In a time when disability rights are supposed to be enshrined in law and practice, America’s family courts are quietly functioning in violation of the very protections the ADA was meant to guarantee. The case of Marc Fishman makes that point painfully clear.

Fishman, a father with diagnosed disabilities including cognitive processing challenges, cubital tunnel syndrome, and hearing-related impairments, requested simple accommodations: a note-taker, the ability to access filings, and hearings structured so he could meaningfully participate. These are not radical demands. They are textbook ADA accommodations, the kind routinely granted in schools, workplaces, and federal courtrooms.

Yet in family court, those rights evaporated.

Despite multiple filings and even a federal order acknowledging his right to accommodation, Fishman was repeatedly denied basic tools to access and understand the legal proceedings affecting his rights as a parent. At one point, a judge denied his request for a note-taker during hearings. That decision was later overturned in federal court—but by then, the damage was done.

Family Court as a Disability Rights Dead Zone

Family court exists in a legal gray zone. It’s technically part of the judiciary but often operates more like an administrative body. Many proceedings fall under the umbrella of “Alternative Dispute Resolution” (ADR), which allows judges broad discretion in how hearings are run.

This flexibility may be convenient for overburdened courts, but it creates a dangerous loophole for disabled litigants. There are no juries. Little oversight. And in many cases, judges act as both gatekeepers and enforcers of access—a blatant conflict of interest when one of the parties is asking for disability accommodations.

In Fishman’s case, judges and court staff not only ignored ADA requests but allegedly used those requests to label him as difficult or noncompliant. When he pushed for accommodations, he was painted as “mean-spirited” or “litigious” in court orders. Instead of being protected, he was punished.

The Legal Double Standard

What’s most disturbing is the inconsistency. In federal court, ADA accommodations are standard and enforceable. In family court, they become optional—subject to the temperament of a judge or the indifference of court administration.

This double standard violates not just the ADA but the core principle of equal protection under the law. Litigants with disabilities are being excluded from proceedings they are supposed to participate in. Their requests are treated as burdens. Their rights are treated as suggestions.

A Call for Oversight and Enforcement

If the judicial system is serious about equity, it must start in the courtroom. Family court judges should be trained and held accountable for ADA compliance. Every courthouse should have an ADA coordinator who is independent from the judge and empowered to enforce federal law.

More importantly, litigants must have recourse. If a judge denies a reasonable accommodation, there should be a clear appeals process. No parent should be forced to choose between asserting their rights and risking judicial retaliation.

No Justice Without Access

Disability accommodations are not favors. They are rights. And any system that routinely denies them cannot be called just. Marc Fishman’s case is not an outlier—it’s a warning. One that family court, and the nation, can no longer afford to ignore.

---

Help us expose injustice and fight for disability rights in family court.
Your support powers independent journalism that holds the legal system accountable.

👉 Donate Now — Every contribution helps us give voice to the silenced.