For decades, America’s family courts and child protection agencies have operated in a world largely shielded from public scrutiny. Parents rarely see the evidence used against them. Proceedings unfold behind closed doors. Judges hold sweeping discretionary power. Child protective agencies remove children with little oversight and even less accountability. That secrecy has protected a system that critics say has repeatedly harmed the very families it claims to protect.

A new federal proposal seeks to change that.

The Family Justice and Accountability Act, a sweeping legislative blueprint drafted by Punished 4 Protecting, Inc. and child welfare advocate Francesca Amato, represents one of the most significant challenges ever brought against the family regulation system. Its central claim is clear. Family courts have become a constitutional and civil rights crisis that can no longer be left to states to police.

The document presents Congress with a stark conclusion. Family courts and child protective agencies are operating under color of law with insufficient oversight, inconsistent standards, and financial incentives that reward family separation. It argues that the unchecked power of judges, guardians ad litem, and caseworkers has created a culture where violations of parental rights are not rare mistakes but predictable outcomes.

At the core of the proposal is a claim that has gained traction within civil rights circles. The system does not merely fail families. It exposes them to structural harm.

A Constitutional Problem Hidden in Plain Sight

The Act begins with a foundational finding. Family courts routinely disregard the constitutional protections that govern every other legal arena. Parents are denied access to their full case files. Hearings occur without recorded transcripts. Allegations of abuse are decided without the safeguards that define criminal procedure. Families are often penalized not for proven harm, but for poverty, disability, or disfavored beliefs.

In most states, these actions are shielded by judicial or quasi judicial immunity.

The Act challenges this structure directly. It argues that immunity doctrines were invented by courts, not by the Constitution, and that they now operate as a barrier to accountability. In place of these protections, the proposal calls for judges, attorneys, CPS workers, and court appointed professionals to face civil and criminal liability when their decisions violate constitutional, ADA, or federal civil rights laws.

The message is unambiguous. Judicial ignorance is not a defense. It is a disqualifier.

Financial Incentives and the Economics of Removal

One of the most controversial elements of the Act is its examination of federal funding. It asserts that Title IV D and Title IV E reimbursements, along with adoption bonuses under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, created an economy where family separation became financially attractive to states.

The proposal goes further. It seeks to abolish the Adoption and Safe Families Act entirely, citing decades of evidence that its timelines and incentives have disproportionately targeted poor families, families of color, and disabled parents. The Act describes this framework as a catalyst for an industry that rapidly terminates parental rights while failing to reduce abuse or improve long term outcomes for children.

It also addresses a practice known as bonding or monetization of child welfare cases. Under the bill, any financial instrument linked to custody or adoption decisions would be classified as human trafficking and racketeering.

A Call for Jury Trials in Child Removal Cases

Perhaps the most transformative change proposed is the introduction of jury trials.

Under the Act, any attempt to remove a child, place a child in foster care, or transfer custody against the will of a parent would trigger the right to a jury trial. No child could be permanently removed based solely on a judge’s discretion without a full evidentiary hearing and independent review.

For advocates, this provision corrects a longstanding imbalance. A system that can sever the parent child relationship should not operate with fewer protections than small claims court.

Oversight Outside the System Itself

To address consistent concerns that courts police themselves in ways that are uneven and opaque, the Act proposes the creation of Family Justice Oversight Committees in every state. These committees would consist exclusively of civilians with no ties to courts, CPS, law enforcement, or the child welfare industry.

Their responsibilities would include reviewing contested custody removals, investigating misconduct, enforcing ADA and civil rights compliance, and referring unlawful actions for federal investigation. Their authority would be binding.

The Act also mandates the creation of a national transparency database. Every state would be required to report data on removals, family court filings, guardian ad litem assignments, and child welfare outcomes. The absence of national data, the proposal argues, has concealed patterns of bias and civil rights violations for decades.

Restrictions on False Allegations and Criminal Claims

False allegations are a recurring theme in the document. The Act states that all criminal accusations made in the context of family court must be adjudicated in criminal court, not family court. Anyone who knowingly files a false allegation would face civil and criminal penalties.

No permanent custody decision could be based solely on an unsubstantiated claim.

This change is designed to prevent scenarios in which family courts issue orders that create life altering consequences despite the absence of evidence that would withstand the scrutiny of criminal procedure.

A Federal Role in What Has Long Been a State Function

One of the most significant shifts contained in the Act is the assignment of direct responsibilities to the United States Department of Justice. The proposal states that the Department of Justice has routinely declined to investigate ADA and civil rights violations in family courts, often citing a lack of resources. Under the Act, the Department of Justice would face penalties for failing to investigate valid complaints and could be compelled by families or advocates to take action.

This move signifies a new interpretation of family court failures. The harm is not treated as an administrative oversight. It is viewed as a civil rights crisis that warrants federal enforcement.

Redefining What the System Owes to Families

The Family Justice and Accountability Act is unapologetically ambitious. It seeks to eliminate harmful incentives, constrain judicial discretion, expand federal oversight, and restore constitutional protections for parents and children. It challenges long held assumptions about the neutrality of family courts and asserts that the nation has ignored a crisis unfolding in plain sight.

Its supporters argue that reform is overdue. They point to children wrongfully removed, parents stripped of rights without due process, and families broken apart under the weight of bureaucratic decisions. Its critics are likely to argue that the proposal reimagines family regulation too broadly and undermines state authority.

But the premise at the heart of the Act is simple. A system that can remove a child from a parent should be required to operate with transparency, accountability, and fidelity to constitutional law.

For millions of families who have experienced the family court system not as a safeguard but as a threat, the Act represents something rare. It represents the possibility of federal recognition that the harm is real and that the promise of protection must finally be honored.