 Marriage is a private arrangement with public and legal impacts. It is a human institution recognized in law as sufficient to warrant special legal protections, privileges, and conditions. These special applications of law occur on publication of the marriage, not upon the ceremony or issuance of a license. On publication, the family is often treated as a unit with a single purpose, and the independent purposes of the family members are considered to be merged into that family purpose. Even when obviously acting as legal individuals, there is an assumed unity and purpose. This is noted in criminal law by the rule that one spouse cannot be made to testify against the other. It is commonly noted in property law by special support for shared ownership in real property. It is noted in taxation by treating married couples differently than individuals. The family law tradition supported since feudal times is based on a man and a woman in a relationship with potential for parenting the next generation of people. In more recent times, recognizing the legal benefits of being married, there has been an effort to widen the definition of marriage to include other couplings where people would merge their interests and act as a unity. This change in defining marriage is a social challenge, not a legal one. As people are the only party in interest, the challenge will not be resolved through changes in law. The law should change to serve the people as their wants and needs change. Destructive government is noted where the government takes sides in unresolved citizen disagreements, supporting some citizens in overcoming the rest. On the positive side, the United States government only exists to support the people, not to rule over them. The granting of legal benefits to family units creates a legal complication if the marriage arrangement is later denied. There have been joint authorities and responsibilities affecting both property and any offspring of the marriage relationship. This is complicated by the emotional severing. The parties to the marriage have been in a trusting relationship that was entered into and likely practiced with the expectation of relatively permanent benefit. Dissolution or divorce defeats that expectation, leaving the parties with a sense of loss and potentials for property ownership, for social status, and for exercise of authority and responsibility as to any dependence. This creates an emotionally charged environment which can easily turn personally violent or become a challenge to public tranquility. The process of divorce or dissolution is very likely to be painful to the parties and support unreasonably hostile behaviors toward each other. The involvement of police authority is natural, with the court involvement providing the threat of interference to help the parties find nonviolent resolution of the challenges they face in the termination of their unity. The court rarely gets involved in the social challenges and then only indirectly. It is seen in issuing a protective order to keep physically at a distance, preventing one or both from attending the church where they worship together. The court is intimately involved in the division of property interests and in protection of any minor children who are often brought forth as a focal point for disagreement. The protection of legal authority is not simply required, it is a legal priority. The simple truth is that dissolution and divorce are not legal contests. In the end there are no winners. There is damage felt by all parties. By tradition since feudal times, the focus of the common law as to family matters has been on the creation of the next generation of common people. Their effort would be the source of wealth and privilege for the children of the aristocracy. Children are of human importance and the American Revolution did not in any way change this as to legal concerns. The only change was recognition of the sovereignty of different people, not the importance of children. There is also the recognition that children lack both personal and legal capacity. These are born helpless and will quickly die without adult support. Children may take years of attention, support, training, and experience before they are even permitted to take part in adult society. Both the police and court authorities take notice of the needs of children in the family and stand ready as they are able to protect children as required and to support those who have responsibility to see to the next generation. There will always be challenges to this and it is especially sharp with children during their teenage years. They are both learning to behave as independent adults and are still legal minors who do not have adult authority and responsibility. While the maturation of young into adults is an ongoing effort, the legal shift is like flipping a light switch. By legal tradition, it happens when they become of legal age. I might notice that there is also a social recognition of sorts specifically witnessed in the Jewish community with a public ceremony, bar mitzvah for boys and bat mitzvah for girls, where that change to personal responsibility is recognized. To a certain extent, U.S. citizens receive a less definitive recognition at high school graduation through a commencement ceremony. It marks a change of status, but not one based on gaining legal majority. There is no legal ceremony for passage, just the attainment of the age and majority. The shift to acceptance of responsibility is then immediate and complete. The assumption is that the parents retain responsibility for the results of their actions at the raising of the child until the child attains that age, even though the teenager continues to learn and mature and that teenager has reached the capacity for independence by that age, that is the current system as it is supported in law. On the death of a parent, illegal involvement is a combination of bankruptcy and disillusion. While the official action is not required, it is strongly indicated where the remaining wealth owned by the deceased parent is insufficient to cover the debts that have to be satisfied. The financially independent family with an elder surviving spouse and only one adult child is likely to pay off any further debts without court involvement, and the survivors decide between themselves on what to do with the remaining property or wealth. A family that is unable to pay all its existing debts, or that has many surviving children who are jealous of one another, is likely to require legal support. The greater the number of unsatisfied parties to the estate action, the greater the need. The court's involvement is to provide a path to the nonviolent resolution of the estate, and to assure that any remaining debts of the deceased are legally satisfied. The first principle of involvement is keeping the peace and seeing to the domestic tranquility even if it has to be enforced. The second principle is to assure that the obligations of the parent are not forced upon their children, a matter of personal freedom. Every legal jurisdiction has a number of principles for the distribution of property of a deceased person, and even without a written will can proceed with division. If there is a will, it will be followed as closely as legal rules allow. For bankruptcy situation, the courts will make division among the creditors of that portion which is available for paying debts, and will legally satisfy them with whatever portion can be provided. The court action closes any and all further collection actions as a matter of public policy and support for the next generation. In the United States acting as a sovereign, we have increasingly involved ourselves in who is considered to be married and who is not. Granting special privileges to married persons will inevitably lead to attempts to garner those same benefits without addressing the original purpose. That is human and is accordingly appropriate. It is appropriate to test the margins not necessarily appropriate to make decisions in one direction or the other. In this area of challenge we necessarily address areas of conflict, areas where there is a division on the issue. There is no potential for representing we the people until there is an agreement among us. One challenge is that our government units trying to act as sovereigns to direct resolution of our differences has abandoned representation of we the people in favor of specially representing some people at the expense of others. This has been most notable recently with an attempt to define marriage as the result of declaring any unity agreement to be a marriage, something akin to the recognized right of parents to direct their children that all people are required to honor. The ability of the government to serve we the people is much endowed as to such matters as there are peripheral matters that are not being addressed. Will we support a wealthy senior pedophile who pays a poor family to authorize marriage to their 12-year-old boy? Such would be potential to legalize what is now considered a criminal behavior. It is not that we cannot answer such questions but that we have not even taken a serious look at these matters. We commonly are called upon to take sides on these as political issues. Where it comes to divorce and dissolution we have the treatment of the parties to the action and separate address to the children. With teenagers we have added complication of their maturing independence. The courts sitting in equity on such matters are able to take judicial notice of the individual needs and to be reactive within the confines of the teenagers continuing to be legal minors. The law is recognized as being inadequate to do the job of the courts and so the judge is given authority and equity. Should there be greater definition? Should there be a different treatment for teenage victims of parental division? We do not have specific answers. We can only speculate on whether the answers to such questions are even possible. We are required to rely upon the very human and variable capacities of individuals judges to determine a best course of action. It is unclear if the courts have found a best direction for public interference in this personal separation action. As to children of the family we have the traditional and well tested approach of recognizing adulthood on gaining a specific age. This light switch approach to adulthood is certainly manageable and legally workable even if it does have challenges with holding parents responsible one day for what children do and the next day putting responsibility on the individual. Simplicity is not a service for we the people even if it does have obvious and recognizable value to us. The question of the best service government can provide is still with us. Do teenage students have some sliding scale of responsibility depending on their age and accomplishments? As with the Jewish ceremony we recognize as human fact that teenagers accept their personal authority and responsibility progressively as they mature and this without any consideration for legal responsibility or authority. Can we achieve a better match so that our law directly supports the maturation of teenage citizens? Judges who do family law practice receive special orientation and engage in continuing professional sharing and training as part of that practice. It is recognized as a major requirement for competence in serving as advocates. Judges are elected and have encouragement or requirement for their special training and support only after they already are in service positions with responsibility for legal processes. Could there be some sort of preparation requirement for those who are elected before they have to responsibility to address family matters? This is a well-known challenge for all law but is much greater for sitting on such matters of equity than matters in law. The challenges of family law are human more than legal. They involve not only the limitations and potentials of people who come in to have family issues but are inherent in the variability of people and the changes that people go through in living. In this we have a balanced approach with judicial involvement and equity to seek the best solution to challenges citizens encounter. There will always be questions of whether we can find a better balance.