Are family court judges hindering law enforcement?

Family court judges often issue a large number of orders—effectively functioning like laws—that law enforcement is required to enforce. The problem is that these orders frequently create confusion and unnecessary burdens for both families and police officers as well as school personnel, caregivers, extended family, health care providers, extended family and friends, neighbors, pastors, etc.   

How Family Court Orders Create Problems

• Parents often don’t fully understand the orders. Many litigants leave court unsure of what the judge’s orders actually say.
• Law enforcement isn’t always updated. Police officers may not receive timely updates when orders are modified, revoked, or replaced.
• Orders are sometimes used as leverage. Some parents use these orders strategically to gain an advantage over the other parent.
• False allegations strain police resources. Officers are frequently called to respond to alleged violations of family‑court orders that may be exaggerated or untrue.
• Financial incentives can influence the system. Critics argue that some orders are created or encouraged by professionals connected to the AFCC network—psychologists, therapists, custody evaluators, attorneys, social workers, and others – who financially benefit from ongoing conflict.
• Police are placed in impossible positions. Officers are expected to enforce complex, sometimes contradictory orders, effectively becoming referees in private family disputes.

This level of involvement is often described as unwarranted governmental interference (UGI)—a situation where the state becomes deeply entangled in family life in ways that were never intended.

How This Differs From Criminal and Civil Courts

Criminal and civil courts typically use standardized, straightforward orders that law enforcement understands well. Family court orders, by contrast, are often lengthy, unclear, and frequently amended. Even judges, teachers, extended family, caregivers, religious personnel, coaches, etc sometimes struggle to interpret them. This confusion spills over into schools and community settings, where police officers must make quick decisions based on orders that are difficult to decipher.

Real‑World Examples Highlighting the Problem

Restrictions on pregnancy – An appeals court struck down an order that attempted to prohibit a woman from becoming pregnant—an action the Civil Liberties Unit described as “completely out of bounds”, a threat to reproductive freedom, and impossible for police to enforce.

Blocking communication with criminal defense attorneys – in one case, a family court judge barred a defendant and her family‑court attorney from sharing information with her criminal attorney. The Civil Liberties Union noted that this violated basic First Amendment protections and undermined the fairness of the criminal process and unenforceable. 

Disproportionate impact on low‑income families – The Civil Liberties Union found that restrictive family‑court orders often fall hardest on people who cannot afford a single attorney to handle both family and criminal matters. These individuals—many already vulnerable—face additional risks and barriers because of overlapping, conflicting orders and unnecessary interactions with law enforcement.

Adults remaining listed on restraining order issued against them as children in California  – Orders that were issued against individuals when they were minors remain active in the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) long after those individuals become adults. These outdated entries are then shared nationwide. This information is often inaccurate, incomplete, or never updated. In many cases, the now‑adult individuals have no idea that these restraining orders are still attached to their names, creating confusion, legal complications, and unnecessary interactions with law enforcement.