After 40 plus years of failure reflecting the complete but lucrative destruction of families nation wide, while those employed in the various cottage industries profit enough to purchase "vacation homes" - and appellate courts ruling it is not responsible for people getting killed at the courthouse; lets opt for the solution.
Imagine: Cases involving no family related crimes able participate with litigants, for the first time, enjoying their full Constitutional rights others enjoy in the civil system. For those instances of family related crimes, to the criminal courts, first. Ending family court will not end the cronyism family court has come to personify, but it will do much to cripple the divorce and custody industry.
For newbies: Below case that went to the California Supreme Court, which reversed the Court of Appeal decision for the survivors family members.
(Not that California is any worse than any other state expressing ongoing judicial disdain for family court litigants.)
GOVERNMENT NOT LIABLE FOR COURT VIOLENCE
of violence inside courthouses can't sue counties and sheriff's
departments charged with overseeing the buildings, the state Supreme
entities in general are not liable for failing to protect individuals
against crime, the court ruled in unanimously overturning an appeals
court decision. Allowing such lawsuits could expose government agencies
to liability on many of their properties, Chief Justice Ronald M.George
wrote. The case stemmed from a 1995 slaying of a woman inside the
downtown Los Angeles County courthouse.
Zelig, 40, who said she lived in mortal terror of her ex-husband, was
killed when Harry Zelig shot her in the chest after a divorce proceeding
in which he said she was trying to seize his car. The couple's 6 year
old daughter was seen shrieking in distress after the shooting as
bystanders raced for cover. The husband was later convicted and
sentenced to 29 years to life.
governments anxiously awaited Monday's court decision, fearing the
Supreme Court could open a Pandora's box of liability if it sided with
the appeals court. "The implications were very scary from the point of
view of what potentially could be the scope of liability for
municipalities," said attorney Steven J. Renick, who argued the case on
behalf of Los Angeles County.
groups criticized the ruling, saying women who use the courts for family
law matters --such as divorce, child custody and restraining orders--
are in danger. "These women are required to go to the courthouse, and
this is the only time they'll see their abuser," said LeAnna Gutierrez,
an attorney with the Calif. Women's Law Center. "They're required to
face the abuser and the state has no actual duty to protect them while
court said counties have "a duty to take reasonable steps to provide
safe courthouses to those who enter." But George wrote that the danger
faced by Zelig that her husband would shoot her "was the same inside the
courthouse as outside."