“Is not injustice the greatest of all threats of the State?”
– Plato, "The Republic"
West Virginia family court judges are tasked with one of the most significant responsibilities in the legal system: adjudicating matters that directly impact the well-being of children and families.
Despite this, family court judges receive lower annual compensation ($103,950) than their counterparts in the circuit court ($138,600, and below even certain administrative officials within the judiciary, namely, the law clerks of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (up to $129,999 annually) and the Supreme Court of Appeals (ranges from $110,000 – $149,999 per year).
Another metric reveals family court judges are paid ($103,950/48 weeks/40 hours per week =) $50.14 per hour. By striking comparison, court appointed guardians ad Litem in West Virginia receive $100 per hour for in-Court work, while court appointed attorneys in criminal cases earn $80 per hour in-Court.
From credible source materials, judges with domestic relations jurisdiction in the U.S. Territories of American Samoa ($126,000) and the North Mariana Islands ($120,000), each receive more than their West Virginia equivalents per year. Consequently, West Virginia is 52nd, not its usual 50th, in this particular relevant indicator. Guam, interestingly, displays an administrative provision that any judge must make at least $2,000 more, annually, than the highest paid (non-judge) judicial employee.
This glaring disparity not only undervalues the essential work performed by family court judges, but also, threatens the integrity and effectiveness of the family court system in West Virginia. Addressing this inequity is crucial to ensuring the retention of experienced judges, attracting qualified candidates and demonstrating the state’s commitment to prioritizing the welfare of its most vulnerable citizens – children.
Family law cases are among the most emotionally laden and legally complex matters heard in any court. Family court judges routinely preside over cases involving child custody, contempts, modifications, parenting plans, divorce, separation, allocations, paternity, initial and delinquent child support, alimony and domestic violence. These cases require a family court judge to balance the competing interests of parents while ensuring the best interests of the children involved.
Circuit court judges, though delegated important matters such as criminal and civil litigation, and the worst case scenarios of child abuse and neglect, do not deal with the same day-to-day level of deeply personal and emotive issues that define family law practice.
While law clerks perform critical administrative functions, their responsibilities do not involve the exercise of judicial discretion, the resolution of contentious disputes, the need for a swift decision after trial, or the looking into the eyes of lugubrious litigants, upon whom the family court judge makes daily impact. The fact that a non-judicial officer earns more than a family court judge presiding over cases that determine the fate of children and families sends a troubling message about the state’s priorities.
This creates a disincentive for experienced legal professionals to seek positions on the family court bench, potentially leading to a decline in judicial quality over time. In fact, the 2024 elections saw only three out of 48 family court judges challenged for their positions.
Under-compensation of family court judges contributes to high levels of judicial “burnout.” What this means is family law cases are not only legally complex, but also, emotionally draining. Judges must deal with litigants in crisis, navigate cases involving domestic violence and child abuse, and issue prompt rulings that will shape a child’s future for years to come. Unlike circuit court judges, who have the benefit of law clerks, and who may have more clearly defined procedural constraints and constitutional parameters, family court judges frequently operate in a “gray area” of the law, requiring them to exercise substantial discretion in highly emotional matters.
The psychological toll of such work, combined with lower salaries, may drive experienced judges to seek other legal opportunities or discourage talented attorneys from pursuing a judicial career on the family court bench. This creates an institutional instability that ultimately harms the very families and children the system is designed to protect.
Franz Kafka despaired in "The Trial" that “It’s often safer to be in chains than to be free.” Judges shackled by inadequate compensation and insufficient institutional support cannot be expected to administer justice effectively and consistently over the length of an eight year term.
The Legislature should consider enacting reforms that bring family court judges’ salaries in line with those of their circuit court colleagues. At the very least, the Legislature should ensure that appellate court law clerks are not paid more than family court judges.
Does justice not apply to family court judges as much as the people they serve? A just society recognizes that those entrusted with its most important legal decisions – those affecting the fundamental building blocks of society – children and families – should be compensated accordingly. The English jurist, Leone Levi, wisely reminds us: “Nothing can be permanently useful which is unjust.”
Douglas is a Kanawha County family court judge.