Has the dysfunction in families resulting from CA “family” courts been noticed by other countries?

Estrangement between parents, children, and extended family has become a growing crisis in the United States. Many families describe this estrangement as a direct consequence of how our family courts and juvenile dependency courts operate. The result is a level of family fragmentation that is difficult for countries with stronger protections for family unity notice; but find it hard to understand. This is why it’s worth looking outward and asking what actually works in other nations—and what we can learn.

One place to start is with the principle of settling disputes outside the courtroom. In both criminal and civil courts, the right to a jury trial creates pressure to resolve cases early. Many advocates argue that similar structural incentives could help reduce conflict in family cases and promote settlement rather than escalation.

Recent reporting by the Los Angeles Times described a case in Mexico involving Julio Manuel Reyes Zúñiga, who allegedly called families in Southern California from a Mexico City prison and claimed their loved ones had been abducted. The families paid ransoms because they could not reach the supposedly missing relatives. Beyond the criminal allegations, the situation raises a deeper question: How is it that so many American families are so disconnected that parents cannot reliably reach their own children or extended family members? Social‑media‑driven estrangement makes people more vulnerable to manipulation, and it highlights how fractured many families have become.

Looking at Mexico’s own family law system provides an interesting contrast. According to publicly available legal analyses, Mexican judges generally award patria potestad—a form of shared parental authority—to both parents after divorce. Only in extreme circumstances is one parent deprived of this authority. Some observers argue that this approach reduces conflict and encourages cooperation, offering a model that could help promote settlement in places like California.

The United Kingdom takes a different but equally notable approach. Under the Children Act of 1989, courts are instructed not to intervene unless doing so is demonstrably better for the child than making no order at all. This “no order principle” is designed to prevent unnecessary governmental interference in family life and to avoid escalating conflict when families might resolve issues on their own.

Australia is yet another example. The federal government recently launched a second major inquiry into its family law system after the first inquiry recommended sweeping reforms, including the possibility of replacing the system entirely. The stated goal is to resolve conflict more quickly and reduce the adversarial nature of family litigation. Some critics in Australia have raised concerns about the influence of professional organizations involved in family court work, arguing that certain groups may unintentionally contribute to increased conflict. 

Meanwhile, advocates in other countries are watching the United States closely—and with caution. In India, for example, attorneys and child‑welfare advocates have publicly urged their government not to adopt American‑style dependency court practices. In a recent acceptance speech, attorney Suranya Aiyar emphasized the importance of resisting models that could undermine family unity or lead to unnecessary state intervention.

Taken together, these international perspectives point to a common theme: many countries are actively trying to reduce conflict, limit unnecessary court involvement, and preserve family relationships whenever possible. The United States, by contrast, is facing growing concern that its family and dependency courts continue to move in the opposite direction