Confidentiality and the Juvenile and Family Courts

Court proceedings and court records are traditionally open to the public. The courts are public institutions, and openness serves a number of important purposes including protection of the free discussion of governmental affairs and the enhancement of the quality and integrity of the fact finding process. But court proceedings also address family matters including adoptions, juvenile delinquency, child protection, and domestic relations cases. These types of cases often involve personal issues, and many family members would prefer that they remain private. In most states, many of these proceedings have been closed to the public. Strong policy reasons support both openness of family court proceedings and privacy considerations for family members, particularly children. This article addresses confidentiality in the context of juvenile and family court proceedings. It takes the position that the tension between these conflicting policies can be reduced if most family court proceedings are presumptively open, but judges are given the authority to place conditions on the information that can be revealed by observers outside the courtroom. Additionally, the article asserts that if the courts and the media take steps to change their practices and their relationship with one another, both the public interest and the confidentiality interest of the parties can be better served.     

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.     

QUESTIONS ABOUT FAMILY COURT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SCREENING AND ASSESSMENT

Increasingly, family courts are seeking ways to focus limited resources on cases that require the most intervention, tailor court responses and dispute methods to each case, and account for the real differences among domestic violence cases. One of the means to that end may be the triaging or screening of cases. This article raises a number of questions about screening and urges that they be addressed by courts and communities that are considering whether and how to design a screening protocol. Issues include: How should we define domestic violence for the purposes of screening? Who should carry out the screening? How can we maximize the likelihood that we will fully assess the context of the violence in each case? How should we assess the risks or dangers inherent in the parties’ situation? How should a screening effort account for changing circumstances as a case proceeds through the courts? How can information gathered in a screening effort improperly impact subsequent decisions of the court?     

Improving Juvenile Dependency Case Timeliness Through Use of the One Family,One Judge Model

Motivated by the timelines set forth by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, courts are working toward moving cases safely and expeditiously through the juvenile dependency court system. One strategy to improve timeliness is the implementation of a one family, one judge (OFOJ) model. This study examines the effects of OFOJ implementation on timeliness of case processing. Implementation of the OFOJ model showed a trend toward improved timeliness. Post‐OFOJ cases were quicker to reach case closure than pre‐OFOJ cases. Every additional judge on the case increased time to permanency (i.e., case closure) by 31 days, which means children are spending one additional month in care per judge. Resolving cases quicker could improve the courts' ability to meet statutory timelines, and could lead to better outcomes for children and families.     

THE PRO SE LITIGANT'S STRUGGLE FOR ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Just as the growth of pro se litigation is a challenge for the courts, so, too, is the bench and bar's resistance to pro se assistance programs and policies a challenge to court reformers seeking to improve access to justice. Even where progressive courts have been able to implement court-annexed pro se assistance programs, judicial and bar resistance to pro se assistance in the courtroom remains. This paper explores the reasons for such resistance, and argues that pro se litigants have a right to receive—and judges have an obligation to provide—reasonable judicial assistance, particularly in cases involving a represented and an unrepresented party. A set of recommendations is offered which will result in pro se litigants being given more basic legal information than previously provided, better preparation of pro se cases, and a more active judge to ensure that all parties have equal access to justice.     

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.     

FAMILY COURT IMPROVEMENT AND THE ART OF GRANTSMANSHIP: A JUDGE'S PERSPECTIVE

Many American courts face funding obstacles as they try to create and implement unified family court processes that have not been part of the traditional family court adversarial process. To create new staff positions, build and equip adequate facilities, and create and implement innovative programs, grant funding may be available to supplement what local and state governments provide. While social science research confirms that children are adversely affected by exposure to high‐conflict family litigation and domestic violence, many communities have few affordable and available resources to address these issues. This article presents lessons and principles that one court learned as it applied for a grant to design programs for high‐conflict families and families with domestic violence history.     

Domestic violence case processing: a matter of local legal culture

As one enters a courthouse, its culture is communicated to its listening visitors. The manner in which the security guards speak; the length of time victims are kept waiting; the amount of bail a defendant is assessed; communicate messages to those who are paying attention. Domestic violence cases have long suffered from lenient treatment and dismissals in our criminal courts. This paper examines a unique explanation for this problem: the court’s local legal culture. The elements of two courts’ local legal culture that most profoundly impacted their processing of domestic violence cases are examined. Over a six month period, 23 in depth interviews were conducted with court workgroup members in two courts, one with a specialized domestic violence session and one without. Court room observations were used to supplement these interviews. The results were insightful and telling about how a court’s culture can, at times, be more influential on case processing than the law itself.     

Intersecting Issues Involving Asylum in the United States and Cases Arising Under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

The issue of immigration status has become the focal point in some cases arising under the 1980 Hague Convention on Child Abduction. Asylum claims affect both substantive and procedural issues that are presented to state and federal courts. A nexus has developed between undocumented immigrants who are parties to a Hague case, and issues of habitual residence, acclimatization, and grave risk. Asylum claims have forced courts to consider the viability of such claims, requests for stay of Hague cases pending the outcome of asylum claims, the likelihood of deportation, and the effect of grants of asylum on the particular issues in the case. Where asylum has been granted to either a parent or child, substantial consideration has been given to the asylum determination by the court hearing the Hague case.     

The Impact of Safe Harbor Legislation on Court Proceedings Involving Sex Trafficked Youth: A Qualitative Investigation of Judicial Perspectives

The passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) facilitated the conceptual shift in reframing youth involved in sex trafficking as victims, rather than criminals. Many states have passed legislation in the form of Safe Harbor laws to protect sex trafficked juveniles from criminal charges and provide rehabilitative services (Polaris, 2015). Nevertheless, limited research has examined the impact of Safe Harbor laws and the role juvenile and family court judges play in how minor victims of sex trafficking are treated by the court system. Consequently, the purpose of this qualitative study was to examine juvenile and family court judges’ knowledge and perceptions of Safe Harbor legislation and identify legal challenges when presiding over cases involving sexually exploited youth. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with a national sample (N = 82) of family and juvenile court judges. Findings suggest that respondents perceive Safe Harbor laws to have positively affected both attitudes and practices, although several challenges and unintended negative effects were identified. Further, dispositional issues, difficulties with case identification, legal and policy issues, and challenges with interagency collaboration were identified as ongoing issues to address. Legal implications as well as practice and policy considerations based on the study findings are discussed.     

Troubled Children and Children in Trouble: Redefining the Role of the Juvenile Court in the Lives of Children

This Essay considers the emerging research in the area of dual‐jurisdiction children, often referred to as “crossover kids”—those currently or previously involved in maltreatment proceedings who have also committed delinquent acts. Part I describes the development of the juvenile courts in the early twentieth century. Part II of this Essay questions the need to “track” children along one legal path or another and points to the pitfalls of providing services to some children through a criminal justice paradigm instead of treating all children through a social work paradigm. Finally, Part III advocates a redesign of the juvenile court—a return to its roots—to better enable a court to consider the needs of the whole child, in context with the needs of her/his family.     

Using Profile Analysis for Assessing Need in Domestic Violence Courts

This study utilizes profile analysis to evaluate the social and economic justice impacts of domestic violence court processes. Data were gathered from all cases involved in a Domestic Violence Unified Family Court in one Florida county from January 1 through December 31, 2003. Findings suggest domestic violence courts are not responding equitably to victims (petitioners), which means that some petitioners may be revictimized by the system. Furthermore, in cases involving criminal behavior, the court system’s focus on criminality may not be having an impact on reducing the recurrence of domestic violence.     

Splitting the Difference: Modeling Appellate Court Decisions with Mixed Outcomes

In rendering a decision in a particular case, judges are not limited to finding simply for the appellant or for the respondent. Rather, in many cases, they have the option to find for the former on one or more issues and for the latter on one or more other issues. By thus “splitting the difference,” judges can render a judgment that favors both litigants to some degree. What accounts for such mixed outcomes? Several theoretical perspectives provide potential explanations for this phenomenon. First, Galanter (1974) suggests that litigants with greater resources will achieve more favorable outcomes in the courts. Where two high‐resource, repeat‐player litigants meet in the appeals courts, these more sophisticated and successful parties may be able to persuade the court to render decisions with mixed outcomes that at least partially favor each party. Second, split outcomes may result from strategic interactions among the appeals court judges on the decisionmaking panel. Where majority opinion writers seek to accommodate other judges on the panel, split outcomes have the potential to serve as an inducement for more ideologically extreme judges to join the majority opinion. Finally, Shapiro and Stone Sweet ( Stone Sweet 2000; Shapiro & Stone Sweet 2002 ) propose that courts will sometimes split the difference in order to enhance their legitimacy (and ultimately enhance compliance by losing parties). For example, in highly salient cases, where noncompliance would more clearly threaten court legitimacy, judges may be more likely to split the difference in order to mollify even the losing party. We develop an empirical model of mixed outcomes to test these propositions using data available from the U. S. Courts of Appeals Database and find evidence supportive of all three theoretical perspectives.     

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.     

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.     

The questionable advantage of defense counsel in juvenile court

This article examines the issue of legal representation in serious juvenile delinquency matters in three diverse juvenile courts. The prevalence of legal counsel varied among felony referrals. Out-of-home placement was more likely to occur if a youth had an attorney, even when other relevant legal and individual factors were the same. Within each court, the results showed more likely of placement corresponding to seriousness of the case. Although this escalation was evident among cases with attorneys and those without, placement was more apt to occur when there was legal counsel. Given these findings, we offer recommendations for issues that should be considered and possible policy actions.     

Psychosocial concepts in juvenile law

This study was designed to clarify the types of information about juveniles and their families that are relevant for three types of juvenile court decisions: (a) the pretrial detention of juveniles; (b) their transfer for trial in criminal courts: and (c) disposition decisions after delinquency adjudication. Predominant legal standards for these decisions are described, information relevance for the decisions is defined, and why past studies have failed to clarify the information needs of juvenile court decision makers is explained. Results of a study involving a national sample of juvenile court personnel include an empirically derived domain of psychosocial and behavioral characteristics of juveniles and their families relevant for courts' interpretations of controlling legal standards; factor analysis of the domain, describing dimensions of the domain of information about juveniles and families; and an examination of the relation of these information categories to each legal standard controlling the decision areas in question. The interpretation of results may facilitate decision making by juvenile courts, evaluations by mental health professionals who assist juvenile courts, and further research by social scientists who study discretionary juvenile court decisions.This research was supported by grant No. MH-35090 from the Center for Studies of Antisocial and Violent Behavior, National Institute of Mental Health, DHHS. Portions of the study were conducted in collaboration with the National Juvenile Law Center, Inc. of St. Louis. The authors wish to acknowledge Martha Bellew-Smith, Marcia Conlin, and Robert Rust, who contributed substantially to the conduct of the study. Others who participated at various stages are Steve Bellus and Sandra Seigel     

“Please Check the Appropriate Box”: Documents and the Governance of Domestic Violence

This analysis examines the effects of administrative templates on legal responses to domestic violence. The discussion focuses on a set of intake forms deployed by a team of grassroots workers who routinely attend Toronto's specialized domestic violence plea courts to enroll defendants into counseling programs. Although these documents are nothing more than mundane, administrative forms, they are crucial to generating the formations required to govern domestic violence through the criminal justice and community partnerships on which the plea courts rely. Along with redefining the responsibilities of the legal and grassroots actors involved in the court network, the documents also generate and formalize notions of wrongdoing that prove to be far more effective in resolving cases than traditional guilty pleas. This analysis illuminates how forms permit the retreat and reassertion of state sovereignty as required in legal regimes involving devolution. It also underscores the methodological importance of constitutive analyses of documents to illuminating machinations of penal power.     

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.