How did the family and juvenile dependency courts become a $50 billion industry?

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts held its first conference in 1963, bringing together a wide range of professionals involved in family and juvenile dependency courts including judges, attorneys, guardians ad litem, mental health professionals, mediators, custody evaluators, and many others whose work was connected to these legal systems. The stated purpose of such collaboration was to improve coordination and outcomes in complex family law cases and dependency (CPS) court cases.

Critics, however, argued that this connected network created financial and professional incentives that governed how cases were handled. They contended that once a case entered either system, multiple court-appointed experts and service providers became involved, increasing both the complexity and cost of proceedings. This referral-based model – led by attorneys and supported by court orders – resulted in prolonged litigation and escalated disputes rather than resolution. 

The AFCC grew into an international organization and describes itself as a leader in family court services, research, and expert testimony. Critics see this as evidence of its influence and that membership played a crucial role in professional opportunities within family courts, particularly for mental health practitioners and expert witnesses. Observers raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, particularly when individuals affiliated with the AFCC hold prominent positions that influence federal funding decisions or public policy. For example, Jessica Pearson—associated with both federal policy research organizations and federal child support initiatives—has been cited in discussions about how grant funding is allocated solely to fathers. Similarly, state-level administrators involved in state level grant management have been scrutinized for potential alignment with AFCC-related initiatives. These concerns center on funding decisions that disproportionately support programs aligned with AFCC networks and demonstrate the extent of the AFCC’s influence over family court practices and policies. 

Jury trial rights—available in certain jurisdictions, such as Texas—are a vital safeguard against networks like the AFCC. The possibility of a jury trial can encourage settlements and provide an additional check within the legal system, particularly in highly contested cases and unfair practices in dependency court cases.  Please take time to watch Divorce Corp today.