BILL NUMBER: S8374
SPONSOR: PERSAUD
 
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the family court act and the judiciary law, in relation
to the establishment of a pilot program to provide alternative dispute
resolution and navigator services in child support matters
2.  
SOURCE OF BILL:
This bill is being introduced at the request of the Unified Court
System. 3.  
PURPOSES OF BILL:
This bill amends the Family Court Act and the Judiciary Law to establish
and implement a State-funded Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) pilot
program in child support matters. The goal of the pilot is to facilitate
the more efficient resolution of child support matters through ADR, and
thus reserve the Family Court's resources for more complex cases. In
addition, by also providing navigation services to litigants, the vast
majority of whom are self-represented, on issues including the
submission of necessary documents to Family Court, as well as to the
piloted ADR program, the bill would enhance procedural justice and
reduce unnecessary adjournments in child support matters.
4.  
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1 of the bill amends Family Court Act 425 to establish and
implement a State-funded ADR pilot program, which would be available to
litigants at no charge and would be administered by the Community
Dispute Resolution Center (CDRC) program established under Article 21-A
of the Judiciary Law. Focused on counties with delays in support
matters, it would be implemented in at least two counties in New York
City and in at least one county outside New York City. The program would
conduct its sessions both in-person and virtually and provide language
access to litigants with limited English proficiency. The program would
also provide navigation assistance to all litigants in child support
matters, which may include, among other services, assistance in organiz-
ing and transmitting financial documents to the court, as well as to the
ADR program.
Referrals to the program would be made by the Family Court upon the
parties' consents, following the parties' initial appearance at which
temporary orders of support would be issued and notices related to
required financial disclosures and the right to consult with counsel
would be provided. To screen out domestic violence cases, the court
would review the domestic violence and sex offender registries, as well
as Family Court warrants and decisions in child protective proceedings,
as is required in custody and visitation cases under Family Court Act
651(e). The mediators, neutral evaluators and Other facilitators partic-
ipating in the program would receive training, not only in ADR tech-
niques, but also in the law regarding child support.
As required by Family Court Act 413(h) and 425, if the parties reach an
agreement, the case would be referred back to the Family Court for
approval, so that the court can confirm that the agreement comports with
the Child Support Standards Act and ensure that the parties fully under-
stand it. If after their own screening, the CDRC deems the referral
inappropriate because of domestic violence or other reasons, or if the
parties do not reach an agreement or reach only a partial agreement, the
matter would be referred back to the Family Court, which would include
the transmission of any financial disclosure documents that may have
been submitted.
Section two of the bill amends Judiciary Law 849-b to incorporate the
program established under Family Court Act 425 into the provisions
regarding the CDRC program. It requires the Chief Administrator of the
Courts to provide funding for the pilot program and references the
mandate in Family Court Act 425 for child support agreements to be
submitted to the Family Court for approval.
Section three of the bill amends Judiciary Law 849-d to exempt the pilot
program from the general language regarding grants to CDRCs.
Section four of the bill establishes the effective date, which would be
270 days after enactment, with the Chief Administrator of the Courts
taking necessary preparatory actions in advance of that date.
5.  
JUSTIFICATION:
Since its establishment in 1981 through the enactment of Article 2I -A
of the Judiciary Law, the Community Dispute Resolution Center program,
overseen by the Unified Court System's Division of Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR), has been enormously successful in providing communi-
ty-based alternatives to adversarial litigation in criminal and civil
cases, including some family law matters. CDRCs are now active in almost
every county of the State through contracts with not-for-profit organ-
izations. Since the program's inception, over 1,500 highly trained staff
and volunteer mediators have assisted in resolving a tremendous volume
of disputes in Fiscal Year 2022-2023, for example, they provided
services in more than 20,000 cases involving more than 50,000 New York-
ers 1 Governed by the new Part 60 of the Rules of the Chief Judge and
Part 116 of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge, the CDRCs are
required to adhere to rigorous qualification, training and supervision
requirements, while retaining the independence and objectivity that is
vital for ADR programs to be effective.
Additionally, apart from the CDRC program, the New York City Family
Court has compiled a roster of mediators for custody and visitation case
referrals that has proven to be an effective means of resolving disputes
which significantly reduces the Court's caseload of contested matters.
In both 2022 and 2023, the New York City Family Court made over 1,100
referrals to mediation.
Both of these examples of successful uses of ADR the CDRC program and
the New York City Family Court Custody/Visitation Mediation Program have
demonstrated the efficacy of this approach to assisting families, while
also reserving judicial resources for more complex, high-conflict cases
for which use of non-adversarial approaches would not be effective. And
their success suggests an untapped potential for their expansion into
the area of child support. As this bill provides, properly trained and
supervised mediators from community-based organizations, acting in coor-
dination with (but independent of) both the Family Court and the child
support agencies, may be an effective tool for resolving cases quickly
and fairly, resulting in significant benefits both for the parties and
for the courts.
Additionally, providing navigators to guide litigants through the court
process including in cases referred for ADR and the CDRC process will
likewise inure to the benefit of both the families and the courts.
Specifically, this will shorten the time during which the custodial
parent goes without adequate child support. Navigators can assist liti-
gants, for example, by explaining which financial documents they need to
submit to the court and in ADR cases, to the CDRC and how to transmit
them, especially where appearances are virtual and the submission of
documents can be challenging for self-represented parties. In this way,
unnecessary delays in resolving cases can be minimized, thus resulting
in faster resolution of child support matters for the benefit of chil-
dren.
6.  
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
This is a new proposal.
7.  
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
This bill would require State funding to implement.
8. Effective date:
This bill would take effect on the 270th day after enactment, and the
Chief Administrator of the Courts would be authorized to take necessary
steps in advance of that date to promulgate rules or establish protocols
for implementation.
1 New York State Unified Court System Office of Alternative Dispute
Resolution Community Dispute Resolution Centers, Annual Statistical
Report: Fiscal Year 1022-2023, p. 1.
(ww2.nycourts.gov/ip/adr/publictions.shtml).

Statutes affected:
S8374: 849-d judiciary law, 849-d(2) judiciary law