A group of litigants, citing inconsistent and unfair rulings, violations of due process and failure to follow community property laws, is seeking a formal investigation of Family Court.

The Coalition for Family Court Reform has sent a notice of complaint to just about every political body in the state, including the attorney general's office, Clark County Commission, the Legislature, Secretary of State Dean Heller, Gov. Kenny Guinn and Mayor Oscar Goodman, as well as the Clark County district attorney's office and Sheriff Jerry Keller.

The complaint contends that the Family Court system has "drastically failed to correct the problems brought forth to the Nevada Legislature."  Alleged violations include the denial of equal protection under the law, evidentiary hearings, discovery, witnesses' testimonies, admitting relevant evidence and the right to redress, as well as unnecessary delays.

The complaint says Family Court contributes to "endless and perpetual litigation by the dynamic nonresolution of cases."  Decisions often are based on hearsay rather than on rule of law, the coalition says.

Interspersed among legitimate points raised by the complaint are inflammatory references to fraud, extortion and sedition.  How that will affect responses to the complaint remains to be seen.

There is no question that some Family Court litigants will never be happy with judicial decisions because they didn't "win."  Some litigants themselves are responsible for protracted litigation and adding to the emotional distress of their children.

However, there is a great deal of substance to issues raised in the complaint.  There are documented cases where due-process rights have been violated.  There are documented cases where judges have not followed community property laws.  In some cases, a 50-50 community property split is a joke.  And although a couple may have gotten divorced in 1996, today they're still fight over division of assets - or rather what's left of them.

It's unclear whether any agency that was sent the complaint has jurisdiction to act on it.

A spokesman for the attorney general's office had not yet seen the complaint.

Lorne Malkiewich, director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, says the LCB will review it, but little can be done while the Legislature is out of session.

Although the 1999 Legislature adopted some of an interim subcommittee's recommendations for Family Court change, the coalition says it's not enough.  The coalition goes so far as to call for a grand jury investigation.  Certainly, an independent review of some of the more serious, documentable charges is justified.

A newly formed second group - Pacific 2000 (Progressive Advocates for Change in Family Court) - also is leading an uphill charge to seek redress for many of the violations contained in the Coalition for Family Court Reform's complaint.  Pacific 2000 says it's committed to restoring due-process rights, and even suggests jury trials in contentious custody case.

Both groups support shared custody (unless it is detrimental to the best interest of the child or where there is documented abuse), criminal penalties for persons who commit perjury in Family Court, and holding judges and attorneys accountable for their actions.

Both are seeking other litigants who believe their rights have been violated.  The coalition can be reached at 440-7000; Pacific 2000 can be reached at 434-9027.

Since there missions are the same, the two groups would be a stronger force if they could overcome internal conflicts and merge.

The issues they raise are too important to be ignored.