Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Post Title Adjusted to add date-published, and, this time, the ending of the short-link, for easier reference:

Amazing and False Assumptions about the Family Courts…(“The Safe Child Act” vs. records on HOW and by WHOM Family Code was Established State by State and NOT that long ago) [Publ. June 7, 2014, Updated Feb. 2016, Format-only Oct. 2022 | Shortlink ends ‘-2to’].

I have a 2022 and a 2016 foreword, after that, the post isn’t that long... 2016 foreword (marked below) was appropriate because June, 2014, due to personal (litigation and family situations) pressures led to a year and a half pause in publishing posts.  At the outset, of course, I didn’t know this would occur, but by Fall, 2015, I found myself driven out of long-term housing, into hotels, and having to deal with it and those who cut off the normal move from one lease into another.

Now, in 2022, this has happened again; I’m determined the transition time will be less (and I’m not AS destitute as I was then and have put about (at least — NOYB!) half the continent of the USA between myself and those who engineered the situation and prolonged it.  I fled California (not having a better option) in 2018.

I wrote four posts in June, 2014.  These weren’t “prescient” they were mostly “observant” meaning not, I observed the standard rules of how to protest problems in the family court.  I observed what was going around me, made a note of who (which entities) were involved (as possible), and, with a combination of gut instinct, curiosity, and what seemed to me then (and now) asking some basic questions which I didn’t hear enough others asking, as the propaganda and policy-making surged forward without proving how (we’d) gotten to the places we were in the first place.

In other words, without accounting for cause-and-effect.

EIGHT YEARS later, I’m still having to keep a trickle of information alive that assumptions aren’t proof, and that there’s no moral or even legal obligation to “standard journalism” to tell the WHOLE truth, or its context, nor should we except that because an article is “investigative” it’s necessarily ethical in withholding known major segments of the larger truth which the public deserves and ought to main some serious connections to.  As taxpayers and consumers of services.  It’s heavier responsibility than most seem to realize, and can’t be borne alone by just a few people.

FYI, I am again, about eight years later and older (and some the wiser) — well, in summer 2014, I wasn’t yet — homeless, in the sense, no permanent address, real mailing address, not in a lease, and dealing with some of the same institutions mentioned in other (NOT this) June, 2014, posts, which related to fiduciary abuse, only now from out of state, which for me seems safer, but hasn’t exactly placated those in power still back in California…//LGH Foreword Oct. 6, 2022.

I am personally distressed that some very fine work (on this blog, one some of the annotated images) actually mentions my proper legal name, something I’ve worked hard to keep out of the blog overall.  I have mixed feelings about removing 100% of references across all (now, about 875?) posts and all pages, and on all images (annotated screenshots) which actually credit me with the work I’ve been doing. Sometimes this comes up when, years later, I wish to reference a post I remember writing — or it comes up when I search (Google, or from the blog home page) for specific terms..

I have considered in enrolling in “Safe At Home” and informing (so-and-so) that I have, but that immediately reveals “in which state” and gives government entity access to my inbound mail — and I’m a heavy critic of many government funded programs, i.e., especially within domestic violence prevention and “fatherhood practice.”

It does seem that, systemwide, the trend is increasingly towards turning generations of United States citizens (older, middle, younger) into indentured servants, fugitives, and at times slaves… for which the family courts, being so subjective in nature and almost impervious to the concept of justice, equity, rule of law, and dealing with crimes as crimes, rather than opportunities to refer an entire family into treatments they (or the public, or both) must pay for, the “malady” being mostly, believing that criminal acts should be laid out in the criminal code clearly, and practices shouldn’t basically neutralize the definitions which is basically what the family courts do… //LGH, Foreword Oct. 6, 2022.

Amazing and False Assumptions about the Family Courts…(“The Safe Child Act” vs. records on HOW and by WHOM Family Code was Established State by State and NOT that long ago) [Publ. June 7, 2014, Updated Feb. 2016, Format-only Oct. 2022 | Shortlink ends ‘-2to’].

[2016 Foreword] Also in revising this post, I noticed a comment had been submitted sometime between June, 2014 — and now (2016!) during which I took a LONG break from publishing.  Somehow I had missed approving it — there being no reason not to.  I will contact the writer (bloggers can do this, having submission emails, FYI).

The person spoke of her own experience after separating in 1998.  Although I wasn’t dealing like her with therapy or institutionalization, there has been some in my family line post-elimination-of-Mom in minor children’s lives.   And who can’t relate to “burnout” as a potential cause of symptoms?

This comment is also now approved, and it sounds perfectly coherent to me. It appears to be a woman (Comment submitted under the name “Dawn”). Reminds me of Phyllis Chesler’s 1972 book “Women & Madness.” This comment does mention divorce, it does not mention children from the marriage. It reads as follows (next quote, I added some paragraphing [2022]):

I haven’t had opportunity to read this in entirety, but my own experiences prompt me to send a quick reply before it gets away. When divorce was first filed against me in 1998, I was forced into mental institutions a few times with false allegations of homicidality and suicidality. I was misdiagnosed for over five years and have permanent side effects from having to take things I didn’t need or get benefits from. Turns out that originally, I was suffering from “burnout” and was, indeed, utilizing therapy. However, ex started a process which resulted in my being terrorized.

Many of the (normal) trauma responses are misinterpreted when the “back story” is unknown to mental health providers, law enforcement (who might be involved) and of course, court.

It also turns out that I was put through a barrage of tests, including those measuring aspects of mental health, in my childhood. I was diagnosed as gifted, but hadn’t thought about it until several years ago. Turns out that often, intelligence can help mask trauma (better coping mechanisms and internal resources). It is well known, in research literature, that gifted adults are often misdiagnosed. I’m also bringing it up because gifted adults (individuals) are often imbued with a strong sense of justice; I spent several years believing that maybe I was a lunatic and even, that the “system” wasn’t sure which of us was truthful but were keeping an eye on things. The court itself (personnel) has actually exacerbated PTSD as well as ignored its requirements to conform with ADA, etc.

I’m outraged, but too busy surviving for the moment to be as involved in efforts to change things as I’d like. Just wanted to add that additional category where often, “providers” for the courts are not only ignorant but unqualified to provide information or reports where a person has been identified (or not) as gifted.

(Emphases mine, not commenters).  Over time, I have come to believe that the various providers, law enforcement and court, are less than interested in knowing “the back story” and more than interested in their own systems, and minimizing personal responsibility or liability for handling — anything. The words “case-dumping” (as to law enforcement, and some referral resources that the typical person is sent round to seeking help) and “case-churning” (as to the involved family court professionals) come to mind.

Catch this, from the comment comment:

I spent several years believing that maybe I was a lunatic and even, that the “system” wasn’t sure which of us was truthful but were keeping an eye on things.

The state of being continuously unsure of who knows what is not conducive to sanity, or decision-making. The constant instability and prolonged state of uncertainty about ones’ immediate future while that future is under very direct control of others whose motives (deduced by their actions) are questionable — is a known form of abusive, coercive, control.

It is often exacerbated (if you will) by the indefinite, inconsistent, vaguely-alluding to the “maybes” of the context on the part of the individuals (or systems) wishing to maintain control of the person, or of the situations which, if exposed, might threaten the status quo (or profit streams). Individuals who have been subjected to this treatment long-term (sounds like the commenter was — and I know I have been regarding certain individuals) needs to figure out ways to overcome their own internal uncertainty, or to classify it as relevant or irrelevant.

[For example…]

I used to wonder whether my husband knew, or didn’t know, that his behavior was beyond unacceptable abusive, particularly when there was no admission of harm (despite obvious harm inflicted, including physical injuries, property damage, forced job-losses, “the whole nine yards.”) I came to the point of it being irrelevant how HE viewed the abuse once I had determined how I viewed it — as completely unacceptable to the point that I took action to obtain legal protection. However, so long as I was debating internally, the thing I was NOT doing was focusing ALL physicial, psychological, spiritual, emotional and decision-making willpower reserves (which being in survival situations definitely challenges to even have some) to getting free. This is tactically difficult because when the individual really is cognizant of their own abuse and intent to dominate “by whatever means” resistance is countered with escalation. Without the physical stamina (and given the consequences of physically just fighting back, for any parent of small children in the vicinity of that abuse), it becomes a matter of strategy, timing, all kinds of skills which might be good to have, but more “optional” in a peaceful situation, or society.

…..My message to (anyone who’s listening) is that the times of blissful ignorance of system design as exhibiting the designers’ (who should be identified and known) purposes, has been over for a long time. If indeed it ever existed.

We MUST know public institutions — which is to say all government operations supported by taxation backed up with force — force to incarcerate, seize assets, institutionalize (as described above) based on false allegations, or in any other fashion take a person or a person’s family “hostage” –I am talking the balance of power must be comprehended.

That’s another reason, FYI, I come out hard-line about soft-sell assumptions such as are being delivered by certain parties regarding the family courts, and their alleged intention to protect children, or capacity to do so given their fundamental operations and design.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

UNSPOKEN, UN-NOTICED, AND THUS UN-CHALLENGED ASSUMPTIONS ARE THE HARDEST ONES TO SCREEN OUT WHEN ANALYZING THE RATIONALITY, REASON, AND LOGIC OF PROPOSED REFORMS.   WHEN CERTAIN SUCH ASSUMPTIONS PERVADE YEARS-LONG PUBLICITY AND ADVOCACY CAMPAIGNS, IT’S FAIR TO CHECK WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSUMPTIONS ARE FALSE –AND WHETHER THE SPEAKERS MAKING THEM WERE

(A) INNOCENTLY, IF NAIVELY BLINDED BY TUNNEL VISION (WHILE CLAIMING INSIGHT AND EXPERTISE SUFFICIENT TO COACH OTHERS, INCLUDING TOP COURT OFFICIALS – NATIONWIDE),

OR

(B) NOT BLINDED, BUT HAVE AN INTENT THAT THE AUDIENCES SHOULD BE — AND FOR AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE.

My generalized summary of the an emotionally, conference, policy and mutual-support “bloc” of family court reform/protective mothers’ groups unspoken assumptions, culled from readings over the years from the same sources and specific spokespersons (often male).  This is not a quote, but my phrasing summarizing the overall content:

FAMILY COURTS EXIST TO PROTECT CHILDREN, but JUST AREN’T DOING IT WELL.  REFORM IS NEEDED TO BETTER TRAIN THE JUDGES (AND OTHERS) SO THEY WON’T BE FOOLED BY CRAFTY CHILD ABUSERS SMARTER THAN THE JUDGES, AND SO JUDGES WILL BE SAVVY TO UNSOUND PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES (etc.).  

SUPPORT and PROMOTE THE “SAFE CHILD ACT.”

You’ve probably been hearing this more and more around the internet, as propagated by people who want us to believe it’s even relevant to the family law code in state after state.

We may want this — naturally, as human beings or parents, or others — but how does what we want relate to what the existing legal system says about this area of law? Time and again, people complain that the family courts aren’t keeping their children safe, and demand that they do, thinking (without evidence) that the courts are on the same page with the parents. since when did any family court venue say that this was its reason for existing? Does even the family code indicate this is its purpose?

Now, there’s a push for The Safe Child Act (at “StopAbuseCampaign“) by certain people who, shamelessly (and probably knowingly) call the courts by their wrong names and push the theme of “more scientific practices to recognize child abuse, ” etc.

If you’re a parent, it’s hard to resist the appeal to pathos and the assumption that better subject matter expertise would turn the family courts (often called mistakenly “custody courts,” simply an inaccurate term) into safer places for children.  But, I recommend you do take a moment (maybe a timeout) for some clearheaded consideration.

Here’s a segment, catch the phrasing; all emphases mine.  This is Barry Goldstein’s writing:

Of course protecting children’s health and safety requires more than a goal of making this the courts’ first priority.  The court cannot rely on generalized professionals who understand mental illness and psychology unless they have specialized expertise in domestic violence, child sexual abuse, substance abuse, medical diagnosis and treatment. Court professionals must be familiar with current scientific research so they know that exposure to domestic violence, child abuse and other trauma results in a lifetime of greater illnesses and injuries.  As the Saunders’ study demonstrates, courts must avoid relying on unqualified “experts” who focus on the myth that women frequently make false allegations; unscientific alienation theories or the belief that mothers’ attempts to protect children from frightening fathers are actually harmful to the children.

Yeah, well guess which group of professionals, a fairly tight-knit, self-referencing court-reform community saw the opportunity to become the next generation of experts in the courts, a long way off, and is NEVER going to give up this talk — and realized that if the mothers actually refocused their emotional energy on something different than “Abusers getting custody,” they might (like I eventually did) figure out a thing or two…See very recent post “A Different Kind of Attention Leads to Sound Judgment” for more information).

This information doesn’t take long to figure out — that the language is focused on better professionals, not operational structures. Well, the rest of this post, I’d just rather look at some different terminology; a bit about commissions that draft codes, what’s a code versus a statute, and face it — the Family Code is the new kid on the block, and you probably still have less than enough understanding of how tightly this country (and each state) is organized around the profession of law. And it doesn’t take too long to figure out that, whatever else most of us may want to believe about how vastly important we, and our children are to the world — this entire system is just not about them.

I haven’t written much lately because longstanding dealings with my own situation (<=<=yes, that is me, my petition.  Now you know….) the family court case that never closed, and its aftermath) required attention. I have been dealing right along with two or three attorneys (NOT on my side) in matters directly affecting my safety — and doing this without stable income or a full-time or even consistent job history. (You try to have a stable job history after your kids disappear from your life overnight….). A fourth one was brought in recently, apparently just for fun — and it’s become clear what the next agenda.

I have had a nearly a decade’s experience with an abusive, sociopath most likely, batterer; a domestic violence classic; we got out with our lives. THEN the real fun and games began…the family tree had gotten entirely too comfortable with the battered woman’s status quo, and my changing it threatened something.

I know there are honest lawyers (it’s not an oxymoron 100%) around, and courageous ones — and then there are the rank and file, and when they encounter each other in and out of the courtroom, as “officers of the court,” it could happen in a variety of ways — one will be more aggressive, or less honest than the other, and bully the opposing side for the duration of the case. Rather than do the right thing for their client, they encourage their client to compromise.

There is entirely too much in common with successful attorneys — and sociopaths. It’s not just an idle statement; it seems to go with the attorney. There’s the arrogance, and the need to score points (legally or illegally). There’s the compartmentalization and the presumption among too many that a law degree and a job history in this field makes one somehow superior to mere mortals, in the others. Challenge this at your own risk (I did). There’s the bullying, the change-the-topic, and then there’s the charmer, when you, bedraggled and drained at times, bring in a third party — the tone changes immediately…..I witnessed this in the past 48 hours, and read the handwriting on the wall, personally. It has NOTHING to do with ethics. I am going to say it bluntly — this is simply ugly, at many levels too ugly to stomach. It is beyond ugly, and to expect morality, and not simply a “win,” from this source is just not logical.    Most people do not have the nerve and the backbone to realize that this represents the essence of the United States of America at this time, and probably, throughout most of its times.

UPCOMING POST ALERT:

Having said this, I simply think this information is relevant — and interesting.  It also blends with a major document (which I have in draft) dealing with the Pennsylvania Economy League, which I hope to post shortly also.  So far it’s about 28 pdf pages long, and there’s another section on the men who originally founded this institution which, FYI, right now has been overseeing the bankruptcy of some Pennsylvania Cities, like Scranton.

Many of them, their wealth was made before World War I, some were bluebloods others were not. One family was descended from historic slaveowners in Kentucky, another from Maine, grew up poor, but through not being overly educated as a very young man, developed a business sense FAST.  If you’ve heard of Norman Rockwell and the Saturday Evening Post — that as his magazine.  Yet another made a fortune – a large one — in laundry soap, working in the company his brother started. …. But, once they’d made that wealth, another thing they were — is associating with each other and eventually becoming philanthropists. Don’t imagine that the institutions here now are created for some share-the-love, equality, common ground enterprise.  The evidence simply doesn’t bear hat out — at all.    So, now I’d like to talk about the California Codes, Family Codes, Law Commission, etc.

The searchable database of California Codes (I’ve often cited to in this blog) has now moved — and this is the new section of statutes codified into “The Family Code.”   Check other states for similarities — this is California’s FAMILY CODE (also laid out at the bottom of this post).  “California Legislative Information”

TAKE A LOOK at the DIVISIONS — do you see one called CHILD PROTECTION?

• DIVISION 1. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS [1 – 185]
• DIVISION 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS [200 – 295]
• DIVISION 2.5. DOMESTIC PARTNER REGISTRATION [297 – 299.6]
• DIVISION 3. MARRIAGE [300 – 536]
• DIVISION 4. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS DURING MARRIAGE [700 – 1620]
• DIVISION 5. CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS [1800 – 1852]
• DIVISION 6. NULLITY, DISSOLUTION, AND LEGAL SEPARATION [2000 – 2452]
• DIVISION 7. DIVISION OF PROPERTY [2500 – 2660]
• DIVISION 8. CUSTODY OF CHILDREN [3000 – 3465]
• DIVISION 9. SUPPORT [3500 – 5616]
• DIVISION 10. PREVENTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE [6200 – 6409]
• DIVISION 11. MINORS [6500 – 7143]
• DIVISION 12. PARENT AND CHILD RELATIONSHIP [7500 – 7961]
• DIVISION 13. ADOPTION [8500 – 9340]
• DIVISION 14. FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR ACT [10000 – 10015]
• DIVISION 17. SUPPORT SERVICES [17000 – 17804]
• DIVISION 20. PILOT PROJECTS [20000 – 20043]

The California Codes are 29 legal codes enacted by the California State Legislature, which together form the general statutory law of California. Unlike the United States Code or other U.S. state legal codes, they have never been consolidated into a single unified code. The official Codes are maintained by the California Legislative Counsel for the Legislature.

The California Family Code (Wikipedia says) has only been around since 1992.

In some states I’ve seen, the Family Court Divisions of existing superior courts is likewise recent — in the 1990s.   How about your state?  I’ve documented (see sidebar, table of contents) some of the forces behind the establishment of Maryland’s Family Division, or Kentucky’s.

The first four codes enacted in 1872 were the Civil Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, the Penal Code, and the Political Code (which later became the Elections Code). Statutes that did not fit these categories were simply left uncodified in the California Statutes. The four original California Codes were not drafted from scratch, but were mostly adapted by the Code Commission from codes prepared for the state of New York by the great law reformer David Dudley Field II.**  As a result of the Gold Rush, many New York lawyers had migrated to California, including Field’s brother,Stephen Johnson Field, who would ultimately serve as California’s fifth Chief Justice before being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The strong New York influence on early California law started with the California Practice Act of 1851 (drafted with the help of Stephen Field), which was directly based upon the New York Code of Civil Procedure of 1850 (the Field Code). In turn, it was the California Practice Act that served as the foundation of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

**The article on “David Dudley Field II” (1805-1894) is annotated as “needs additional cites for verification, …unsourced material may be challenged and removed,” but it’s still interesting and relevant; especially (to me) that he got the ideas from England, France and other countries.

The codes  aren’t the statutes — but organizations of the statutes into subject matter.  How this happened is interesting, and important to understand. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ For example, once they got this mostly organized into “CODES, then future laws were drafted according to those compartments — I’m sure it must have affected the thinking

~ [Welcome link, including at the bottom, “California Agency Reports – This website lists all reports required by statute to be prepared and filed by state and local agencies with the Legislature or Governor.  

Please — stop and take a look at there drop-down menu to get just a scope of how many activities the state has its commissions about (some also identified by county).  Imagine — how many of those agencies have funds for their activities? Now, if the funds for various agencies are pooled into investments and earn returns on those investments, just how much might it represent?

Incidentally: One of the (opposing) attorneys I have to deal with, as we speak, is on three of the Standing Committees under the Trusts and Estates Section of the Stte California Bar, which may account for the arrogant and dismissive attitude typical of the profession (IMHO).  Among the standing committees of that section of the Bar, was one called the “CLRC” (of that section of the State Bar of California).

I wanted to know what “CLRC” stood for, which led to the information below on the “CLRC” relating to the entire State of California, not, just of a section of the State Bar. Wikipedia, California Law Revision Commission (recommended quick reading), including the reminder that everything we may take for granted in government, or in law, has, somewhere, a history — a beginning.  It was someone’s, or several one’s bright ideas, carried out into action. At what point are people going to start admitting that this is also true of Family Courts, Unified Family Courts, in any state?

The CLRC is the successor to the California Code Commission, which itself was the successor to a series of earlier ad hoc codification commissions. The Code Commission was established in 1929 and spent 24 years codifying the massive body of uncodified law that had piled up as of that year in the California Statutes.

After the Code Commission completed the monumental task of codifying virtually all general California statutory law into the California Codes, it recommended the creation of the CLRC, as a permanent law reform body.

Also see from CA.Gov description of its function.  I can see why someone would have to fulfil this function.  But what I’d like US to see is how they function as a sort of right arm of the Legislature, they do indeed draft legislation– and they are mostly appointed by the Governor… Currently, for example, they are working since 2013 on “Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act” to harmonize California with its neighboring states, etc.  They have recommended this be enacted in 2014:

Cite this report as Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act, 43 Cal. L. Revision Comm’n Reports 93 (2013).  .

[Not to be confused, footnote 3 says, with the similar act — which few states have enacted, about the proceedings involved in such cases, “]

3. Another uniform act, the Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act (“UGPPA”) addresses all aspects of court proceedings that involve an adult or child who requires assistance with personal care, property administration, or both. Only a few states have enacted UGPPA, and California is not one of them.

RELEVANCE? of the Jurisdiction act, above:

 “In California, a conservatorship is a proceeding in which a court appoints someone to assist an adult with personal care or financial transactions because that adult lacks the ability to handle those matters without assistance. These types of court proceedings are becoming common across the United States, because the population of the country is aging. At the same time, the population is highly mobile. Individuals frequently move from one state to another, own property or conduct transactions in more than one state, and spend time in multiple locations.

Guess what it was modeled on? (footnote 3, same link):

Still another uniform act, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”) served as a model in drafting UAGPPJA. UCCJEA has been enacted in almost every state (including California) and has effectively minimized the problem of multiple court jurisdiction in child custody cases. See ULC, Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, <http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Child%20Custody%20Jurisdiction %20and%20Enforcement%20Act>; see also UAGPPJA Prefatory Note, p. 2.Further information about UGPPA and UCCJEA is available at the ULC website, <http://www.uniformlaws.org>.

Not only is the population of the country aging, but people who are aging are also at risk of having their assets stolen or being forced into being considered incompetent when they aren’t, as a railroad to assets takeover.  it is an area of need, and it is also an area which has been know for abuses, and essentially taking over of adults who are simply unable to resist, competent or not.  it’s an area of vital concern seeing as there seems to be little slowdown in the previous stages of family disruption, the family court venues, in messing people up, or labeling them (a variety of labels exist for dissidents or those who simply protest injustices, year after year, towards their children or themselves). This was modeled after the Uniform CHILD Custody Act.   Sounds to me like our nation is being standardized from commissions, not from grassroots demands.  Here is the “everyone else is doing it, why not California?” argument:

The goal of the act is to alleviate the burdens of handling a conservatorship situation that involves more than one state. A large majority of states have enacted UAGPPJA, including all three of California’s neighbors (Arizona, Oregon, and Nevada). California has not yet done so, however, because the uniform act uses different terminology than California and requires some adjustments to be workable in California.

Also see the footnote 1 at this link to simply remind us that there exists a Uniform Laws Commission:  who they are, what they do and how they do it:

The Uniform Law Commission, also known as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, is an unincorporated association comprised of each state’s Commission on Uniform Laws, as well as such commissions from the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The state uniform law commissioners come together as the Uniform Law Commission to study and review state law to determine which areas of the law should be uniform. The ULC promotes the principle of uniformity by drafting and proposing statutes in areas of the law where uniformity between the states is deemed desirable. As the ULC puts it, the organization “provides states with non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law.” See ULC, About the ULC, <http://www.uniformlaws.org/Narrative.aspx?title =About%20the%20ULC>.

“CLRC” = CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION I had a revisit to the California Law Revision Commission — which was originally formed in 1929 to codify piles of statues enacted in California into some sort of order.  24 years later, when this was done, it was voted to keep this commission around. In 2012 a Bill was drafted to eliminate this ‘CLRC,” supported by no one, and opposed by the “TEXCOM,” the Trusts and Real Estate Section of the California State Bar.   As you can imagine, trusts and real estate is a LOT of business within the state.

Mission. The California Law Revision Commission is an independent state agency created by statute* in 1953. It assists the Legislature and Governor by examining California law and recommending needed reforms.

§ 8280. Creation.

[Statute, “There is Created in the State Government the California Law Revision Commission…”

---

…

§ 8281. Members

Personnel. The Commission consists of seven members appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate, one Senator, one Assembly Member, and the Legislative Counsel. The Commission is supported by a small professional staff. Current personnel are listed here. 

 § 8286. Assistance of state

8286. The material of the State Library shall be made available to the commission. All state agencies, and other official state organizations, and all persons connected therewith shall give the commission full information, and reasonable assistance in any matters of research requiring recourse to them, or to data within their knowledge or control. 

§ 8287. Assistance of bar

8287. The Board of Governors of the State Bar shall assist the commission in any manner the commission may request within the scope of its powers or duties. 

§ 8288. Political activities of commissioners and staff [etc.]

CHRONOLOGY — again, this was formed in 1929 to Codify the statutes of California, which took 24 years (and World War II meantime)…During this time, laws regarding conciliation courts were passed (1939) and in 1952, as I’ve pointed out, a strategic decision pointing the way towards no-fault divorce.   Search Justice Roger Traynor (California Supreme Court Justice 1940 – 1964) In April 2012, there was a Bill AB2328 before the Assembly Committee on the Judiciary to Eliminate this CLRC, which shows some of its scope of activities over the past years.  Bill Synopsis shows the scope:

AB 2328
                                                                  Page  1

              Date of Hearing:  April 10, 2012

               ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
                           Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 2328 (Olsen) - As Introduced:  February 24, 2012

SUBJECT :  CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION: ELIMINATION

KEY ISSUE : should THE CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION BE 
          ELIMINATED?FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

                                      SYNOPSIS

This bill is completely inconsistent with ACR 98 (Wagner, 2012). 
 That measure, authored by this Committee's Vice Chair, 
 reauthorizes 21 substantive areas of law that the Commission 
 expertly studies, often at the specific request of the 
 Legislature, to improve California law.  The Commission was 
 created over half a century ago to help the Legislature discover 
 defects and anachronisms in California law and recommend 
 legislation to make needed reforms.  Reflecting the Vice Chair's 
 authorship of ACR 98 this year (placed on the Committee's 
 consent calendar reflecting its bi-partisan support), the 
 Commission has had a remarkable record of helping to improve the 
 state's legal framework.  Since its creation in 1953, it has 
 made 389 reform recommendations, ranging from the creation of 
 entire codes to the repeal of a single section. More than 90% of 
 those recommendations have been enacted in whole or in 
 substantial part, affecting more than 24,000 sections of the 
 California codes.Major enactments include: the Evidence Code, 
 the Family Code, the Probate Code, the Government Claims Act 
 (also known as the "Tort Claims Act"), the Enforcement of 
 Judgments Law, the Trust Law, the Power of Attorney Law, the 
 Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare, the 
 Guardianship-Conservatorship Law, the Marketable Title Act, the 
 Eminent Domain Law, implementation of Trial Court Unification 
 and Restructuring, Administrative Adjudication, recodification 
 of Deadly Weapons Law, and the recodification of Mechanics Lien 
 Law.  This Committee has supported on a bi-partisan basis the 
 annual reauthorization of the Commission's work for many 
 decades.

     Notwithstanding the Commission's long and consistent record of 
          accomplishment, this measure seeks to eliminate it.

. . .The Commission currently receives 
      $665,000 in annual General Fund appropriations, which is by all 
          accounts a miniscule part of the annual California budget.  
          Furthermore, General Fund appropriations only account for a 
          portion of the Commission's annual operating budget.  The 
          Commission also receives almost half of its budget in annual 
        donations from groups including the State Bar of California and 
          several prominent legal publications.  Given the Commission's 
       important function - especially for the Legislature in improving 
          state law -- and relatively small cost . . . .

Pause to check up on where to file “Government Of, By, and For the People” mentally, in light of this influence, and how long it’s been going on for.  Were we taught this in K-12 public schools?  I know I wasn’t….  (not that I grew up in California, but other states had theirs, no doubt).   I learned that half the budget for the CLRC (a state agency) comes from the General Fund, and the other half from donations from — the bar, and other entities.  Go figure).

California Legislative Information

DIVISION 1. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS [1 – 185]DIVISION 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS [200 – 295]DIVISION 2.5. DOMESTIC PARTNER REGISTRATION [297 – 299.6]DIVISION 3. MARRIAGE [300 – 536]DIVISION 4. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS DURING MARRIAGE [700 – 1620]DIVISION 5. CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS [1800 – 1852]DIVISION 6. NULLITY, DISSOLUTION, AND LEGAL SEPARATION [2000 – 2452]DIVISION 7. DIVISION OF PROPERTY [2500 – 2660]DIVISION 8. CUSTODY OF CHILDREN [3000 – 3465]DIVISION 9. SUPPORT [3500 – 5616]DIVISION 10. PREVENTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE [6200 – 6409]DIVISION 11. MINORS [6500 – 7143]DIVISION 12. PARENT AND CHILD RELATIONSHIP [7500 – 7961]DIVISION 13. ADOPTION [8500 – 9340]DIVISION 14. FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR ACT [10000 – 10015]DIVISION 17. SUPPORT SERVICES [17000 – 17804]DIVISION 20. PILOT PROJECTS [20000 – 20043]