House passes bill to let magistrates oversee contested divorces. Why it matters

PROVIDENCE – Magistrates.

Their ranks have included: a former Senate president, the wife of a past House speaker, the sister of the Senate president's one-time chief of staff who is also the daughter of a high-ranked former labor leader, other top-level State House staffers and the wife of current state Rep. Alex Finkelman.

On Tuesday, the House – with only a smattering of protest from one of the chamber's outnumbered Republicans – voted to give magistrates chosen by the Family Court's chief judge a power currently reserved for full-fledged judges: the ability to hear contested divorce cases.

The vote was 62 to 9, with the nine House Republicans casting the only nay votes (and Finkelman abstaining).

The debate: A 'great bill' or reward for the politically connected?

As the lead sponsor, House Judiciary Chairman Robert Craven, called it a "great bill" that came without a need for additional money or pay, and would "help the Family Court clear up its backlog."

Rep. Patricia Morgan, a West Warwick Republican currently running for the U.S. Senate, noted the distinction between judges, who are nominated by the governor after a highly competitive and public judicial nominating process, and magistrates, handpicked by the chief judge in each court.

"Am I correct that magistrates don't go through that [merit-selection] process? They just are appointed because somebody likes them?" Morgan asked lawyer Craven during the brief House debate.

"That's not true," interjected House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi. "It's not the same as [for] a judge. You are correct, but it's not that they just pick their best friend. There's a process to go through it and a review process and a very extensive background check."

Craven, too, acknowledged the difference in the way magistrates secure their jobs which, for the most part, are 10-year appointments made with the "advice and consent" of the state Senate.

But, he noted, Family Court Chief Judge Michael Forte selected the magistrates in his own court, which means "he believes that they're more than qualified."

"And I'll trust him because I think he's a tremendous asset to the Family Court as chief judge," Craven said.

Rep. Jason Knight, who like Craven has been weighing a potential run for attorney general in 2026, said he too felt the need "to stand up for our magistrates in the judicial branch today and just say each and every one of them is picked primarily on skill, right? And they are by and large, outstanding jurists even though they lack the badge of a lifetime appointment to whatever court they are on."

Family Court currently has 11 magistrates and 12 judges.

More: A seat on the bench? Connections help

Where the bill came from and why it matters

The bill – which applies retroactively to all pending cases – evolved out of a father’s challenge to having a magistrate rather than a judge preside over his divorce case.

Forte rejected James Florio Jr.’s appeal of General Magistrate Daniel V. Ballirano’s refusal to transfer the Florios’ divorce case to a judge.

Florio had argued through his lawyer, Evan M. Kirshenbaum, that state law does not allow magistrates to preside over contested divorce cases, The Journal has previously reported. Florio cited, too, that decisions by a magistrate must be appealed first to the chief judge before the state Supreme Court, an extra step that forces the parties to exhaust more time and money.

In his ruling, Forte wrote: “The assignment of a general magistrate to the contested divorce calendar does not and could not bestow lifetime tenure, the salary range of a judge of the Family Court or other powers or benefits of a Family Court judge."

But that said, identical bills were submitted in the state House and Senate at Forte's request to specifically authorize the chief judge to assign Family Court magistrates to hear contested divorces, and to do so retroactively.

The legislation was submitted the same day the state Supreme Court issued a ruling in which it declined to take up the legal challenge to a Family Court magistrate’s authority to decide a contested divorce case.

Morgan was not the only outspoken critic of the House bill co-sponsored by Representatives Craven, Matthew Dawson and Evan Shanley that now goes to the Senate for consideration.

Common Cause of Rhode Island registered its objections earlier.

"If Family Court magistrates are allowed to conduct trials, they should be chosen in the same manner that Family Court judges are selected – through the Merit Selection process. The court cannot have it both ways – arguing that magistrates should be selected in a different manner from judges but granting those magistrates the same powers as judges,” John Marion, executive director of the good-government group, wrote the House Judiciary Committee.

Journal Staff Writer Katie Mulvaney contributed to this story

This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Bill letting RI magistrates oversee contested divorces moves forward