CITIZENS ORGANIZING TO CHALLENGE TRAVESTY OF FAMILY LAW : SIEGEL, COURTHOUSE STAFF DESERVE PATIENCE, RESPECT.

Kudos to the Daily News for running the story about Ray and Tammy Zaragoza and their fight with the Lancaster Family Court and Commissioner Eugene Siegel particularly. (Daily News, Antelope Valley Section, Dec. 10.)

You are to be commended for helping to expose the American cancer that is ``Family Court.''

Unlike myself, who fears potential retribution from the court, the Daily News was there to see what Ray and Tammy were really talking about. I didn't have the courage that day to show up and march. I regret that I did not.

What I hope readers get most from the article, however, is both directly and indirectly related to Ray's case. In the Daily News coverage, and on the local cable coverage of the protest that night by Jones Intercable, the only negative point of view represented was from attorneys that make tremendous sums of money off ``Family Court.''

We who have been there, particularly fathers, know that ``Family Law Court'' is hardly a family prospect. We lose our kids and pay our ex-wives.

It is, nearly without fail, set up for the mothers of our country. Ninety-four percent of the custodial parents in this country are the mothers. That, in and of itself, is an injustice. But that is all going to change very soon - in California, at least.

The Coalition of Parent Support is finally going to get something done. They are supporting an initiative, the California Family Law Reform Bill, that is going to dismantle the family law industry. A signature drive will be under way very soon to obtain the necessary signatures to place this initiative on the ballot.

It is necessary to go the initiative route as no politician had/has the courage to champion so volatile an issue. The opposition to this initiative is certain to be massive. Debate is expected to be as big as with Propositions 209 and 187. Lawyers, paralegals and others have become wealthy working in the family law industry. They have a war chest that rivals the Democratic Party's. But we shall be victorious in our effort. Hang in there, Ray. Help is on the way.

- Paul Burt

Lancaster

As a practicing family law attorney in the Antelope Valley I was troubled by what seems to be a continuing assault by unhappy litigants on Commissioner Eugene Siegel's management of his courtroom.

I am pleased that the Daily News included comments from Richard Curtin and William Koch, both of whom are well familiar with Commissioner Siegel and the operation of his courtroom. I wish to add my voice to theirs.

The job of a judge is not to give litigants what they want. The job of a judge is to decide the case on the facts presented, in accordance with law. Commissioner Siegel does that.

I know nothing about the Zaragoza case, but it is a simple, if unpleasant fact of life that in litigation there will usually be a ``winner'' who believes that justice was done, and a ``loser'' who believes there was no justice.

Mr. Zaragoza's case is in the court system, and highly competent counsel are involved. If Commissioner Siegel's rulings were in some manner wrong, that can be addressed through the court system.

Launching a public assault on Commissioner Siegel does nothing either to advance the interests of the children in this specific case, nor to clarify public perception of the issues confronting our courts.

The people of the Antelope Valley may be interested to know that the family law case volume in this district alone is almost identical to that in Bakersfield, yet the Bakersfield courts dedicate three or four courtrooms to their caseload. Here, we have one.

As the article suggests, the logistical problems are a daily nightmare. On one day recently, as I left the courthouse at noon the hallway outside Department C was still jammed with clients and pro per litigants.

Commissioner Siegel and his staff do a highly creditable and commendable job of moving cases forward in a situation that is close to gridlock.

The Antelope Valley needs more courthouse facilities and bench officers. There are no plans for a completely new courthouse until 2015 (a date that we perhaps will find falls just after the 12th of never).

Perhaps some headway is being made in expanding the current, completely inadequate facilities. In the meantime, we should all maintain a healthy respect and appreciation for the work being done by all the judicial officers and courthouse staff in this district.

Morgan Spector

Palmdale