January 2006

FAMILY LAW SECTION EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 20, 2006

The meeting was called to order by Chair, Fran Fontana, at 10:10 a.m. 

The following members attended the meeting in person: Fran Fontana, Kathryn Beck, Martin Brown, Marie Moses, Rob Hinds, Brenda Storey, David Littman, Jackie St. Joan, Denise Cook, Richard Zuber, Beth Henson, Terry Bernuth, Gretchen Aultman, Steve Epstein, Dick Rotole, and Joan McWilliams.

Also present were Past Chairs Steve Lass, Stan Lipkin, Bonnie Schriner, Michael DiManna, Barbara Salomon, Russel Murray, and Helen Shreves.

The following members attended the meeting by phone:  Katie Hayes, Deb Anderson, Bob Smith, Ellen Squires, Dave Johnson, and Kevin Sidel. 

Bob Malman was excused. Sarah Quinlan was present as a representative of the Young Lawyers Division.  David Rolfe was present on behalf of the Mediator Dialogue planning committee.

A Motion to Approve the Minutes from the November 18, 2005 meeting of the Executive Council was made, seconded, and the Minutes were unanimously approved.

Officer’s Reports:

Chair:
Forms Task Force
Fran Fontana advised that the Financial Affidavit form has been modified.  Our Section will not tackle any further modification of the F.A. but we will try to tackle modification of other domestic relations forms.  Fran was contacted by the State Court Administrator’s Office.  Judge Phillips had advised Alicia Davis to call Fran for more information.  Fran told Alicia Davis that a small committee had been formed.  Denise Cook, Mike DiManna, Fran Fontana, and Joan McWilliams are on the committee now.  Alicia advised that Judge Phillips has also suggested people to work on this project.

Judge’s Reception
In lieu of a luncheon, we will have a CLE program followed by a cocktail reception on February 9, 2006.  The CLE will be “Ethics in Family Law Mediation.”  Participants will get one ethics credit.  At 5:30 p.m., there will be a reception for the judges.  The CLE program will be in the Sturm Hall across from DU Law, and the reception is in the law school foyer.  All members of council are asked to attend if possible! 

Chair Elect:
Marie Moses and Dave Johnson talked with Gary Abrams about the Family Law Institute.  Save the Date cards/announcements will go out.  The FLI will take place from August 4th to August 6th at the Beaver Run Resort in Breckenridge. 

The focus of this year’s Institute will be ethics.  This year, we will not have formal tracks but there will be obvious break out sessions for different interest groups.

We hope to have a lunch on Saturday with a humorous flair (perhaps Ed Budd or Terry Kelly will speak).  Marie and Dave talked with Gary about working out an arrangement for Judges not to pay tuition and we again will have to coordinate with state judicial to avoid any violation of Tabor Laws.  Room rates for the judges will be offered.  We are also looking at a different approach for the binders so they are not so burdensome to carry around; book bags may help.  Gary suggested that power point presentations not just be copied into the notebooks.  We hope to avoid having a lot of duplicate copies of cases and statutes in the written materials. The lightning round on Friday afternoon will be repeated, and there will be a call for presentations so that there might be some new faces and ideas.  Dave will try to contact John Gleason to do a keynote speech on ethics.  If we try to have an ethics emphasis, those elusive ethics credits can be obtained.  Gary has encouraged faculty recruitment sooner rather than later and also promised that the wine tasting will occur on Friday afternoon.  We may also try to have a list of attendees so that people can network. 

Dave Johnson also reported that the Rule 16.2 Survey that we discussed at our last meeting will likely be sent next week to Section members by email on an interactive form.  Hopefully, it will take only 15 minutes to fill out the survey.
State judicial is sending the Survey to all judges and facilitators as well.
The Committee hopes to have results back in April of 2006.  The Survey seeks feedback on the rule, its implementation, and what is not being implemented that should be.  The Committee will use the survey to work with the Court on feedback and changes and improvement to the FA as well.

Secretary:
Kathryn Beck offered her congratulations, with the hearty support of all officers, to Ellen Squire on the birth of her baby son.  Fran noted that this was the best reason ever for a delay in the publication of the Newsletter. 

Treasurer’s Report:
David Littman reported that we have $72,000.00 in our account.  He does not think our donation has gone to hurricane victims yet.  Melissa will follow up on this issue. 

Immediate Past Chair:
Bonnie Schriner noted that five people have sent in nomination forms for Executive Council slots.  We are also going to solicit nominations via an email to be sent to members.  Applicants have a 3/15/06 deadline.  The forms will also be available at today’s luncheon.  Current members whose terms are ending also have to send in nomination forms with the requisite signatures. 

Newsletter
Ellen Squires hopes to have a Winter Newsletter go out in February, and thanked everyone for their patience as she cares for her new baby.  If we have other submissions by the end of March, we can do a Newsletter in late April as well.  
 
Bench Book
Joan McWilliams reported that the book will go to the printers, hopefully within the next few weeks; “THE END IS IN SIGHT!”  It was acknowledged that this update has involved a lot of work by Joan McWilliams and Barb Quade.  Many thanks to both of these hard-working members of the Section! 

Barrister’s Benefit Ball Tickets
Fran wanted to Clarify:  Any lawyer who takes a MVL case between March of 2005 and March of 2006 will have their name go in the hat for free tickets to the ball.  The MVL organization will provide a list of members who have taken a case.  The names of five winners will be drawn; those winners can bring a guest and sit at the Section’s table at the Ball.

New Business
Dave Rolfe, the VP of planning for the upcoming Attorney Mediator Dialogue, reported that the event will occur on April 21, 2006.  The brochure is being finalized.  The FLS will handle its own reservations for the luncheon.  “Pitfalls of MOU’s and Arbitration Awards” is the lunch topic, to be presented by Judge Arkin. 

Young Lawyer’s Division
Sarah Quinlan appeared, reporting for Jen Feingold, who had a baby girl today. 
The YLD hopes to have a May Spring Happy Hour.  They have contacted the Red Room for this event, and are asking the Section for $200 to defray expenses.  The YLD also hopes to sponsor a CLE on electronic discovery, evidence, and e-mail confidentiality. They need to coordinate with Gary Abrams at CLE.   

A Motion to give $200 to the YLD for their Spring Fling was made, seconded, and passed unanimously. 

Bob Smith spoke about the National Conference of Commissioners on State Laws.  They are trying to come up with a model law on relocation.  Colorado has not been invited to give their input.  Bob is suggesting that Fran Fontana appoint a small committee to contact the NCCSL with our feedback.  It was suggested that in light of his expertise, perhaps we should have Bill Austin involved.  Fran noted that she had talked to folks in our legislative drafting group; they did not know about NCCSL’s project.  Apparently, at this point, the idea is to research whether they want to take this on as a project.  Discussion was had as to whether Council feels that we should try to be involved in this endeavor. The consensus was that we should have input.   Fran will talk to Bob Smith, whom she would like to have on the committee.  It was agreed that Bill Austin would be a good resource as well. 

Legislation
Fran Fontana thanked Marie Moses for testifying yesterday on behalf of the Section.  She did a great job.  We were reminded by Marie that as we consider new family law legislation, the process is as follows:  the Legislative Committee reviews proposed bills, reports to Council, Council votes; the Committee goes to the CBA for permission to take a position from LPC. 

Recently, we needed to act quickly because of when three family law related bills were slated.  Regarding the three bills, Council members overwhelmingly responded that the bills should be opposed.

All three bills were introduced by Laurie Clapp. 
1.  Eliminating Parenting After Divorce Classes: 
There was some discussion about 2 parents attending the same class when there are DV concerns and stalking issues.  The bill was withdrawn so that it could be amended.  The next time it comes up, there will be no further discussion, just a vote.  It is unlikely that it will pass and take away the Court’s authority to order attendance at a parenting class. A late bill may be addressed to cover the problem above.  The confidentiality of Evaluations may also be addressed in a late bill.  We have concerns about the bill’s title.  Ms. Clapp is willing to sit down with LPC according to Mike Valdez.  This is a bit different than what happened at the capitol between Clapp and Mary Kay Hogan.  Bob Smith reports that the issue of two parents not attending the same class has been dealt with in the rural districts (he worked at the State Court Administrator’s office).

2. Attorney’s Fees Bill:  Council opposed this bill noting that it was likely to really increase the court’s case loads.  This bill is not scheduled for hearing yet.  The Committee noted that the 10 factors listed in the bill make this a burdensome determination when there are already remedies available for an award of attorney fees.  Concern was expressed about shifting the burden to the person asking for fees to establish that some behavior was unreasonable (burden shifts to victim).  The confidentiality issue was also noted as a concern. 

3. Attempt to eliminate 90 day waiting period:
Discussion was had as to whether this 90 day waiting period is necessary, especially if parties have everything ready to conclude their case.  Discussion noted that in some cases it is a benefit to go quickly, in others, not so.  As written, this bill should be opposed but the Council feels that discussion should be had with the sponsor to see if it is possible to make this a viable bill.  Would there be too many cases where one party is unduly pressured to sign and complete the case inequitably?  It was noted that there is no waiting period for a non-APR case.   Dick Rotole notes that in collaborative proceeding, the case can move forward.  Russell Murray said the collaborative process is not uniformly recognized in all jurisdictions.  If we are going forward to talk about carving out exceptions, should they be specific to the case and not to the type of process (exp:  collaborative)?  Our current position is that we are in opposition to the bill as drafted.  The consensus is that there is not really anything broke about the current statute. 

Senator Isgar is dealing with an issue about transferring assets from joint tenancy to tenants in common.  The Probate or Real Estate Section has not jumped on this issue.  We felt that family law litigants were protected by existing statutes.  Senator Escar may not be sponsoring a bill this session; but may look at this next year. 

Fran noted that anyone can listen to the testimony at the legislature on line. 
You have to know what room they are meeting in to access the discussion. 

Steve Lass advised that there was also some discussion about looking at legislation to monitor private companies who do child support collection.  The thought was that these agencies should have to be licensed.  Dick Rotole said that there was a bill being discussed yesterday. 

Fran Fontana asked if the Section should send flowers or make a donation to an organization on Barbara Quade’s behalf as she fights a serious illness.

A Motion that we do this was made.  Mike DiManna said let’s do a big card because he really enjoyed receiving a card signed by many friends when he was recovering.  It was agreed that we should do this, and send flowers, too.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m.