Lost in Translation: Interpreter Access = Access to Fairness and Justice in Family Law

By Fritznie Jarbath, Esq.

Florida is one of the most linguistically diverse states in America. According to U.S. Census data, roughly one-third of Floridians speak a language other than English at home, which is significantly higher than the national average. Spanish is most common, but many families speak Haitian Creole, Portuguese, and French. That reality makes interpreter access critical.

Being able to communicate, or the lack thereof, can be an impediment to meaningful access to justice. A parent’s testimony, a client’s understanding of court orders (written or verbal), and the ability to meaningfully participate in hearings depend on one foundational element: understanding.

When a party has limited English proficiency, the absence of a qualified interpreter can turn the legal process into confusion, fear (more so than usual), and—most importantly—an unfair outcome. Meaningful access to justice requires more than being present in court; it requires being able to understand and be understood.

Family law often involves high stakes: custody, relocation, support, injunctions, and allegations of abuse. These proceedings can move quickly, and misunderstandings can have lasting consequences. Without proper interpretation, a litigant may agree to terms they do not comprehend or fail to follow a court order due to misunderstanding. In these cases, language barriers can be mistaken for credibility issues, lack of cooperation, or lack of engagement, creating an unintended bias against non-English-speakers.

Lawyers play a critical role in preventing this miscarriage of justice. Counsel should identify interpreter needs early, request or hire interpreters in advance, and confirm whether interpretation is required not only for hearings, but for mediations and depositions. Avoid using adult children, relatives, or friends as interpreters, as this informal solution risks inaccuracy and potential breaches of confidentiality.

Meaningful access includes written communication as well. Lawyers should consider providing translated summaries, plain-language explanations, and follow-up meetings to confirm comprehension.

Language should never be a barrier to justice.

Case Law Update

By Reuben A. Doupé, B.C.S.

Crossen v. Feeley, 51 Fla. Law Weekly D273a (Fla. 4^th DCA February 11, 2026)

When is a marriage not a marriage? According to the Fourth District, the answer is: With the benefit of hindsight. 

Mr. Feeley and Ms. Crossen were married for approximately nineteen months. They had no children together. The wife entered the marriage with two condominium units, one of which was sold during the marriage. The other condominium, known as “Penthouse-07,” was purchased by the Wife prior to the marriage and through a loan from her parents for the entire purchase price. Her parents wrote off portions of this loan on annual basis, pursuant to the IRS gifting allowance. About two months after the parties’ marriage, the wife re-titled the Penthouse jointly to the parties as tenancy by the entireties. 

At trial, the wife sought an unequal distribution of the Penthouse, which was denied by the trial court:

[H]aving considered all of the facts and circumstances, including but not limited to the statutory factors… finds the [wife] failed to justify a basis for an unequal distribution of [penthouse]-07…. The [wife] did not contribute anything to the acquisition or improvement of [penthouse]-07; her parents provided all of those funds…. Both the [wife] and her father told [the father’s lawyer] to prepare the deed stating it was a gift, for no consideration, of unencumbered real property. Contending there should be an unequal distribution … would ignore the clear terms and conditions of the July 15, 2022, deed.

The Fourth District reversed this ruling, for three specific reasons. First, the trial court “failed to make the mandatory findings” required under the statute and did not specifically discuss the impact of the shortness of this marriage. As specifically noted by the Fourth, “That one spouse’s property was initially a non-marital asset is a significant factor in a case involving a request for unequal distribution in a short-term marriage.” (Emphasis added). Findings are required for sufficient appellate review to understand the court’s rationale for its ruling.

Second, while the trial court properly concluded that the Penthouse was a marital asset due to the joint title created during the marriage, the trial court appears to have stopped its legal analysis at this step. “The judgment appears to have determined that the wife’s post-martial inclusion of the husband on the deed to the property precluded an unequal distribution to the wife.” This is clearly contrary to the law because the determination of the character of an asset is just one step of equitable distribution, while the equitable distribution, whether equal or unequal, is a different step in the process. 

Finally, the Fourth District reversed because the trial court appeared to give no consideration to the short duration of the marriage. Marriages under two years are susceptible to unequal distribution claims due to the shortness of the duration of the marriage. Even when parties have taken intentional and voluntary steps to create marital assets, those assets are susceptible to unequal distribution. 

The Fourth District then gave the jurisprudential quote of 2026, to date, which I will leave you with:

In the flush of optimism that exists early in a marriage, decisions can be made which seem unwise with the benefit of hindsight. While life must be lived forward, judges have the ability to look backward under section 61.075(1)(j) to achieve “equity and justice” in the division of marital property.