Oregon's Informal Domestic Relations Trial: A New Tool to Efficiently and Fairly Manage Family Court Trials. (January 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Howe, William J.; Hall, Jeffrey E.
• Is Part Of: Family court review. Volume 55:Number 1(2017:Jan.)
• Page Start: 70
• Page End: 83
• Publication Date: 2017-01
• Subjects: Domestic Relations Trials -- Family Law Trials -- Informal Custody Trials -- Informal Domestic Relations Trials -- Pro Se Litigants -- Procedural Fairness -- and Self‐Represented Litigants; Domestic relations courts -- United States -- Periodicals; 346.7301505
• DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12263
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1531-2445

Abstract

Abstract : 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 typically 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 requirement 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.