Our Mandamus to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of 22 million Americans:
Challenging the Terms “Family Law” and “Family Court” 
as Misleading Terminology

State “Family Courts” are commonly understood as courts of law handling domestic relations matters (divorce, custody, child support, etc.). This argument contends that these tribunals, in practice, often operate under administrative codes and broad discretionary standards rather than the rule-bound adjudication normally associated with courts of law. Referring to them as courts of “law” may therefore mislead the public, raising issues of fraud and misrepresentation. Below, we present a legal analysis grounding this challenge in precedent, consumer protection principles, and fraud statutes, and we propose remedies to ensure court terminology is not deceptive.

Family Courts as Quasi-Administrative Bodies: Many family court functions are administrative or executive in nature. Child support enforcement, for instance, often involves cooperation with state Title IV-D agencies operating under federal funding incentives, blurring the line between judiciary and executive administration. Judges in family court sometimes act more like administrators or arbitrators, applying agency-developed guidelines (e.g. child support formulas, parenting time rules) rather than adjudicating purely legal disputes. Indeed, critics note that family courts frequently rely on “practices” and professional recommendations (from mediators, evaluators, guardians ad litem) in lieu of strict rules of law.

WE AIM TO CHANGE THIS ON BEHALF OF ALL AMERICAN'S