How FJP would work, from first filing to follow-up.

• Screen each person separately and privately for domestic violence, coercive control, child abuse or neglect, stalking, and immediate instability.
• Identify disability, language needs, substance-use concerns, unequal access to money, and urgent child needs.
• Record where information came from and how certain it is. A screen directs attention; it does not prove an allegation.

See relevant screening standards →

This early sorting process is called triage. Possible patterns include ordinary disagreement, communication breakdown, escalating conflict, serious health or substance-use problems, domestic violence, coercive control, child abuse or neglect, blocked parenting, knowingly false claims, misuse of litigation, and two capable parents who strongly dislike each other. The category must change when the evidence changes.

Anti-bias rule: a label never replaces the observations and sources underneath it.

• Emergency action where evidence supports urgency.
• Alternative safe procedures when joint negotiation would create coercion or danger.
• Every temporary order states what is provisional, its factual basis, and a review date so inertia does not harden uncertainty into a final arrangement.

For each important claim, record the source, supporting evidence, conflicting evidence, relevance, current status, uncertainty, who may see it, and its change history. Suggested statuses are supported, partly supported, unresolved, contradicted, knowingly fabricated, and not relevant to the decision. Read the full definition.

The record must also show patterns. Coercive control can disappear when every event is viewed alone.

Every material professional opinion should expose its chain: observation → reported information → inference → alternative explanations → conclusion → confidence → what could change the conclusion.

The record should also distinguish behavior observed under litigation pressure from baseline functioning. Existing Illinois evaluation law already requires data, results, conclusions, recommendations, and limitations; FJP extends that logic into a consistent record architecture. Source S16

Each appointment states the decision question, the work allowed, an initial spending limit, the expected result, a deadline, possible conflicts of interest, and when the assignment ends. More work requires a written explanation of why it is needed. The goal is not to block a necessary investigation; it is to prevent an assignment from growing without review. What is a neutral professional?

• Create an early warning when someone cannot afford the evidence, expertise, or participation needed for a fair hearing.
• Use fee-sharing orders, legal aid, help with a limited task, or publicly supported neutral fact-finding when local law allows.
• Keep each side’s right to advocate while limiting repeated information requests and proven misuse of procedure.

See Turner v. Rogers and M.L.B. v. S.L.J..

For expensive or intrusive steps, record expected safety benefit, evidentiary need, duration, direct cost, time burden, privacy cost, child-development disruption, less intrusive alternatives, and review conditions. The statement informs judgment; it does not replace it.

• State material findings, evidence relied on, important contrary evidence, and unresolved uncertainty.
• Explain why material alternatives were rejected.
• Use the least intrusive option consistent with verified safety needs and legal standards.
• State conditions for modification, review, or termination.

Time-limited verification focuses on execution: Did supervised contact actually have the ordered supervision? Was a required provider available? Were safety incidents escalated? This is not indefinite surveillance; access and retention are restricted, and review ends when the defined condition is met.

Review evidence traceability, timeliness, uncertainty calibration, scope compliance, corrections, safety misses, excessive intervention, complaints, and appointment concentration. Disclose referral relationships and material revenue dependencies. Qualified rotation or randomization may reduce concentration; a written specialist exception preserves needed expertise.

The balanced review includes safety events, legal fairness, time to a workable resolution, necessary returns to court, family cost, child stability, compliance, corrected errors, and restrictions that proved unnecessary. No single measure controls. Speed counts as success only when safety, evidence, and fairness requirements also pass. What “de-identified” can and cannot promise.

See the proposed small test and safeguards →