Here are a few things I think a family law system should have:

1. Select judges for knowledge and ability in family law (including a working knowledge of family psychology) rather than political connections or contributions. It's nuts when the main criterion for selecting the judge who will decide where kids live is who did the biggest recent favor for the current governor. It's even more nuts when the only people who can get and retain popularly elected judicial appointments is because they were prosecutors who promise to be "tough on crime." Many fine family law judges started out as prosecutors, but that it hardly the optimum training ground.

2. Give them more discretion rather than less. In all too many cases, the "judge" is nothing but a mandatory computer program, which can't tailor support to the special needs of an individual family.

3. Get rid of direct and cross examination and substantially relax the rule against hearsay. It makes no sense in families, where there are rarely independent witnesses to the relevant conversations. It's of no use at all in determining where kids belong.

4. Reduce the formality of the proceedings and get to the issues. Even if it is a variation of "he said/she said," the story doesn't get any more reliable because of the formality. It just takes longer to get to the point.

5. Build in incentives for cooperation and resolution rather than advocacy and conflict.

6. Expand the definition and application of "no fault." Yes, you heard me. I know lots of folks want to return to fault in the naive belief that it will "save" marriages. It won't. People don't like being told who to sleep with. They'll still get divorced; they'll just set each other up to cash in on financial benefit of not being the one "at fault.". And if fault is the issue, and carries a financial incentive, who will ever settle their case? Everything will be litigated. Besides, I think the return to fault is mainly a blind for greed, and has little or nothing to do with the stated goal of preserving the sanctity of marriage. If I can prove you're "wrong" and I'm "right," I get more of the property, and get vindicated in the bargain. It's sort of like getting dispensation for making a lousy choice of spouse in the first place. And of course, it will cost thousands of dollars and take years...

7. Take garden variety family law out of the traditional courts, except where the power of contempt and restraining orders and domestic violence are concerned. Court should be a last resort, not the only route available. It's there for the jerks who require the "long arm of the law" before they'll do what any normal person would do anyway. Normal people who simply want to get on with their lives without being married to each other should be able to bypass the procedures if they want.

8. Domestic violence is a crime and should be treated as such. Get it out of the family law courts and into the criminal ones where it belongs. Family courts just aren't very good at handling it.