better compliance and, ofcourse, that that is consistent
with research around proceduraljustice.
And when we talk aboutprocedural justice, we don't do
it just because we think itsounds good.
There's actually, it'sevidence-based, there's research
establishing that, exactly whatJudge Livingston said that if

(30:37):
someone feels like the processwas fair, they were heard, it
was a neutral decision, etcetera, et cetera they are more
likely to comply, even if theylost.
And this is true for courts,it's also true for interactions
with law enforcement and others,and so we are evangelists
around procedural justice assomething that all courts in the
country should be striving for.

(30:59):
A couple other quick things tosay.
One is that there are courtsI've seen that are doing hybrids
, lots of hybrid hearings,situations in which one party is
in the courtroom and the otherone is appearing remotely, and
that takes special management bythe court in terms of setting
everything up so that not onlytechnically, people can hear
each other, but so that theydon't speak over each other,

(31:22):
that everyone understands what'shappening in the process and
there's just extra safeguardsthat need to be built in.
But, again, it provides theflexibility that we that we just
heard about, which is soimportant.
Another thing, the last thingI'll say, around the virtual
hearings, is that what I saw,which was really kind of
interesting, interesting andI've seen courts now incorporate

(31:43):
it into in-person hearings aswell is it gave the court the
opportunity as they had sort ofa cattle call type situation
where they had a bunch of peopleon Zoom, the court officer,
court staff could come on andtalk to all the litigants at
once about expectations for thehearing, demeanor before the
judge, courtroom decorum, butalso help them to help make sure

(32:08):
that any evidence that theywanted to present to the court
was going to be in a form thatthe court could accept it, and
for them to understand theprocess and their opportunity,
how, what the flow of thehearing would be and things like
that.
So again, building on proceduraljustice helps people understand
and know what to expect andthey can then add their voice to
the process, but in a reallykind of neat way that most

(32:30):
courts are not doing in person.
And I've seen at least a coupleof courts now try to do that as
well in person, where a courtofficer will go out in the
hallway and address thelitigants around courtroom
decorum and other aspects of thehearing too, around courtroom
decorum and other aspects of thehearing too.
So a lot of I think you knowthe judges and the court, the

(32:51):
court administrators involved inthis had a lot of pressure on
them and had to do this reallyquickly, but they were so
thoughtful and really developedsome kind of promising practices
that are, I think, way outlivethe pandemic at this point.

Speaker 1 (33:00):
Yeah, that's excellent, so it sounds like
it's here to stay right.

Speaker 5 (33:03):
Well, certainly in some communities.
I mean, we set up YouTubeaccounts.
Every court in my community hada YouTube account, and so we
were able to make the courtsopen, because we have an open
courts provision in our law, andso, in order to live into that
provision, every proceeding thatwas conducted on Zoom, we also

(33:25):
were able to live stream it onYouTube so the world could see
what was happening.
It was way more open than anin-person proceeding, because
you know if you're not in thatcourtroom you don't see what's
happening, but you could watchmy court all day long from New
Zealand and see what I was doingin my courtroom.
And so we took intoconsideration, as Darren

(33:47):
mentioned, lots of verythoughtful practices about how
to deliver justice in this newenvironment, and I think some of
those are here to stay.
I hope that courts andjurisdictions will embrace the
benefits of providing justice inthis more accessible way,
because I think it's a wonderfulway to ensure not only

(34:09):
procedural justice and fairness,but justice as a whole and
access.
People that live in remotecommunities can better access
courthouses.
You know, some people have todrive several hours to get to a
courthouse if they live in aremote or rural community.
That doesn't happen necessarily.
We have judges in our statethat ride a circuit that go to

(34:30):
three or four different counties.
Well, the judge doesn't have totravel four or five hours to
get to a 10-minute hearing inone county and then another two
hours in another county for a30-minute hearing.
He or she can do a millionhearings from one location if
they can do so remotely.
It's just an enormous benefitand we ought to take what works

(34:51):
and keep it going and learn fromthose lessons about how best to
provide access to justice.
I'm guessing Judge Madden alsowants to tell you about her
experience in the pandemic.

Speaker 4 (35:01):
Yeah, Well, I would concur with everything that
Judge Livingston and Darren hadto say.
We did the same things and Ican see the same benefits.
It's still being done, and so Idon't know that I have much to
add.
I will say that the hybridformat that Darren referred to

(35:22):
is sort of the next step as weall struggle to step up to the
electronic challenges we hadduring the pandemic that we
probably would not have evenbeen thinking about today if
that hadn't happened.
One thing that I want to add isthis management of this virtual
courtroom and the virtualwaiting room.

(35:43):
The dependence on a really good,personable clerk is really
important.
I relied so heavily on my clerk, who is great at just putting
people at ease, beingprofessional, making sure
everyone felt respected,apologizing for waits that were
inevitable, all that type ofthing, and that really sets the

(36:06):
stage for when the hearingactually begins and the
litigants can expect the sametreatment from the rest of the
system, ie me.
And one last thing, even thoughit's remote, I think we often,
and myself included, assume thatthe parties are in separate
locations, and so it remainsincumbent upon us to continue to

(36:31):
be observant, even thoughparties are appearing remotely.
There are a handful ofoccasions.
I don't know that it's that I'mnot aware of any time that it
happened in my courtroom, of anytime that it happened in my
courtroom but where I've heardsomebody a judicial officer
colleague have figured out thatthe parties were in the same

(36:52):
place, just appearing ondifferent cameras, and then
you've got to really rein thingsin and figure out what's going
on.

Speaker 1 (37:00):
In domestic violence cases.

Speaker 4 (37:02):
You're saying yes, so protective order cases yeah.

Speaker 1 (37:05):
I mean, I've seen some reports about that as well
and it was super uncomfortableand not to mention dangerous for
sure.
I'm glad you brought that up,thank you.
So we're going to switch gearsa little bit for a moment.
We're the co-executive directorof the Legal Resource Center, a
national nonprofit thatprovides training and technical

(37:26):
assistance to attorneys andothers who assist survivors of
domestic violence in complexinterstate custody cases.
Based on your experience inthat role and beyond, let's talk
about entities such asnon-lawyers, who play an
instrumental role in helpingvictims prepare their court
cases.
Who play an instrumental rolein helping victims prepare their

(37:47):
court cases?
How do these non-lawyers,working with self-represented
litigants, help them tounderstand the process and
obtain information to helpprepare for the court experience
?

Speaker 3 (37:56):
Yes, absolutely A well-trained and we're mostly
talking about domestic violenceadvocates here who are
non-lawyers, who are workingwith folks who are
self-represented, and I reallyhave to say a well-trained
advocate is a vital resource forvictims.
And by well-trained I mean whounderstands court processes,
what victims can expect, someunderstanding of what happens

(38:18):
after hearings, what to do ifthere are violations, all those
kinds of things that victimsreally need to know about.
A well-trained advocate likethat can be instrumental.
So they certainly can existvictims with court processes,
but it's really critical tounderstand that there are
significant limits on what theycan do if they're not licensed

(38:41):
attorneys within the legalsetting.
If they're not licensedattorneys within the legal
setting and it's a very complexarea.
It varies by state, but I dowant to share some important
considerations here, because Ithink it's important for folks
to understand, and not crosslines, that they shouldn't be
crossing into areas ofunauthorized practice of law

(39:02):
where you're providing thefunction, you're taking on the
role of an attorney withoutbeing a licensed attorney.

Speaker 1 (39:08):
Yeah, good idea.
Let's hear what those are.

Speaker 3 (39:11):
Yeah, of course.
So the dividing line generallyis that non-lawyers, like
advocates, can't provide quotelegal advice or legal
representation.
So they can share legalinformation about processes or
information about legalprocesses, but they can't engage
in what we sometimes refer toas applying the law to the facts

(39:33):
of the individual situation.

Speaker 1 (39:34):
Can you give us like one example of doing that?

Speaker 3 (39:38):
Yeah, absolutely.
Let's say a same sex couplecomes to an advocate and has
questions around their rights tomaybe they share children
around.
What can be done if one wantsto separate from the other
parent?
Will they lose any rights theyhave to the child?

(40:02):
What does that look like?
That's a complex legal issuethat really varies from state to
state.
An advocate may know, may haveworked in enough cases, may know
, you know, may have talked tolawyers about this, and may know
the answer to how laws aroundcustody and parenting rights
apply in safe sex couples withinthat jurisdiction.

(40:22):
But they can't tell the personoh, if you go to court, you can
argue for joint legal andphysical custody of the child
because you're considered to bea parent of that child or that
you have to go through anotherhoop to get there.
Instead, what they would haveto do is say, ideally, refer

(40:42):
them to an attorney and I'lltalk a little bit about
relationships between attorneysand advocates and trying to make
that process work for folks.
But really they need anattorney to give them legal
advice for what to do in aprocess like this.
But they can potentially tellthe person about legal avenues.
You can go to family court andyou can try to pursue an action

(41:04):
in family court.
I can't tell you which one'sgoing to apply in your situation
, but if you ask them at thecourt, they may be able to tell
you or talk to an attorney.
That's just one example.
It's really saying you know,this is the law and, given your
situation, this is how thesedifferent legal standards or
requirements will apply.
Non-lawyers can't do that, Ofcourse.

(41:24):
They can't represent people incourt, they can't make arguments
for them in court.
Many of the things are obvious,but sometimes that line between
legal information and legaladvice can be fuzzy or difficult
to describe.
One way we talk about itsometimes, which can be helpful
in some contexts, is that anon-lawyer cannot advise a

(41:47):
person a victim or otherwiseabout what they should do in
terms of pursuing a legal action.
They may be able to describelegal options that are available
, what the victim could chooseto do, but they can't use that
should.
In your situation, you shoulddo this.
This is the appropriateproceeding for what you're

(42:08):
trying to accomplish, given yoursituation.
So, again, it's a complex topic.
We do training on this foradvocates and for attorneys to
help folks kind of understandthat line, but it is an
important one for non-lawyersadvocates to be aware of.
There are some things theygenerally can do with survivors

(42:31):
in terms of helping them withcourt proceedings, so they can
talk about what you can expectin court, how you should dress
in court, what this process isthat you're now entering.
They potentially can helpgather, help the person identify
what information may be helpfulto pursue a case.
But that can vary state bystate as well, and in some

(42:52):
places non-lawyers can helppetitioners actually complete
paperwork, such as protectionand order petitions, provided
they act only as a scribe.
They don't suggest what you putin the petition, but it says
this here.
What's your response?
They can write it down.
So for someone who'suncomfortable with it, who may

(43:12):
have language access challenges,et cetera, et cetera, in some
jurisdictions they can do that,but again this varies from state
to state.
So my suggestion for all theadvocates who are out there
listening to this is that youshould talk to a lawyer within
your community, a local legalservices organization, legal aid

(43:33):
, talking to folks there aboutwhere the line is drawn.
And in addition to that,sometimes self-represented folks
go into cases, start cases andthen an attorney comes in and
they're in a position wheresomething was done before their
involvement that made it moredifficult to actually advocate
for particular outcomes, and soadvocates understanding that

(43:55):
what some of those red flags arecan be really helpful too.
So we've worked with folks,we've helped convene
conversations between advocatesand legal aid organizations to
discuss these kinds of issuesand develop these really
important relationships and Istrongly suggest that folks do

(44:20):
that to develop printedmaterials, online materials for
self-represented.
And then it gets in domesticviolence cases that are vetted
to make sure that they don'tcross the line into legal advice
, but do provide very helpfulinformation to victims who are
contemplating entering into aparticular legal process, like
trying to get a civil protectionorder, for instance.

(44:40):
So those are just some initialthoughts around a very complex
area.

Speaker 1 (44:45):
Yeah, I wish I had been taking notes, so I hope
someone's taking notes on all ofthat helpful information
Judge-represented litigants cando to help prepare folks to come
to the courthouse.

Speaker 5 (44:58):
One simple thing really is to encourage
self-represented litigants toactually come on a day that is
not their day of court and justwatch the proceedings, come and

(45:19):
talk to the bailiff and meet thecourt staff and just you know,
can I observe and let me see howother cases are being handled,
let me see how the judge handlesthis or that, or, you know,
watch lawyers do it, watch otherpeople that are
self-represented.
I think you can learn a lotfrom that, but it also
demystifies the process.
When you've seen it before, youknow what to expect.

(45:41):
Certainly in my jurisdiction,people are welcome to come and
use the technology that we haveavailable at the courts to
practice on that equipment on aday when we're not otherwise
involved in a hearing.
So you can arrange with thecourt staff to come and actually
use the equipment, learn how touse the document camera, learn
where to put your exhibits, howto get an exhibit sticker from

(46:04):
the court reporter.
You know all of that whereyou're going to sit, where, when
to stand, when to sit, everyevery court has its own rules
about sort of local rules arounddecorum, and so there's a lot
of very practical things thatpeople can do to demystify the
process and to learn justgenerally what to expect and how
things are going to go, inaddition to the more complex

(46:26):
concepts that Darren was justspeaking about.
Practice makes perfect.

Speaker 1 (46:30):
Yeah, that is great advice.
I didn't know that you could dothat, but I would encourage
people to do the same.
Since her retirement, judgeLivingston has also served as
the interim director of theTexas Access to Justice
Commission, as a mediator and asa legal consultant.
She is also an instructor inthe practice court at Baylor
University School of Law and hasdedicated her legal career to

(46:53):
promoting access to justice forall.
So, judge Livingston, as judgesprepare to oversee proceedings
where victims are representingthemselves, they also face
challenges.
Could you share with us whatsome of those challenges are and
an idea of a judge's day-to-daypractices to improve handling
cases with self-representedlitigants?

Speaker 5 (47:14):
Well, every professional, and certainly
judicial professionals, need tobe concerned about their
work-life balance.
I think fatigue is a real issuewhen you hear over and over
again the things that people doto one another that are unkind,
violent, dangerous, difficult.
So you have to guard againstfatigue and burnout.
Judges and court staff arecertainly prone and subject to

(47:40):
secondhand trauma secondhandtrauma and so I think you have
to be concerned about your ownwellness and the wellness of
your staff and take steps tobalance work-life
responsibilities, but also payattention to what it means to
take care of your own wellnessand mindfulness.
So there's that you can also,on the other hand, fall victim

(48:00):
to what I like to call theinsensitivity of violence.
I will never forget sitting ina room of colleagues and someone
said well, how bad was it?
Was anybody bleeding?
As if to suggest that if therewas no blood, it wasn't a
serious violence case.
That kind of insensitivity toviolence is another thing that
we have to guard against,because that's a really

(48:22):
dangerous mindset for a judicialofficer to be in Patience when
you're dealing withself-represented litigants, when
you're dealing with people whoare in circumstances where they
are excited and emotional andhave been the victim of some
terrible tragedy.
Oftentimes, judges arechallenged by requiring a lot

(48:44):
more patience than they might inother kinds of cases, and so I
call on judges to be extremelypatient.
We have to often redirect,maintain some sense of what's
relevant, what we're going to dotoday, what we're not going to
talk about today, and so there'sa fair amount of redirection
that has to happen.
Active listening skills JudgeMadden has already talked about

(49:04):
Explaining things so that peopleunderstand what the
expectations are and what'srequired of them, what we're
going to do, what we're notgoing to do, how this is going
to work All of those things andall of those strategies are
really important in thesecontexts.
You have to balance lettingpeople talk and tell their story
versus staying on topic andstaying within the time limits

(49:27):
allowed for a specific type ofhearing.
Some only get 20 minutes perside, some might have an hour
per side, so you have to workwithin those limitations, and
doing these things will helpkeep you on track.
Paperwork is one of the biggestchallenges, because you cannot
always count on particularly aself-represented litigant or a
litigant who's really emotionalto really understand the need to

(49:51):
craft and draft an enforceablecourt order.
And so my one tip, my one pieceof advice for today is something
Darren sort of alluded to, andthat is forms.
If you have a form order, youalready know what your law in
your state requires regardingfindings that you have to make
to order a protection order, forexample, and so if you're going

(50:14):
to enter a protective order,those statutory requirements and
statutory findings can bepreprinted in a form and you can
check a box.
You can fill in additionalinformation with specific
findings, specific findings.
But if you have a form order,then everybody leaves the
courtroom that day with a signedenforceable order and a copy of

(50:34):
it in their hand that they'vebeen served with in open court.
That, to me, is the best way tomake sure that the matter is
concluded, that everybody knowswhat they're expected to do or
not do, everybody is told what'sgoing on and they understand
their responsibilities and yourcourt process is protected and
the order is signed on the dayof the hearing.

(50:56):
That's my tip Create formorders and use them to the
fullest extent, because I thinkit'll save you and your
litigants a lot of time andenergy and it will improve your
ability to get compliance andyou will have fewer enforcement
actions, and if you have to havean enforcement action, you'll
have the paperwork you need inorder to enforce the order

(51:16):
you've entered.

Speaker 1 (51:17):
So just to clarify, because I'm not very familiar
with the process bring the formto the courtroom and get it
signed that day.
Is that what you're saying?

Speaker 5 (51:25):
I'm suggesting that courts have those forms
available.
Here's what I like to telljudges when I speak to judges At
the end of the day, it is yourcourt order, it is your
signature that goes on.
The court order that saysso-and-so must stay 200 yards
away from someone else.
That's your court order.
Judge, courts can have a formorder.

(51:47):
You can require the litigantsto fill it out, but before they
leave that courtroom you want toreview that court order, make
any changes to make sure it'saccurate and has in it all the
information that you've orderedin the case, and then you put

(52:11):
your signature to it.
It goes to the court filecopies to the parties.
Everybody leaves with clearrules and expectations about
what they're to do and not to doand the court order is on file
before they leave thatcourthouse and I think that will
help enforcement.
I think it will provide clarityto the parties about the do's
and don'ts and I think if thecourt is prepared with form
orders, they can customize forany particular case.
That goes a long way to makingsure that everybody gets what

(52:32):
they need.
If you depend on aself-represented litigant
sometimes, if you depend on alawyer to go back to their
office and draft a document thatsays court order on it.
You might not ever see it again.
If you do that, you might wantto, on the day of the hearing,
create another date by whicheverybody has to be back with a
copy of that order.

(52:53):
So if you're going to letsomebody go away and draft it,
enter an order on that date thatsays I want to see you back
next Friday at 9 am for an entrydate so that we can get the
order signed on that day.
My tip is, in cases that arefairly prescribed by law in
terms of the kind of findingsyou must make to enter, say, a

(53:13):
civil protective order, that'spretty relatively preordained,
if you will, in terms of whathas to be found.
The judge can then customizethat order.
But it's got the basicstatutory language in it already
and the judge can thencustomize it based on the
evidence they hear.
In that case everybody walksout with a signed order.
That's what I'm suggesting.

Speaker 1 (53:34):
So when we have these court orders, these are usually
cases that can turn violent andfor some reason, you require
that kind of protection as avictim of domestic violence.
Darren, can you offer someinsight into what judges should
keep in mind about cases likethose with self-represented
litigants and, for example, thesafety considerations related to

(53:56):
intimidation and coercivecontrolling tactics in court?

Speaker 3 (54:00):
Sure.
First off, a key thing forjudges and actually everyone
involved in these cases is tounderstand that when a victim
appears before the court, theyare likely at a heightened state
of endangerment At that momentand beyond.
There have been many studiesthat have documented what we
call separation violence, andthat's the research based

(54:23):
understanding that a victim isat greatest risk for abuse and
or greater risk for abuse orlethal violence.
Greatest risk for abuse and orgreater risk for abuse or lethal
violence, even when they takesteps, including coming to court
, for an order to separatethemselves from from their
abusive partner yeah andjeopardize that person's power
and control, and so that'ssomething we should all
understand.
You mentioned, um, intimidation,coercive control, just so we're

(54:45):
all on the same page.
What we're talking about hereare, um, generally non-physical
forms of abuse that a personuses to restrict another
person's safety and autonomyusing intimidation, threats,
whether they're explicit orimplicit, or by requiring them
to comply with rules that theyset, and Judge Madden, I think,

(55:05):
really did a nice job of talkingabout how judges can be attuned
to these types of, how a courseof control shows up in the
courtroom, in terms of bodylanguage, also, when it looks at
the other person, and even wesee things like trying to
gaslight the victim in the courtby trying to humiliate them,

(55:25):
confuse them, saying everythingis because they're having a
mental health or a substance useissue, et cetera, et cetera
things like that that judgesshould be attuned to in the
court.
A final thing that I'll mention,which we see more and more, in
which we see a growing number ofstates enacting laws to help
judges address, is what wesometimes call litigation abuse,

(55:48):
and that's where a person whois typically a forcefully
controlling abuser uses thecourt process itself as a mean
of furthering their power andcontrol by bringing repeated
court actions, motions formodification, for contempt, for
things like that, and judges canand should step in in these
cases and put a stop to that and, as I said, some state laws are

(56:10):
now explicit about courtauthority to do so, because of
course, that can have severefinancial consequences and
significantly intimidate,disrupt the victim's life.
So those are just a smallnumber of things to be concerned
about in the court aroundcoercive control.

Speaker 1 (56:29):
Referee Madden also spearheaded the development of
the district's family courtfirearm surrender protocol and
civil protective orders requiredunder both state and federal
law.
In 2019, referee Madden was oneof 13 judicial officers in the
country selected as a fellow toparticipate in the Judicial
Engagement Network InauguralFellowship Program, which

(56:50):
identifies and brings togetherjudicial offices to promote
cutting-edge practices thatresult in better outcomes for
families, provides opportunitiesfor judicial officers to craft
and hone leadership skills, andsupports the passing of
knowledge and expertise to thenext generation of judicial
officers.
Judge Madden, can system changehelp improve access and

(57:12):
responses to self-representedlitigants in domestic violence
cases, and how have you seenthat happen?

Speaker 4 (57:18):
We started looking at this in my district, hennepin
County, several years ago and atthe time we had 15 judicial
officers in family court whoheard the civil protective
orders and you could easily get15 different outcomes, 15
different provisions, etc.

(57:39):
And while all of our caseloadswere full.
That wasn't a very good way toserve victims of domestic
violence and their children.
So in 2016, we pilotedsomething called a child-related
relief calendar for civilprotective orders and on that
calendar, any case where partieshad a child in common and there

(58:00):
was a hearing required becausesome type of child-related
relief was requested went onthat calendar.
So, for example, custody issues, parenting time issues, child
support treatment or programmingwent on those calendars.
They were separated from caseswhere parties did not have
children in common.

(58:21):
The focus of that calendar,those calendars included
providing petitioners andchildren with financial relief
that is allowed by our statestatute but not consistently
provided due to time constraintsand full civil protective order
calendars.
Providing custody and parentingtime arrangements that protect

(58:44):
the safety and well-being ofboth petitioners and their
children.
Holding the offending parentaccountable for abusive behavior
and, lastly, establishing theleast restrictive parenting time
arrangements, considering allof the above priorities.
So we began in 2016 with fourout of our 15 judges on that

(59:05):
pilot calendar and the purposewas to implement some new
practices, make strategicchanges as we encountered
challenges and we learned fromour experiences in order to
maximize the quality of theCorps' handling of those cases.
It was a lot of work that wegot through that first year and

(59:25):
made lots of changes.
A year later, we determinedthat we needed to double the
number of child-related reliefcalendars that we were hearing,
and we added another three, soseven out of 15 judges and a
year later all judges beganhearing those calendars.

(59:46):
So the pilot became fullyimplemented and became a
significant procedural changethat reflected a more consistent
handling of those cases andbetter outcomes for families and
children.
Prior to that time, what washappening is we would issue our
standard two-year order forprotection.

(01:00:07):
Most of these other issuesweren't addressed due to time
constraints etc.
And so once the two-year orderexpired or was dismissed
typically at the request of apetitioner before that two-year
expiration date, nothing hadchanged, and so we decided to
slow the process down and wetook more time to get

(01:00:29):
information about what's goingon with custody and parenting
time.
What kind of arrangements arereally going to be in kids' best
interest?
Do we need to appoint aguardian ad litem to help us
figure that out?
Safety needs to be at the topof the list, so maybe the
guardian ad litem can help inthat regard.
So maybe the guardian litem canhelp in that regard.

(01:00:52):
We slow down to address theissues of child support, because
addressing child support canremove an obstacle to safety if
a petitioner is financiallydependent on the respondent for
support of the children, andthat's we've talked about the
role of advocates, and that is asignificant role that advocates
can play is helping apetitioner get that financial

(01:01:12):
information and have it ready tothe court, because that's not
something a petitioner withoutthat assistance would typically
think of.
Oftentimes we heard thatpetitioners just want the
violence to stop.
We hear I miss him, the kidsmiss him, and so taking the time
to really tailor the relief tothis family and focus on

(01:01:36):
remedying some of the underlyingissues that have resulted in
the family getting to this point.
So, for example, providingdomestic violence programming
for the respondent, ordering achemical health assessment if
the domestic violence seemsclosely connected to chemical
use or misuse, therapeutics forthe respondent, the children,

(01:02:00):
etc.
Doing supervised parenting timeyou can't just well, you can,
but it's probably not in kids'best interest to just issue
supervised parenting time for aperiod of two years and have
that needs to be done, getting achemical health assessment
finished and expanding parentingtime if appropriate, either

(01:02:38):
removing it from supervision orexpanding the time and frequency
.
One of the other things we didwas implement a same-family,
same-judge policy.
So if we had a family in with acivil protective order that
later filed a custody case or adivorce case, that same judge
would hear that heard theprotective order case, would

(01:03:00):
hear that case, which allowedfor more consistency of the
family.
So we had no illusions aboutsolving domestic violence in its
entirety as part of thisproject and shifting calendars,
but the shift in focusanecdotally did result in better
outcomes for families and kids.

Speaker 1 (01:03:21):
Yeah, that's an excellent example and I love the
idea of you know.
One judge for the familyoverseeing all of the cases
makes a lot of sense andprobably can result in better
outcomes for everyone.
Unfortunately, we are out oftime and this is such a complex
topic.
I bet you we could learn moreabout it.
Darren, what resources do youhave for us to learn more about

(01:03:45):
self-represented litigants, aswell as the National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges?

Speaker 3 (01:03:51):
Yes.
Well, as far as the NationalCouncil, or NCJFCJ, is concerned
, I mentioned our website,ncjfcjorg.
The vast majority of theinformation there is tailored to
the needs of judicial officersand other professionals who work
on domestic violence cases, soif you fall in those categories,
please check it out.
We also did produce, severalyears ago, a series of

(01:04:15):
self-represented litigantpublications for
self-represented litigants aboutobligating court processes, in
which we collaborated with theBetter Women's Justice Project.
Those are available on thewebsite as well.
And for survivors or victimswho can't find a lawyer to
represent them or cannot afforda lawyer, we strongly, of course

(01:04:35):
, suggest working with anadvocate, if you can find one in
your local community, forsafety planning purposes and, of
course, to get informationabout the legal processes.
As I mentioned earlier, you canget some information without
getting legal advice or havingrepresentation information
without getting legal advice orhaving representation.
And one of a primary way to getto find out who your advocacy

(01:04:56):
organization is is to call theNational Domestic Violence
Hotline, which is 1-800-799-SAFE, that's 1-800-799-7233.
They can provide assistance andthey also can connect you with
your local domestic violenceprogram.
There are a couple of websitesas well I want to just briefly

(01:05:16):
mention, because they can bevery helpful too.
One is there are a series oflaw help websites that are
developed and maintained bylegal services organizations,
and many of them include tipsfor self-representation.
So, for example, in NorthCarolina it's lawhelpncorg, but
if you go to lawhelporg it haslinks to all the state websites.

(01:05:38):
Finally, victims can go towomenslaworg that's womenslaw
all one word, org which is runby the National Network to End
Domestic Violence, and itcontains just a myriad of
helpful information forsurvivors, as well as
information onself-representation.
So any of those resources, Ithink, will be very valuable.

Speaker 1 (01:06:02):
Excellent.
Thank you all for talking withme today.

Speaker 3 (01:06:04):
Thank you.

Speaker 5 (01:06:05):
Thanks very much for having us.

Speaker 1 (01:06:08):
Thanks so much for listening.
Until next time, stay safe.
The 2025 Conference on CrimesAgainst Women will take place in
Dallas, Texas, May 19th throughthe 22nd at the Sheraton Dallas
.
Learn more and register atconferencecaworg and follow us
on social media at National CCAW.