Why Family Courts Are No Longer Courts of Equity

Let’s start by clarifying what a “court of equity” was supposed to be. Historically, parents entered family court with clean hands—meaning there were no allegations of abuse, domestic violence, or neglect. In a typical no‑fault divorce, the court’s limited role was to divide assets and determine parenting time fairly and impartially. That was the entire purpose of a family court operating as a court of equity.

But that model began to disappear around the same time the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) emerged. Once the AFCC held its first conference, it positioned itself to influence—and eventually dominate—family and juvenile court systems nationwide. What was originally framed as a collaborative effort between judges and court‑appointed professionals evolved into a profit‑driven structure that kept families entangled in litigation.

Under this new system, parents are no longer presumed fit. Instead, they are subjected to evaluations, investigations, and a steady stream of court‑appointed “experts.” False allegations have become common, and AFCC‑affiliated professionals now have court‑controlled access to the finances of divorcing parents whenever children are involved.

Judges routinely order parents to pay enormous fees to AFCC members—custody evaluators, psychologists, forensic accountants, minor’s counsel, and others—who then serve as the court’s preferred witnesses. Because loving parents will do anything to protect their children, the AFCC reframed the process as protecting children’s “mental health” from supposedly “unfit” parents. In practice, this created a system where conflict is manufactured, not resolved.

All of this marks a clear departure from the original purpose of family courts. They stopped functioning as courts of equity long ago.