Joint Interim Committee on Family Law
October 13, 1997
Senator Harold Caskey and Representative Pat Dougherty presiding
Witness: Ms. Margaret Donnelly, Attorney, St. Louis City and County
 
      MARGARET DONNELLY: I am Margaret Donnelly. I practice in St. Louis City and County, on the other side of the state. A significant part of my practice in as a guardian ad litem, and so, today, as I talk to you, it will be based on my experiences in that role and also from a number of discussions that have occurred among the family law committee members of the bar.
 
    The only comment that I would like to make, at this point, on the joint custody issue is that, as you know, the bar has opposed the concept of a rebuttable presumption. I think, however, that we would, many members would believe that some clarification with those terms are also following up on what Judge Goeke said, some clarification of the possible combinations that that might be helpful in the statute and be helpful for people as they begin to think about their  parenting plan. I also think that most members of the bar could support changes that would move to language, such as eliminating visitations referred to by several people here, using, doing  away, possibly, with the concept of non-custodial, moving to parenting plan, things that would show respect for both parents in a family. However, we want to caution you to simply be sure, that as we do this, that we draft it in such a way that's it's going to be impossible for the attorneys and judges out there to make sure that we can enforce prior orders and that it will be possible for us to move on and interpret and enforce those new statutes.

     DOUGHERTY: We've got the best researchers that money can buy. We'll make sure that they do that.

     DONNELLY: Right. And, I think that some of the opposition last year was simply that there seemed to be not as much clarification as we needed, because it's new territory, but I definitely agree, and I think many practitioners do, that much of the language that's used right now creates a lot of the perceptions and the feelings of angst among the parties to litigation.

     The other point that I think is very important to remember about the members of the family bar is that most of us are in favor of the alternative programs that have been discussed here today. We do not think that whether it's going immediately to an adversarial situation when you're trying to deal with the visitation issues, the custodial issues, is necessarily the right approach, whether we call it the Friend of the Court, whether it's MARCH, they talked a lot about the programs and I don't necessarily have to deal with any of those specifics, except that the bar would support moving there before we move to the whole contempt and enforcement provision by the judiciary, because I think that for many of these conflicts, they'll better resolve and it's a better result for children if you can get the parents to buy into not having the conflict.

     There are, in the audience today, several members of the Domestic Relations Department of the Family Court in St. Louis County. They are frequently requested by attorneys and used by the judges, but pre-custody, post-custody orders, although we, in St. Louis County, do not, as yet, have any formal program, similar to St. Louis City, for an alternative program. We do use them and I think many of us would support that concept across the entire state.

     Finally, there's a small, well, it's not small, in many ways, because it, again, involves how do we pay for them? How do we deal with them? But, right now, as we're doing custody evaluations, and particularly, I see this as a GAL, we are not, if it's not across the state that custody evaluations by, what one would consider a mutual psychologist or could be ordered, except under what we call Rule 60, which has some specific provisions. In both St. Louis City and County, again, by local rules and local custom, that it's frequently ordered that we use one psychologist to look at the entire family, and make a recommendation to the court with respect to the best interest of the children, but, that is not statewide, and I think that that is something, legislatively, that should be addressed that the court would have the power to institute that and to order that so that the court, essentially, has an expert who can advise them in some of these very difficult matters. And, conclude my remarks, and would be glad for any questions.

     CASKEY: Are there any questions? You didn't take a lot of time, so that means we're going to have a lot of questions.

     Representative Hollingsworth.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: Just one question, thank you. Who pays for the expert, so to speak, the child psychologist or your psychologist that comes in? Is it the parties?

     DONNELLY: It depends. In St. Louis County, they have a contract and on a needs basis. They can actually use court funds to pay for the evaluation. If the parties are able to pay, they will order that. In St. Louis City, there are some resources for sliding scale. The parties, frequently, have to pay for it. Judge Frawley might want to correct me on that.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: What happens if a party does not want to, the father or mother, they want to be evaluated? They don't have a choice?

     DONNELLY Well, yeah, they do not have a choice, if the court believes that it's going to be beneficial to the court making its decision. It can order it. Frequently, what you have is someone - one party or the other comes in and they're wanting it, and the judges don't feel that when they just get one expert, first of all, by the psychologist's code of ethics, they're not allowed to give an actual custody recommendation if they've not seen everyone. So, I think many of the judges feel it's not all that helpful to have just one  person coming in and saying, well, I saw this person, but I didn't see the other, and so, they can be ordered to participate then.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

     CASKEY: Are there any statistics on how many dissolutions are  granted annually, and how many involve children?

     DONNELLY: There are those statistics, but I am afraid I don't know them. You would have to ask someone else. I don't know.

     CASKEY: I asked the co-chair. He said, yes, he has it. He's on top of it.

     DOUGHERTY: Once a year.

     CASKEY: Once a year. Thank you. Any other questions?

     DOUGHERTY: In the packet, I forgot to mention. In the packet, the one this morning is chapter 452, revised as of this session, except for the UCCJA part is not here, but all of the changes that we made this year are in this docket you got, in case you need it,  or if you don't need it, it's still there.


   Return to Family Law Main Transcript - October 13, 1997
   Proceed to Next Section