Asking the Right Questions: Utilizing a Judicial Checklist to Track the Educational Success of Youth in Foster Care

Asking about the educational objectives for children in foster care has not been a priority in most juvenile and family courts. Research has shown that compared to the general school population, children in foster care have lower grade point averages, change schools more frequently, earn fewer credits toward graduation, and are more likely to be placed in special education programs. In response, Casey Family Programs, in collaboration with the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges' Permanency Planning for Children Department, developed a Judicial Checklist with key educational questions to be asked from the bench. The Checklist has become a useful tool for juvenile and family court judges when assessing the effectiveness of current educational placements of the children who come before their courts, tracking their performance, and in making a positive future impact on their educational outcomes.     

Federal Family Drug Treatment Courts: Providing Positive Possibilities

Due to the lack of family drug treatment courts, families are often torn apart when a parent has a substance abuse problem. Children of substance abusers are often abused and neglected. However, children in these tough living situations fear seeking help because they do not want to be the reason that their family is torn apart and they are placed in the foster care system. This Note proposes a federal statute that requires all states to implement family drug treatment courts. These courts allow families to stay intact while providing the parent with the help that he or she needs.     

Family courts

Family courts are increasingly accepted as altermatives to juvenile courts. Arguments for the establishment of these courts rests on the assumption that a consolidated jurisdiction looking beyond any particular offense to the best interests of a family can better coordinate services and devise creative dispositions. This paper questions whether this movement may not be underestimating the inherent, difficult problems associated with any attempt to regulate family dynamics legally. Theoretical and organizational impediments to the family courts movement are examined. Conclusions are drawn about potentially fruitful roles for family courts to pursue in order to avoid later claims of misdirected idealism.     

Physical and Emotional Well‐Being: Court Performance Measures for Children and Youth in Foster Care

Given that courts have the responsibility to ensure the state is providing proper care to children in its custody, courts need to consider whether those children over whom they have jurisdiction are receiving a quality education and are physically and emotionally healthy. Court well‐being measures were not developed when the safety, permanency, timeliness, and due process measures were established. However, there have been recent efforts to address this void. This article describes the newly developed set of well‐being measures for courts to track success in improving well‐being outcomes in the areas of physical health, mental health, maintaining permanent relationships, transition to adulthood, and enhanced family capacity to provide for their children's needs.     

ROMANCING THE COURT

Problem‐solving courts, created at the end of the twentieth century, make court‐based solutions central to addressing significant societal problems, such as substance abuse and its impact on criminal activity and family functioning. Yet, lessons gleaned from over 100 years of family court history suggest that court‐based solutions to intractable social problems have rarely been effective. This article asks three questions of the problem‐solving court movement: What problem are we trying to solve? Is the court the best place to solve the problem? What are the consequences of giving authority to a court for solving the problem? Answering those questions through the lens of specific examples from family court—the original problem‐solving court—leads to the conclusion that neither the structural issues that courts face, such as overwhelming numbers of cases, nor the momentous societal issues that problem‐solving courts have recently begun to shoulder can be adequately addressed through court‐based solutions. The factors that allegedly distinguish new problem‐solving courts from earlier exemplars, especially the family court, are both less unique and less successful than they have been portrayed by problem‐solving court enthusiasts. These factors alone fail to justify the expansion of problem‐solving courts without further evidence of their effectiveness. Moreover, the potential dangers inherent in problem‐solving courts are not theoretical. By examining illustrative examples from the history of the family court, the dangers become clearly apparent.     

Family Drug Treatment Courts As Comprehensive Service Models: Cost Considerations

Literature on family drug treatment courts (FDTCs) suggests that parental participation in these courts is associated with improved substance abuse treatment and child welfare system outcomes. Despite these beneficial outcomes, FDTCs serve only 7‐10% of eligible child welfare involved families. As part of a FDTC evaluation, this FDTC site sought to provide stakeholders with information about costs and benefits. Considering the program costs alongside the cost avoidance from reduced time in foster care, this analysis determined that FDTC participation resulted in a net savings per child of $9,710. The cost component of the evaluation proved valuable, challenging, and informative.     

Against the Grain: Therapeutic Judging in a Traditional Family Court

The last several decades have seen a proliferation of specialized courts, including within the family court system, that deviate from the adversarial model, and that rely on therapeutic jurisprudence and other problem‐solving techniques. Whether and how traditional family courts can incorporate the best practices of these specialized courts is a largely understudied area. Drawing from ethnographic observations of a traditional urban family court, this study finds that some judges are able to transform nontherapeutic courtrooms into therapeutic ones despite obstacles. These “against the grain” actors, who act contrary to the institution's dominant norms and practices, demonstrate how therapeutic jurisprudence and other problem‐solving techniques can be utilized in traditional courtrooms.     

VIEW FROM THE BENCH

Although some believe that the family courts are gender biased against fathers, Judge Menno disagrees. From his experience as a family court judge and his view from the bench, fathers are treated fairly in court determinations pertaining to access to their children. In making these determinations, courts must take into consideration the reality of divorce and out-of-wedlock arrangements. This article describes how Judge Menno's county family court operates, and he further subgroups various types of fathers, describing how each fares in the family court when trying to gain access to their children.     

Helping Children in the Child Welfare Systems Heal from Trauma: A Systems Integration Approach

Numerous organizations touch the lives of children and their families following incidents of maltreatment, including family/dependency courts, child welfare agencies, foster parent associations, foster care agencies or substitute care facilities, mental health agencies, and others. The way these organizations work together is critically important. They have the potential to promote child safety and reduce the harmful impact of maltreatment on children, but also, unfortunately, at times their actions may worsen the traumatic experience for children and their families. The National Child Traumatic Stress Network conducted a survey of 53 child‐serving organizations in 10 states, to assess the ways the organizations gather and share trauma‐related information and the basic training about child trauma their staffs receive. The goal was to determine how the various service systems, including the courts, communicate with each other about trauma and the extent to which, alone or in combination, they promote children's healing following traumatic events. The survey results point to a need to improve collaboration on issues associated with child maltreatment and trauma. Judges can be important leaders in bringing about necessary changes. Recommendations for judges and courts are included.     

FAMILY COURTS

Oregon has encouraged experimentation with family courts using the one family-one judge approach. At the First Annual Family Law Conference, sponsored by the Oregon Judical Department and the Oregon Family Law Advisory Committee, the author presented a keynote talk addressing the "ethical" issues raised by the use of comprehensive family courts. In this adaptation, the author places the concept of family courts in historical perspective and then assesses the rationale for them and the policy trade-offs involved, as well as possible procedural safeguards. Consolidated family courts using judical specialists dealing with multiple interrelated parties and integrating an array of social services appear to offer a better approach to related party cases. The author concludes that the benefits outweigh the speculative risks.     

The Quest for Truth: Substantiating Allegations of Physical Abuse in Criminal Prosecutions and Care Proceedings

The protection of children from violence is increasingly beingplaced on national and international societal and politicalagendas throughout the world. Although responses vary, measuresto punish abusers in the criminal courts and measures to protectchild victims in the family courts are common to many jurisdictions.When an allegation of abuse is contested, the conflict mustbe resolved before these punitive or protective measures canbe implemented. However, proving that a child has been abusedis a process fraught with difficulties. This article exploresthe concept of proof and illustrates the challenges faced insubstantiating allegations of physical abuse in criminal prosecutionsand care proceedings in England and Wales. In so doing it considersthe relationship between the two kinds of proceedings in thelight of their respective punitive and protective objectives.It concludes that, although recent developments may occasionallyhave blurred the distinction between the two systems, the fundamentallydifferent objectives of each remain and that this distinctionjustifies apparently conflicting outcomes in the quest for truth.     

Enforcer, manager or leader? The judicial role in family violence courts

Judicial supervision of offenders is an important component of many family violence courts. Skepticism concerning the ability of offenders to reform and a desire to protect victims has led to some judges to use supervision as a form of deterrence. Supervision is also used to hold offenders accountable for following court orders. Some family violence courts apply processes used in drug courts, such as rewards and sanctions, to promote offender rehabilitation. This article suggests that while protection and support of victims should be the prime concern of family violence courts, a form of judging that engages offenders in the development and implementation of solutions for their problems and supports their implementation is more likely to promote their positive behavioral change than other approaches to judicial supervision. The approach to judging proposed in this article draws from therapeutic jurisprudence, feminist theory, transformational leadership and solution-focused brief therapy principles.     

UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS

Much has been written about the potential success of unified family courts. Unified family court proponents share great optimism and enthusiasm for what they see as a solution to several of the problems facing court systems today. This enthusiasm should be applauded. As with any reform, however, unified family court advocates must stop to consider the possible drawbacks to the system that they propose; otherwise, they might end up with a system that is the same or worse than the one that they were attempting to fix. This article highlights several of the potential problems with unified family courts. It is not a condemnation of unified family courts per se; it is simply a suggestion that reformers proceed with their eyes open, taking time to consider the potential drawbacks of the unified family court system before using valuable resources for its implementation.     

Specialised domestic violence courts in Canada and the United States: Key factors in prioritising safety for women and children

ABSTRACT

This paper reviews the response of specialised domestic violence courts in Canada and the United States to contact disputes where there are allegations of domestic violence. It begins with a discussion of legal reforms responding to domestic violence in Canada and the United States, including the different types of DV courts and their rationales, key features, merits and drawbacks. Evaluations of Integrated DV courts in the United States and Canada are then reviewed. The research shows that although IDV courts hold more promise to deal with contact disputes given their inclusion of family law matters, there are few studies analysing the impact of IDV courts on these disputes, and some suggest these courts may actually increase contact and hence the potential for safety issues to arise. The final section discusses the strengths and weaknesses of IDV courts in relation to contact disputes, identifying the factors that make these specialised courts more or less successful in prioritising safety and minimising harm for women and children.     

Litigating life and death.

In cases involving the "right to die," courts are faced with the agonizing task of developing legal standards governing termination of an incompetent patient's medical treatment. In this Article, Professor Rhoden criticizes the two dominant approaches courts have developed--the "subjective" and "objective" tests--and proposes that these standards be abandoned for a legal presumption in favor of family decisionmaking. She maintains that the "subjective" test, which requires the family to provide clear proof that termination of treatment is what the incompetent would have chosen, is often unworkable because a patient's character traits, and even her prior statements about medical treatment, seldom rise to the evidentiary level that courts purport to require. Similarly, she argues that the "objective" test, which requires the family to prove that the burdens of the patient's life, measured in terms of pain and suffering, clearly and markedly outweight its benefits, dehumanizes patients by suggesting that only their present, physical sensations count. Professor Rhoden suggests that the subjective and objective tests are not nearly as distinct as courts have made them. She argues that the rigidity of these legal standards reflects courts' acceptance of the medical profession's presumption in favor of continued treatment, a presumption that places a heavy burden on families seeking to terminate treatment. Drawing on the special qualifications of families as decisionmakers in such cases, Professor Rhoden proposes that courts recognize a presumptive right of families to exercise discretion over treatment decisions. Such a standard would recognize that, although doctors and others can readily prove that terminating the treatment of a patient who can still enjoy life is wrong, it is very hard for families to meet the current standards, which essentially require them to prove that termination is right.     

ENGLISH COURTS' TREATMENT OF THE CHILDREN OF SAME‐SEX COUPLES

This article reviews the historical approach of the English Courts to the children who are raised in same‐sex households; it discusses the very recent reformation of attitude of the courts, and of the legislators, to such family arrangements, and it examines the current attitude of the English Courts. The article considers how the courts have struggled historically to apply ordinary welfare principles in the different context of homosexual parenting, and discusses the complex inter‐play of family relationships when children are born into same‐sex families through donor insemination. The article discusses the ongoing challenges for the courts in dealing with cases of this kind.     

Cross-border public care and adoption proceedings in the European Union

The free movement of persons within the EU has meant that children at risk of harm from family members may be living in a Member State of which they are not a national. The child may be made subject to legal measures under the national law of the host State for the protection of their welfare. This article explores the competence of the EU to protect children in these circumstances, and the scope of the Brussels IIa Regulation in governing jurisdiction over child protection proceedings. It discusses the difference between national child protection systems and the political controversy surrounding English law on adoption following care proceedings issued over a child who is a national of a different Member State. It suggests that further information sharing on national systems and cooperation between courts is necessary for the effectiveness of the law and to encourage understanding of legitimate variation in Member State national family law.     

UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS

Fragmented court systems are especially problematic for domestic violence victims because they typically are involved in more than one proceeding that stems from the same pattern of abuse. The proceedings are handled in different courts and before different judges, who are often unaware of these orders being issued in other proceedings. Consequently, conflicting orders are prevalent and the protection and needs of victims are often not met. A unified family court, on the other hand, provides one court with the subject-matter jurisdiction to handle all family-related matters and one judge to hear all cases that involve a single family, resulting in conflicting orders being issued less frequently. Additionally, the needs of victims are better served as a result of the services component. Given the fragmented state of the court systems in New York and Pennsylvania, United States; Alberta, Canada; and Australia, unified family courts should be implemented in each locality.     

Policing Medicaid and Medicare managed care: the role of courts and administrative agencies

The much-publicized 2000 case of Frew v. Gilbert, in which a federal judge castigated the State of Texas for deficiencies in its Medicaid program, brought renewed attention to the issue of regulating the quality of care in Medicaid and Medicare HMOs. Frew and other recent cases highlight both the promise and the pitfalls of relying on courts to correct deficiencies in public managed care programs. This article argues that while litigation over inadequacies in Medicare and Medicaid managed care can serve an important signaling function in alerting agencies and legislatures about the need for reform, the role of the courts in policing public managed care is circumscribed by several constraints. Barriers to class action litigation and differences in the institutional capacities of courts and administrative agencies mean that litigation is best viewed as a supplement, not an alternative, to a renewed commitment to strong quality monitoring on the part of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and state Medicaid agencies.     

REEVALUATING WHERE WE STAND: A COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF AMERICA'S FAMILY JUSTICE SYSTEMS

The call for court reform remains critical in the face of the growing complexity of burgeoning family law cases nationwide. Many states have restructured their court systems using the unified family court model, resolving legal, personal, emotional, and social disputes with the aim of improving the well‐being of families and children. Other states utilize the traditional approach, resulting in cases being handled in a fragmented, time‐consuming and expensive manner. In this article, Professor Barbara A. Babb presents the results of her nationwide survey regarding how each state handles family law matters. The survey is a follow‐up to her comprehensive 1998 survey and her 2002 survey update. The results of the recent analysis reveal that a total of thirty‐eight states now have either statewide family courts, family courts in selected areas of the state, or pilot or planned family courts, representing seventy‐five percent of states. The number of states without a specialized or separate system to handle family law matters has decreased from seventeen states in 1998 to thirteen in 2006. These changes are significant when one considers the complexities involved in court reform. The need for court reform remains an urgent one, as family law cases occupy a significant percentage of court dockets across the country. Families and children deserve a court system where justice is effective and efficient and where their legal, personal, emotional, and social needs are resolved in a therapeutic and holistic manner.