Simplifying Divorce with Informal Domestic Relations Trials

Every year, there are roughly two million marriages in the United States. On the opposite end, there are between 600,000 and 900,000 divorces each year; out of these hundreds of thousands of divorces, over 70 percent of them involve at least one party that is self-represented. And while divorce is often portrayed as a heated battle with no real winner, most divorce cases are actually uncontested. Even these simplest divorce cases with minimal disagreement can get bogged down and protracted by a confusing system that’s hard to navigate. Acknowledging these realities, some states have implemented informal domestic relations trials (IDRTs) to provide a faster and simpler route to justice.

In an IDRT, the process is simplified as the judge speaks directly with the two parties and the parties can admit any evidence into the record so long as it is relevant. There are eight states that utilize these informal trials—Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Oregon, Utah, and Washington—with slight variations in what they are called. Generally, IDRTs look similar state by state, and most states use an opt-in model that requires the parties to consent to using the informal trial. The two exceptions are Montana and Iowa. In Montana, if either party is self-represented, then the case is automatically assigned to an IDRT. The parties must request to opt out of the IDRT if they prefer a traditional trial. However, when both parties in Montana are represented by attorneys, there must be a consensus among the parties to use the informal process. Likewise, in the Seventh Judicial District of Iowa, if both parties are self-represented, an IDRT will automatically be scheduled, but the parties may opt out. Otherwise, parties must opt in to IDRTs.

There are many advantages to IDRTs over traditional trials, especially for self-represented litigants. In traditional trials, there’s often a lack of understanding about what can and cannot be said and which documents can be presented to the court. In IDRTs, the parties speak directly to the judge and the judge asks questions to gather information needed to decide the case. There is no questioning or cross-examining of the parties, and the parties may not interrupt or object to each other’s testimony. Any questions a party has for the opposing party go through the judge who decides whether to ask the requested questions. Typically, the two parties are the only witnesses at the trial.

Additionally, a party can submit into evidence written statements by both lay and expert witnesses, and a party can ask the court to let an expert witness testify—such as a doctor, counselor, or custody evaluator—in addition to their written statement. If either party is represented by a lawyer, the lawyer may identify issues in the case, make short legal arguments, and question expert witnesses. But perhaps the most beneficial aspect of IDRTs is that the rules of evidence do not apply. Either party may submit any evidence they deem relevant, and the judge will admit all evidence so long as it is relevant to the issues in the case.

States have differed in both the types of cases permitted in an IDRT and how they introduce this informal trial process to their jurisdictions. Utah specifies that its IDRT model applies only to divorce and custody cases, while Idaho’s current rules only permit the use of informal trials in custody and child support cases. Most states, though, permit a variety of family law cases, including divorce, parentage, parenting plans and child support, property division, relocation, non-parental custody, visitation, and modifications thereof.

As for how states have made IDRTs available, some states started them in just a few jurisdictions before implementing IDRTs statewide, whereas Montana introduced its IDRT program statewide upon first implementation. Arizona is currently running its IDRT program as a pilot before committing to a permanent program.

With the implementation of any new program, it is important to collect data and measure how successful it is at meeting its intended goals. Both Idaho and Oregon have released reports detailing their programs’ successes and challenges. In Oregon, the evaluation focused on input from judges and attorneys, illuminating the effectiveness of IDRTs in reducing conflict at trial and enhancing the parties’ perception of fairness. Idaho’s evaluation included feedback from parents, who expressed satisfaction with the informal trial process, particularly its focus on the best interests of the children.

There were two common themes from both evaluations on how the programs could improve. It was recommended that informal trials not be used for cases with significant and complex issues, and it was evident that the parties would benefit from more education and preparation about the trial process. All in all, states have found this revolutionary trial process to be successful, as shown by the states that started the trials in only a few districts and then moved them to be statewide.

Not all divorce and separation cases are alike. Since most cases are uncontested and involve at least one self-represented litigant—with many cases involving no lawyers on either side—it does not make sense to group them with more complex cases under the traditional trial model. The IDRT model provides parties with the flexibility they need to fully present and argue their case, which in turn helps them feel the process is fair. It also reduces the length of trials, a significant benefit for courts as they work to reduce their current backlog of cases.

We in the legal profession have an opportunity to create a win-win situation for both the courts and the people relying on them by implementing informal trial models, and the eight states at the forefront of this movement have given others a blueprint to make them available everywhere.