Expressed‐Interest Legal Representation for Children in Substitute Care: Evaluation of the Impact of Representation on Children's Permanency Outcomes

Based on a combination of administrative data; juvenile court record review; and informed‐participant interviews of juvenile court judges, attorneys, and service providers, the current study examines the impact of the Foster Children's Project (FCP). FCP is a program that provides professional legal representation to children in substitute care. Legal representation by FCP attorneys is found to increase the rate of children's exit to adoption, leading to a higher overall rate of exit to permanence. The rate of exit to reunification is not, however, found to be affected by FCP representation. Implications for juvenile court policy and practice are discussed.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• The study is the first of its kind to examine the impact of client‐directed representation in cases of children in foster care through examination of Palm Beach County's Foster Children's Project (FCP), which provides professional legal representation to those in state care.
• FCP representation was found to increase the rate of children's exit to adoption, leading to a higher overall rate of exit to permanence. The rate of exit to reunification, however, remained stable.
• Research findings are based on administrative data; juvenile court record review; and interviews of juvenile court judges, attorneys, and service providers.

     

Chapter 2: Pay Now So You Won't Pay Later: The Effectiveness of Prevention Programming in the Fight to Reduce Delinquency

Community-based delinquency prevention programs, designed to work with youth and families before they become involved with the official court process, are relatively rare. Likewise, few studies have been published concerninge valuative research on such programs. This article reviews some background on program concepts, describes the operations of the Oakland County Probate Court Youth Assistance casework services program, and reports the results of a comprehensive program evaluation project. The findings suggest that prevention programming is one effective strategy to aid in reducing the likelihood of more costly court interventions. Recommendations for program development are offered.     

COMPARING DELINQUENCY CAREERS IN COURT RECORDS AND SELF‐REPORTS*

Most knowledge about delinquency careers is derived from official records. The main aim of this paper is to compare conclusions about delinquency careers derived from court referrals with conclusions derived from self‐reports. Data are analyzed from the Seattle Social Development Project, which is a prospective longitudinal survey of 808 youths. Annual court and self‐report data were available from age 11 to age 17 for eight offenses. The prevalence of offending increased with age, in both court referrals and self‐reports. There was a sharp increase in the prevalence of court referrals between ages 12 and 13, probably because of the reluctance of the juvenile justice system to deal with very young offenders. The individual offending frequency increased with age in self‐reports, but it stayed constant in court referrals, probably because of limitations on the annual number of referrals per offender. There was significant continuity in offending in both court referrals and self‐reports, but continuity was greater in court referrals. The concentration of offending (and the importance of chronic offenders) was greater in self‐reports. An early age of onset predicted a large number of offenses in both self‐reports and court referrals. However, an early onset predicted a high rate of offending in court referrals but not in self‐reports, possibly because very young offenders who were referred to court were an extreme group. About 37% of offenders and 3% of offenses led to a court referral. The more frequent offenders were less likely to be referred to court after each offense, but most of them were referred to court sooner or later. There was a sharp increase between ages 12 and 13 in the probability of an offender and an offense leading to a court referral. It is concluded that criminal career research based on self‐reports sometimes yields different conclusions compared with research based on official records.     

A Study of the Impact of Diversion and Community-Based Treatment on the Bucks County Juvenile Justice System, 1974–1979

This study examines the changes in three variables associated with the processing of delinquent youth by the Juvenile Court from 1974 through 1979. The data on numbers of youth referred to court, on adjudicatory probation and committed to public and private institutions is examined for a three-year period prior to significant court diversion and community-based treatment (1974–1976), and compared with a three-year period during which many diversionary services and treatments occurred (1977–1979). Data is also studied from two counties similar to Bucks in youth population-Delaware and Montgomery counties. The results show significant changes within Bucks County: a 9 percent decrease in total court referrals while Delaware experienced a 63 percent increase and Montgomery a 28 percent increase; significant reduction of probation in Bucks, a slight reduction in Montgomery and a 28 percent increase in Delaware County; and most importantly in terms of service costs, institutional commitments increased only 17 percent in Bucks, while increasing 63 percent in Montgomery and 208 percent in Delaware. Data on total reported offenses (crime rates) does not indicate major differences among the three counties; rather there seems to be variation in the types of services and processing of troubled youth which have resulted in 45 percent lower costs for the juvenile probation services in Bucks County.     

Ethical Advocacy for Immigrant Survivors of Family Crisis

The involvement of family courts in the lives of youth and families creates significant opportunities for advocates to assist their clients with immigration‐related issues. Informed and effective advocacy on these issues in family court can make life‐changing, and even life‐saving, differences for immigrants. More specifically, immigration issues are germane to family court because certain vital avenues of immigration relief available to survivors of abuse, neglect, abandonment, and other forms of family crisis explicitly depend on findings, orders, and certifications that are issued in the context of family court proceedings. After describing these forms of relief, and the family court's role in immigrants’ access to them, this essay analyzes how ethical mandates related to client counseling, representational goals, and competence affirmatively require family court practitioners to provide advice and advocacy related to these collateral benefits to family court proceedings.

Key Points for Family Court Community:
• The involvement of family courts in the lives of youth and families creates significant opportunities for advocates to assist their clients with immigration‐related issues
• Certain vital avenues of immigration relief available to survivors of abuse, neglect, abandonment, and other forms of family crisis explicitly depend on findings, orders, and certifications that are issued in the context of family court proceedings
• The substance of immigration‐related findings in family court, and their ultimate affect on family stability, are consistent with the core family court goal of supporting safety, well‐being, and permanency for children and families
• Ethical mandates related to client counseling, representational goals, and competence affirmatively require family court practitioners to provide advice and advocacy related to these collateral benefits to family court proceedings

     

Are Teen Courts An Answer to Our Juvenile Delinquency Problems?

Teen courts are being implemented across the country at a speed that surpasses the celerity with which research of program effectiveness can be performed. This study attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of the Dona Ana County, New Mexico, Teen Court by looking at the rate of recidivism for, program participants as well as possible influential factors upon the rate of recidivism. The subjects were 478 randomly selected participants who were traced though the Juvenile Probation and Parole Office to detect any referrals following teen court participation. The study found a recidivism rate of 25% between 1994 and 1998, which was affected by several factors, including gender, age, prior offenses, and program completion. The study was not a comprehensive evaluation, but it did reinforce the need for further research in the area.     

Helping Families by Maintaining a Strong Well‐Funded Family Court that Encourages Consensual Peacemaking: A Judicial Perspective

This article explores alternatives for the court process that promote a child‐centered approach to resolution of family law issues including a summary of procedures used in Los Angeles County to assist families. The article also explores alternatives to the traditional custody litigation model.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Evaluations and trials are not the only tools available in family law.
• Structured court ordered counseling can provide a meaningful intervention and reduce family conflict.
• Alternative forms of mediation can help families address the “need to be heard” and retain personal autonomy in decision making.
• The court system should help educate families about how to resolve conflict in a safe, effective, and meaningful way.

     

An Evaluation of a Delaware Teen Court

The Kent County Teen Court Program (teen court) provides sanctions for juvenile delinquency from a panel of a juvenile's peers rather than from a Family Court Judge. Part of the concept behind teen peer courts is that the sanction from one's peers carries more weight than sanctions from adults. The Delaware Criminal Justice Council (CJC) awarded a grant to Delaware ‐ Teen Courts, Inc. to support the operation of the Kent County Teen Court Program. The teen court program was designed to provide participants with hands‐on education in the judicial process, to create a sanction pro‐ gram that will not create a permanent record for a juvenile, and to foster, a sense of community responsibility in the program participants. The teen court program is an adult model teen court in which all of the judicial actors are juveniles with the exception of the judge. This article reflects the results of an evaluation on the Kent County Teen Court program's first two years of operation (Garrison, 2001).     

Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases SIXTEEN KEY PRINCIPLES

This article is excerpted from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges' landmark JUVENILE DELINQUENCY GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases, Chapter I, Foundations for Excellence, published in 2005. Beginning with a basic discussion of why separate courts for juveniles and adults continue to be necessary, the article describes the goals and key principles of a juvenile delinquency court of excellence.     

Out on a Limb: Appointing a Parenting Coordinator with Decision‐Making Authority in the Absence of a Statute or Rule

This Article addresses the issue of whether a court may appoint a Parenting Coordinator (PC) with decision‐making authority in the absence of a statute or court rule. The Article identifies possible sources of authority for the appointment of a PC with decision‐making authority in a state with no authorizing statute or court rule. It also provides a paradigm for constructing an appointment that allows for the benefits of Parenting Coordination but does not delegate decision‐making authority to an extent that it would constitute an impermissible delegation of judicial authority.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Where a court seeks to appoint a PC with decision‐making authority in the absence of an authorizing statute or court rule, the court may find some authority allowing the appointment in (1) its equitable authority over child custody and visitation, (2) its authority to enforce its own orders, or (3) its authority to appoint other extrajudicial assistants such as a special master or mediator.
• Where a court seeks to appoint a PC with decision‐making authority in the absence of an authorizing statute or court rule, the court must craft an appointment that delegates enough decision‐making authority to the PC for parenting coordination to be effective yet, at the same time, not so much decision‐making authority as to render the appointment an impermissible delegation of a judicial function, specifically:
  • The PC's role should be limited to assisting the parties in implementing custody and visitation terms already decreed by the trial court.
  • A PC should be appointed only if the parties to the divorce consent to the appointment or if the trial court makes a finding that the case is a high‐conflict case.
  • The parties must have the opportunity for the trial court to meaningfully review any decision of the PC so that the trial court retains ultimate decision‐making authority.

     

A Detailed Cost Evaluation of a Juvenile Drug Court that Follows the Juvenile Drug Court Model (16 Strategies)

Although juvenile drug courts (JDCs) have now been in operation for 17 years, there is still no definitive appraisal as to this model's cost effectiveness and in particular, no detailed cost analysis of a JDC program following the 16 strategies until this one. The cost data presented in this paper build on the process and outcome evaluations performed on the Clackamas County Juvenile Drug Court (CCJDC). The criminal justice costs incurred by participants in drug court are compared with the costs incurred by eligible non‐participants. CCJDC participants had far more positive outcomes than those who did not participate in the program. In the two years after drug court entry, CCJDC participants cost the taxpayers $961 less per participant than similar individuals who did not attend the drug court program.     

Why Juvenile Courts Should Address Family Violence: Promising Practices to Improve Intervention Outcomes

The prevalence of domestic violence in juvenile court cases justifies modifying our interventions to reflect this unfortunate reality. This article focuses primarily on juvenile victimization of parents and the model programs emerging in juvenile courts to address it. Part I examines family violence's prevalence in the juvenile court caseloads, despite its lack of consideration in most dispositions. Part II begins with a comparative analysis of the drug court trend and discusses the trend's applicability for specialized family violence applications in the Juvenile Court. The King County (Wash.) Juvenile Court's Step‐Up Program is introduced, which directly addresses family violence with intervention programs for youth perpetrators and abused parents, followed by the Santa Clara County (Calif.) Juvenile Court's Family Violence program, shown as a model worthy of replication. Part III details the process by which the Travis County (Texas) Juvenile Court is implementing a program similar to these models. Part IV concludes that juvenile courts must address family violence as an overt or underlying issue in many cases and must identify and address the danger to our troubled youths, whether offender or victim. I argue that the domestic violence community's treatment expertise must inform our juvenile courts' interventions with violent, often insular, families. In Travis County, we are committed to learning as much as possible about youth resilience–to identify and treat battered and battering teens to prevent the inter‐generational cycle from repeating itself while making our homes, communities, and schools safe.     

A Rigorous Quasi‐Experimental Design to Evaluate the Causal Effect of a Mandatory Divorce Education Program

All couples with minor children who filed for divorce within a specific 6‐week period (N = 191 couples) in one jurisdiction were ordered to attend a divorce education program. The control group included about 20 couples randomly selected from each of six 6‐week intervals before and six 6‐week intervals after the treatment interval (N = 243 couples). Archival records were searched for variables such as legal and residential custody award, visitation percentage, and relitigation. The impact of the program was assessed by evaluating, for each variable, whether the data for program interval departed from the straight (regression) line drawn through all the control group intervals. Only the visitation time award significantly differed: 27.75% for treatment couples and 22.46% for control couples. Analyses show that the father's attendance at the program primarily accounts for the difference.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• There are considerable methodological weaknesses in most of the existing evaluations of divorcing parent education programs.
• Stronger, more scientifically rigorous—and thus persuasive—designs are possible in court settings, such as the regression discontinuity quasi‐experimental design we feature here.
• Archival records, such as various court filings, are a rich and relatively untapped source of data.
• Being mandated to attend a single 2‐hour divorcing parent education class caused an increase in the visitation time award in divorce decrees.
• There is a disconnect between being mandated by a judge to attend a program and actual attendance.

     

Judges’ Perceptions of Screening,Assessment, Prevention,and Treatment for Substance Use, Mental Health,and HIV among Juveniles on Community Supervision: Results of a National Survey

Juvenile Justice‐Translational Research on Interventions for Adolescents in the Legal System (JJ‐TRIALS) National Survey was funded in part to describe the current status of screening, assessment, prevention and treatment for substance use, mental health, and HIV for youth on community supervision within the US juvenile justice system. Surveys were administered to community supervision agencies and their primary behavioral healthcare providers, as well as the juvenile or family court judge with the largest caseload of youth on community supervision. This article presents the findings from the judges’ survey. Survey results indicated juvenile and family court judges were open to innovations for improving the court's performance, rated their relationships with collaborators highly, and appreciated the impact of screening, assessment, prevention, and treatment on judicial practices.     

Socializing Distrust of the Justice System through the Family in Juvenile Delinquency Court

Juvenile delinquency courts in the United States generally require parents to attend all court hearings, but little is known about how parents' experiences in the court process affect their discussions of the justice system with their court‐involved children. Using multiperspectival and longitudinal data combining observations with interviews of parents and youth in two courts, this research finds that many parents discuss the legal process in negative terms with their children when parents are outside the presence of legal authorities. This research adds to the literature on legal socialization by examining how parents' perceptions of law and their experiences with the court become part of the socializing content provided by parents to their court‐involved children. Creating a more meaningful role for parents in the juvenile justice process may potentially lead to more positive discussions of the court process between parents and juvenile defendants.     

THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADDRESSES THE NATIONAL PROBLEM OF YOUTH AT RISK

During the 2006–2007 American Bar Association (ABA) year, a special ABA Presidential Youth at Risk Initiative has addressed several important topics: addressing the needs of juvenile status offenders and their families; foster children aging out of the foster care system; increases in girls, especially girls of color, in the juvenile justice system; the need to better hear the voices of youth in court proceedings affecting them; and improving how laws can better address youth crossing over between juvenile justice and child welfare systems. Lawyers are encouraged to use their skills to improve the systems addressing at‐risk youth and their families and to help facilitate coordination of youth‐related community efforts. Learning how to effectively communicate with youth is an important skill attorneys must learn. Through the Youth at Risk Initiative, the ABA has held continuing legal education programs, hosted community roundtables among youth‐serving stakeholders, and developed projects on: juvenile status offenders; lawyer assistance to youth transitioning from foster care; educating young girls on violence prevention, conflict resolution, and careers in law and justice; and provision of useful information to youth awaiting juvenile court hearings. New ABA policy has addressed services and programs to at‐risk youth, assuring licensing, regulation, and monitoring of residential facilities serving at‐risk youth, enhanced support for sexual minority foster and homeless youth, juvenile status offenders, and improving laws and policies related to youth exiting the foster care system.     

Association for Conflict Resolution Guidelines for Eldercaring Coordinators

On November 6, 2014, the AFCC Board of Directors endorsed the Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR) Guidelines for Eldercaring Coordination, including ethical principles for Eldercaring Coordinators, training protocols, and court pilot project template. The collaboration between Task Forces created by ACR and the Florida Chapter of AFCC, composed of twenty U.S./Canadian and twenty Florida‐wide organizations, produced both an overarching guide to assist in the development of programs and a more detailed model addressing state/province‐specific needs and characteristics. Eldercaring coordination is a dispute resolution option specifically for high‐conflict cases involving the care, needs, and safety of elders.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• There are currently no dispute resolution options for parties involved in high‐conflict cases regarding the care, needs, and safety of an elder.
• The ACR Guidelines for Eldercaring Coordination address the discrepancies between dispute resolution options available for parents in conflict regarding their minor children and mature families with unresolved concerns about the care, needs, and safety of an elder.
• The ACR Guidelines for Eldercaring Coordination provide information regarding the ethical practice of eldercaring coordination including a specific definition, recommended qualifications, ethical practices, grievance procedures, training protocols, and a court pilot project template.
• The practice of eldercaring coordination will address the influx of court cases expected as baby boomers continue to age, reducing delays in court hearings, as parties will have the opportunity to resolve their concerns without continuous court attention.
• As of June 2015, five states began Pilot Projects on Eldercaring Coordination, which will be studied by an independent research group to enhance the progress of the process and to develop the best practices for initiating the programs elsewhere.

     

The Use of Citizen Review Boards with Juvenile Offender Cases: An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Pilot Program

This study evaluates a Citizen Review Board (CRB) program designed to review juvenile offender cases. The sample includes 157 juvenile offenders that were first‐time adjudicated offenders. The youth were randomly assigned by the juvenile judge either to receive review by the CRB or go through the regular court process. Sixty‐eight of the youth were reviewed by the CRB and 89 made up the control group. Data were collected on both groups for more than three years. Program outcomes examined for the study included court processing time, placement and treatment facility changes, and re‐offense rates. Findings suggest that the youth served by the CRB program had statistically fewer out‐of‐home placements in treatment programs during the course of the study and more time had elapsed between the date of the original offense and the re‐offense for youth reviewed by the CRB. The rise in the number of juvenile offenders going through the nation's court systems, as well as a rise in the number of citizen review boards, indicate a need for further examination about how CRBs can best serve the juvenile court system and the youth served by that system.     

The Evolution of Balanced and Restorative Justice

Maloney, Armstrong, and Romig presented a portrait of “Joey,” who was the exemplar of what was wrong with the juvenile justice system, in 1988 when they published The Balanced Approach in this Journal. In response, they reimagined a juvenile justice system predicated on balancing three fundamental goals—protection of community, accountability to victims, and development of competencies to prepare juvenile court‐involved youth for productive roles in their communities. The authors examine the evolution of balanced and restorative justice and re‐imagine how Joey's life may have been different at critical junctures of his juvenile court involvement.     

The Parenting Coordinator as Peacemaker and Peacebuilder

Parenting coordinators serve as case managers in high‐conflict families with the goal of protecting the children from parental conflict. Parenting coordinators are peacemakers and peacebuilders who identify and help set up structures in the family to support peace between the parents. The family court should promote and develop equipoise in litigants and professionals. Because parents who continue in conflict postdecree often have difficulty empathizing with their co‐parents and with their children, they might benefit from meditation training to increase mindfulness, empathy, and compassion. Self‐compassion training could also increase well‐being and more effective co‐parenting and aid in building peace in the family.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Parenting coordination is a child‐focused intervention with high‐conflict parents that can help protect children from their parents' conflict.
• Parenting coordinators are peacemakers who resolve disputes between the parents and facilitate negotiation and communication between them and help them make decisions.
• Parenting coordinators are also peacebuilders who help identify and build structures and processes in the family system to strengthen interparental peace.
• Equipoise can be developed in litigants and professionals through mindfulness and compassion training.
• Family court judges can work with parenting coordinators in a team approach, in a manner similar to what occurs in problem‐solving courts, to benefit the families and the judicial system.