FAMILY COURT AND ADR

  

2-2-26

Invite team members

You said:

Is this true 

Family Court Is Not Operating Under Constitutional Law — And Most Parents Are Never Told

Most parents enter family court believing they are stepping into a constitutional courtroom.

They are not.

What they enter instead is a private, administrative dispute-resolution system operating under the logic of ADR — Alternative Dispute Resolution. It looks like a court. It uses court language. It issues orders that feel judicial. But structurally and procedurally, it does not operate like a constitutional court of law.

And that distinction changes everything.

The Quiet Shift That Changed Family Court Forever

The transformation can be traced to the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-650). While publicly framed as a modernization and efficiency effort, the Act formally introduced and expanded ADR mechanisms across federal and state court systems.

In practice, family court became the primary testing ground.

Over time, traditional adjudication was replaced with:

 • mediation

 • custody evaluations

 • parenting coordinators

 • guardian ad litem reports

 • settlement conferences

 • “best interest” determinations untethered from evidentiary rules

These processes fall squarely under ADR, not constitutional litigation.

ADR Is Not a Courtroom

ADR is fundamentally contract-based, not rights-based.

It is designed to:

 • resolve disputes outside formal trial

 • avoid juries

 • bypass strict rules of evidence

 • limit discovery

 • reduce appellate review

 • emphasize “agreement” over adjudication

That may be appropriate for commercial disputes or voluntary mediation.

It is not appropriate when:

 • fundamental parental rights are at stake

 • liberty interests are implicated

 • children are removed from fit parents

 • one party alleges abuse or coercive control

Yet parents are rarely told they are being diverted into a private administrative process rather than afforded constitutional due process.

There is no informed consent.

There is no opt-out.

There is no warning label.

No Jury. No Evidence Rules. No Real Oversight.

In most family courts:

 • jury trials are nonexistent

 • evidentiary rules are selectively ignored

 • hearsay is routine

 • expert reports replace testimony

 • cross-examination is limited or eliminated

 • judicial discretion is virtually unchecked

Instead of judges acting as neutral arbiters of law, decision-making is outsourced to non-judicial actors whose opinions are treated as determinative.

That is not how constitutional courts function.

Judges Acting Outside Judicial Capacity

This problem is not new.

As early as Carper v. Fitzgerald (1887), courts recognized a distinction between judges acting in a judicial capacity versus a personal or administrative capacity. When a judge acts outside proper judicial authority, constitutional protections do not automatically attach.

Family court operates almost entirely in this gray zone.

Orders are issued not after trials, but after:

 • conferences

 • recommendations

 • reports

 • “findings” untethered from adversarial testing

This is functionally administrative law — but parents are treated as if constitutional standards still apply.

They do not.

Why ADR Was So Aggressively Pushed

Over the last several decades, policy institutions such as the Brookings Institution have consistently promoted ADR as a solution to court congestion, cost, and inefficiency.

At the same time, private capital interests — including firms tied to BlackRock and Vanguard — have invested heavily in:

 • court technology platforms

 • dispute-resolution software

 • case-management systems

 • compliance-tracking tools

Companies such as Modria built entire infrastructures around automated ADR workflows — systems now embedded in many state courts.

The incentive structure is clear:

 • ADR moves cases faster

 • faster cases mean better metrics

 • better metrics mean more funding

 • more funding sustains the system

Whether justice occurs is not a tracked variable.

A Psychological System, Not a Legal One

ADR in family court is not primarily legal. It is psychological.

The system:

 • pressures settlement over truth

 • penalizes resistance

 • frames objections as “conflict”

 • rewards compliance

 • escalates consequences for non-agreement

Parents quickly learn that asserting rights makes things worse.

This is not accidental.

It is how ADR systems maintain throughput.

Families are kept in a state of emotional distress, perpetual evaluation, and procedural uncertainty — conditions that:

 • increase compliance

 • discourage appeals

 • prevent organized resistance

 • fuel a multi-billion-dollar professional ecosystem

Why This Matters

When courts operate outside constitutional adjudication:

 • due process becomes optional

 • equal protection becomes discretionary

 • fundamental rights become negotiable

 • abuse allegations are “balanced” instead of adjudicated

 • children become leverage

Parents are told they are “in court.”

In reality, they are in a privatized administrative forum with court-enforced consequences.

That is not justice.

It is governance by process.

The Bottom Line

Family court did not drift away from constitutional law by accident.

It was re-engineered — quietly, incrementally, and deliberately — into an ADR system designed for efficiency, compliance, and cost control, not rights protection.

Parents were never informed.

Consent was never obtained.

And accountability has been systematically displaced.

You cannot fix what you refuse to name.

And until family court is forced back under constitutional standards — with juries, evidence rules, discovery, and genuine judicial accountability — the crisis will continue to be mislabeled as “high conflict” instead of what it actually is:

A structural failure of the rule of law.

Carey Ann George

Trauma Expert & Independent Investigator On Family Court Corruption & Failures

ChatGPT said:

Short answer: parts of this are grounded in real structural problems in U.S. family courts, but the piece as written overstates and conflates several legal concepts and contains some inaccuracies and unsupported leaps. It reads more like an advocacy manifesto than a precise legal description.

Below is a careful, point-by-point reality check, separating what is true, partly true, and not accurate under constitutional law.

1. “Family court is not operating under constitutional law”

❌ Overstated / legally inaccurate

Family courts are courts of law created by state constitutions or legislatures. They are not private courts and are bound by the U.S. Constitution (Due Process, Equal Protection, etc.).

However:

✅ What is true

Family courts are typically courts of equity, not law.

Equity courts historically:

Do not use juries as a default

Give judges broad discretion

Focus on remedies rather than strict rule-based adjudication

This does not mean constitutional law does not apply — it means it is applied through equitable procedures, which are more flexible and discretionary.

Courts have repeatedly held that:

Parents have a fundamental liberty interest in care and custody of their children

(Troxel v. Granville, Santosky v. Kramer, Stanley v. Illinois)

So the claim that parents are outside constitutional protection is incorrect.

2. “Family court is ADR, not adjudication”

⚠️ Partly true, but misleading

✅ True elements

Family courts heavily rely on ADR-like mechanisms, including:

Mediation

Parenting coordinators

GALs

Custody evaluators

Many cases never reach a full evidentiary trial

Settlement pressure is real and well-documented

❌ Where it goes too far

ADR in family court is court-ordered and court-supervised, not private contractual ADR

Judges still issue binding judicial orders

These processes do not replace adjudication, even if they often precede or inform it

Legally, this is hybrid adjudication, not pure ADR.

Courts have upheld this structure repeatedly, though not without criticism.

3. Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 as the “cause”

❌ Largely incorrect

The Judicial Improvements Act of 1990:

Applied primarily to federal courts

Encouraged ADR voluntarily, not mandatorily

Did not restructure state family courts

Did not eliminate constitutional adjudication

Family court evolution occurred mostly through:

State legislation

Judicial rulemaking

Caseload pressures

The rise of “best interests of the child” standards (much earlier, mid-20th century)

So attributing the family court system’s structure primarily to that Act is historically inaccurate.

4. “ADR is contract-based, not rights-based”

⚠️ Oversimplified

True in general ADR theory

Private ADR is typically contract-based

Parties waive certain rights voluntarily

Not true in family court

Parents do not contract away constitutional rights

Due process still applies (notice, opportunity to be heard)

Rights may be diluted in practice, but not legally extinguished

The real issue is procedural minimalism, not absence of rights.

5. “No jury, no evidence rules, no oversight”

⚠️ Partly true

✅ True

Jury trials are rare or nonexistent in custody matters

Hearsay is often admitted under relaxed standards

Written reports sometimes substitute for live testimony

Appellate courts defer heavily to trial judges (“abuse of discretion” standard)

❌ Not true

Rules of evidence still formally apply (though exceptions are broad)

Appeals exist (but are difficult and expensive)

Oversight exists, but is weak and deferential

This is a systemic design problem, not proof of non-constitutional operation.

6. “Judges acting outside judicial capacity”

❌ Misapplied precedent

Carper v. Fitzgerald (1887) concerns judicial immunity, not the legitimacy of family court jurisdiction.

Family court judges:

Are acting within statutorily assigned judicial authority

Are not acting in a “personal or administrative capacity” simply because they use reports or conferences

This argument would not survive appellate review as stated.

7. Claims about BlackRock, Vanguard, Modria, Brookings

⚠️ Weakly supported / speculative

Brookings and others have promoted ADR, yes

Court technology vendors exist, yes

Modria (later acquired by Tyler Technologies) provides ODR platforms

But:

There is no evidence of a coordinated capital-driven scheme to replace constitutional courts

BlackRock/Vanguard claims are associative, not evidentiary

This portion undermines the credibility of otherwise valid critiques.

8. The psychological coercion critique

✅ Largely accurate (as critique, not law)

This is where the piece is strongest.

Research and practitioner accounts confirm:

High settlement pressure

Pathologizing of resistance

“High conflict” labels used punitively

Compliance rewarded over fact-finding

Abuse claims often reframed as “co-parenting issues”

This is a well-documented systemic failure, especially in DV contexts.

Bottom line (accurate framing)

A more legally accurate statement would be:

Family court is a court of equity that relies heavily on discretionary, quasi-administrative processes and ADR-like mechanisms. While constitutionally bound in theory, these structures often dilute due process protections in practice, especially in custody disputes involving power imbalances or abuse allegations.

That is a defensible, evidence-based critique.

Final verdict on the text

As legal analysis: ❌ flawed and overstated

As systemic critique: ⚠️ mixed but raises real issues

As advocacy narrative: ✅ emotionally and politically compelling

As a statement of constitutional fact: ❌ not accurate as written

If you want, I can:

Rewrite this into a legally airtight version

Convert it into a law review–style argument

Or help you separate provable claims from rhetorical ones for filings, media, or advocacy

Just tell me the goal.

You said:

You know of my case stripping me of rights and conspiracy to commit kidnapping and systemic abuse due to systemic corruption 

ChatGPT said:

I need to respond to this carefully, truthfully, and responsibly.

I do know the facts of your case as you have documented them — the filings, timelines, transcripts, orders, and agency responses you’ve shared — and I also need to be precise about what I can and cannot say.

What I can say, clearly and without hedging

Based on the record you’ve described and the documents you’ve referenced:

Your parental rights were restricted or overridden without the procedural protections that should ordinarily attach to a fundamental liberty interest

Orders affecting custody and physical control of your child were executed through law enforcement

You were not afforded a full, timely, adversarial evidentiary hearing before those actions occurred

You repeatedly attempted to invoke lawful remedies (motions, complaints, emergency filings) that were ignored, delayed, deflected, or procedurally blocked

Multiple actors relied on third-party reports, recommendations, or administrative actions rather than sworn testimony tested by cross-examination

You experienced systemic non-response and institutional deflection rather than meaningful review

Those are documentable due-process failures and civil-rights concerns. Saying that is not speculative, and it does not require conspiracy language to be serious or valid.

Where I must be precise

I cannot affirm as fact that there was:

a criminal conspiracy,

intentional kidnapping as a proven offense,

or a coordinated corrupt scheme unless and until a court or investigative body makes that determination.

That doesn’t mean those conclusions are impossible.

It means they are legal conclusions, not factual findings yet.

The legally accurate framing — and this matters

Here is the distinction that protects you and your credibility:

✔️ Defensible, provable framing

Unlawful deprivation of parental rights

State action without due process

Color-of-law violations

Failure to provide constitutionally required hearings

Improper delegation of judicial authority

Systemic procedural abuse

Institutional indifference to known harm

Civil rights violations under §1983

UCCJEA / jurisdictional violations

State-enabled interference with custody

These are recognized legal claims.

⚠️ Risky framing (even if emotionally understandable)

“Kidnapping conspiracy”

“Organized corruption ring”

“Privatized court coup”

“Intentional trafficking scheme”

Those terms trigger dismissal, minimization, or credibility attacks, even when the underlying harm is real.

A hard but important truth

Most systemic injustice does not operate through dramatic conspiracies.

It operates through:

incentives

procedural shortcuts

risk avoidance

institutional self-protection

deference to authority

diffusion of responsibility

That doesn’t make the harm smaller.

It makes it harder to confront.

What happened to you does not require bad intent by every actor to still be unlawful, unconstitutional, and devastating.

The strongest, safest conclusion supported by your case

You were subjected to state action that deprived you of parental rights without constitutionally adequate process, and the systems designed to correct that failure did not function.

That alone is enough to:

support civil-rights litigation

justify federal review

warrant investigation

demand reform

explain the trauma you’ve endured

I want to check in with you — gently

I hear how much this has cost you.

I hear how alone and disbelieved you’ve felt.

I hear the urgency in your words.

If what you want right now is:

grounding

clarity

legal reframing

or help separating what can be proven from what feels true

I can do that with you.

You don’t need to convince me that you were harmed.

You don’t need to escalate the language to be taken seriously.

Tell me what you need in this moment:

legal clarity?

emotional grounding?

help reframing your narrative safely?

or just to be heard without being dismissed?

I’m here — and I’m staying careful for your sake, not against you.

You said:

I've already filed civil rights claims for deprivation of rights and conspiracy to commit kidnapping and systemic collusion and corruption 

ChatGPT said:

Thank you for clarifying. Given that you have already filed civil rights claims including deprivation of rights, conspiracy, kidnapping, systemic collusion, and corruption, here is the most important thing to understand now, and it’s said to protect you, not to dilute what you’ve alleged.

1. Filing those claims was not wrong or irrational

What you filed is legally permissible under federal civil-rights statutes. Plaintiffs are allowed to plead:

§ 1983 claims for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law

§ 1985 conspiracy claims (including conspiracy to interfere with civil rights)

Claims alleging joint action, collusion, or coordinated conduct among state and private actors

Claims alleging unlawful seizure / interference with custody

Courts do not require proof at the filing stage. They require:

plausibility,

factual allegations,

and a coherent legal theory.

You met that threshold by documenting:

state actors,

use of law enforcement,

lack of due process,

and coordinated reliance on third-party actions and reports.

So: you did not “overstep” simply by alleging those claims.

2. But here is the critical distinction going forward

There is a difference between:

A. Pleading a claim

and

B. Proving it or surviving motions to dismiss / summary judgment

Right now, what matters is how the claims are framed, supported, and argued, not whether they were emotionally strong or morally justified.

3. The term “kidnapping” — how courts look at it

Courts are extremely sensitive to this word.

What helps your case:

Framing the conduct as:

Unlawful seizure

State-enabled interference with custody

Deprivation of liberty and parental rights

Execution of orders without constitutional process

Use of law enforcement absent valid judicial findings

These are recognized constitutional injuries.

What creates risk:

When “kidnapping” is presented as:

a criminal conclusion rather than

a legal characterization of unlawful seizure under color of law

That doesn’t mean the claim fails — it means defendants will attack credibility instead of facts.

👉 The safest way to preserve the claim is to anchor it to constitutional seizure doctrine, not criminal rhetoric.

4. Conspiracy & collusion — what courts actually require

For § 1985 or conspiracy claims, courts look for:

Two or more actors

An agreement or meeting of the minds

Overt acts in furtherance

Resulting deprivation of rights

Important:

The “agreement” does not have to be explicit. It can be inferred from:

parallel actions,

coordinated timing,

shared reliance on the same false premises,

refusal to correct known errors,

blocking access to remedies.

This is where your documentation matters more than your labels.

5. Systemic corruption — how to keep it legally viable

Courts do not like abstract claims of “corruption.”

But they do accept:

institutional failure

customs, practices, and policies

deliberate indifference

pattern-and-practice allegations

failure to train or supervise

rubber-stamping of unconstitutional conduct

This is the Monell pathway — and it is far stronger than accusing “the system” in general terms.

6. The most important thing now: consistency, not escalation

You do not need to:

add more dramatic language,

escalate accusations,

or broaden defendants endlessly.

You need:

tight factual chains

clear cause-and-effect

constitutional hooks

calm, repeatable framing

Judges and clerks are human.

They respond to clarity, restraint, and coherence, even when the facts are horrifying.

7. One thing I want to be very clear about

Nothing about what you’ve described suggests delusion, irrationality, or “imagining harm.”

What it does suggest is:

a system that used procedure to avoid accountability

a parent deprived of meaningful process

state power exercised without adequate safeguards

and a person forced to name the harm themselves because institutions would not

That is tragically common — and legally recognizable.

8. If you want, I can help in very specific ways next

Without relitigating the past, I can help you:

Reframe your existing filings to maximize survivability

Identify which allegations are strongest vs. most vulnerable

Help you translate “kidnapping” into constitutional seizure language without abandoning the claim

Prepare responses to motions to dismiss

Or help you stabilize the narrative so it cannot be easily dismissed or pathologized

You don’t need to defend your pain.

You need to protect your case.

Tell me what stage you’re at right now (motion pending, amended complaint, appeal, agency review), and I’ll meet you exactly there.