Oregon's Informal Domestic Relations Trial: A New Tool to Efficiently and Fairly Manage Family Court Trials

• Author: Jeffrey E. Hall,William J. Howe
• Published date: 01 January 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12263
• Date: 01 January 2017

OREGON’S INFORMAL DOMESTIC RELATIONS TRIAL: A NEW

TOOL TO EFFICIENTLY AND FAIRLY MANAGE FAMILY COURT

TRIALS

William J. Howe III and Jeffrey E. Hall

The Informal Domestic Relations Trial (IDRT) process adopted by the Deschutes County, Oregon, Circuit Court is described,

evaluated, and compared to simplified family law procedural rules of other jurisdictions. The IDRT process has been created

by local court rule, and will soon be adopted statewide in Oregon. The IDRT rule allows parties to choose a simplified trial or

hearing format where the parties speak directly to the judge with no direct or cross-examination, nonparty witnesses are limited

to experts, the traditional rules of evidence are waived, and all exhibits offered by the parties are admitted. IDRT cases are typi-

cally docketed more quickly than traditional trials; last just a couple of hours; and decisions are rendered promptly, usually the

day of the hearing or trial. The court retains jurisdiction to modify the process as fairness requires and to divert cases where

domestic violence or other reasons render IDRT inappropriate.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

Self-represented litigants are generally not capable of effectively presenting their family law case at trial because of the

complexity of evidentiary rules and trial procedures.

When conducting traditional trials involving self-represented family law litigants, judges are challenged by the require-

ment to remain passive, when more active engagement of the court is necessary in order to achieve fairness because

few self-represented litigants understand the rules of evidence and trial procedure.

A simplified trial and hearing process is necessary to accommodate these realities and the increasing number of self-

represented family law litigants.

The perception of procedural fairness of self-represented litigants is premised on their feeling that they were able to tell

the judge their story.

Five states and some jurisdictions outside the United States have adopted informal procedures for certain family law

cases, and this trend is growing.

Attorneys are increasingly recommending the IDRT process to clients where either only narrow issues are presented

for trial or where their clients cannot afford full representation at trial.

Keywords: Domestic Relations Trials; Family Law Trials; Informal Custody Trials; Informal Domestic Relations Trials;

Pro Se Litigants; Procedural Fairness; and Self-Represented Litigants.

INTRODUCTION

Creating a family is easy; reconstellating a family after divorce or separation is hard. No judge is

required to approve a couple’s cohabitation or procreation. However, in the United States only a

court can grant a divorce, separation, or a judgment resolving child custody, parenting time, and sup-

port issues. So each year courts are crowded with litigants seeking resolution of their family law

disputes.

1

These customers of our courts are rejecting the traditional litigation model to resolve their issu es.

Premarital agreements, until fairly recently considered void as against public policy, are now com-

mon.

2

These agreements are designed to avoid most judicial involvement if the parties’ marriage

ends. Alternative dispute resolution models designed to minimize court involvement are widely

available. The avalanche of self-represented litigants (SRLs)

3

seeking to navigate traditional court

procedures is the most dramatic challenge to courts seeking to provide fair and efficient resolution of

family law disputes.

Correspondence: whowe@gevurtzmenashe.com; jeff.hall@ojd.state.or.us

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 55 No. 1, January 2017 70–83

V

C2017 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts