Children Who Have Been Traumatized: One Court's Response

A court that is trauma‐informed can assist with the process of identifying children in need of trauma‐focused services and can provide education and direction to families frustrated by prior treatment failures. The unique role of the juvenile court judge as a community convener offers an opportunity to increase community awareness about the impact of trauma, and to promote the adoption of evidence‐based treatment for trauma victims. This article outlines the way that increased trauma awareness and trauma screening within a family court system mobilized the development of effective resources for children and families affected by trauma.     

Healing Families: An Outcome Evaluation of a Community Family Court

In this paper, a model community family court program that seeks to break the intergenerational cycle of crime and substance abuse by treating families holistically will be presented. This model court seeks to reduce crime and provide safe and permanent homes for children of substance‐abusing parents. In this community family court, the prototypical problem‐solving court has been both focused and expanded. The community family court provides a focused response designed to address the unique combination of problems facing families on a family‐by‐family basis. At the same time, supervision and treatment services have been expanded to include every family member and all open court cases including criminal charges, juvenile delinquency, dependency, and civil cases. An overview of the court's evolution and discussion of integrated services designed to provide a wraparound style intervention will be highlighted as key contributors to the largely positive results of this community family court's evaluation.     

EXPANDING FORENSICALLY INFORMED EVALUATIONS AND THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTIONS IN FAMILY COURT

As the field of forensic family law has become more empirical and in need of novel behavioral health services, it has become necessary to broaden the duties of practitioners, to clarify forensic roles, and to develop more comprehensive court orders. This article introduces the application of Forensically Informed Evaluations and Therapeutic Interventions in family court; a constellation of evaluations and interventions developed to better meet the needs of children and families during and after dissolution or reconstitution. These family court appointments also meet the growing demands of the court and contribute to the trend toward discriminative application of empirically informed behavioral health services in forensic family law.     

A Coordinated Approach to Improving Outcomes for Substance‐Abusing Families in Juvenile Dependency Court

This paper describes a coordinated approach to providing enhanced services for substance‐abusing families in the juvenile dependency court. The enhanced services consisted of an interagency collaborative model including the Department of Social Services, Court Appointed Special Advocates, Public Health Nurses, and Family Support Specialists. The purpose of the intervention was to increase the likelihood of family reunification. Families were randomly assigned to either the enhanced services (N=48) or to a regular services group (N=41). Variables included social background factors, data related to court hearings and court orders, and final court outcomes regarding placement and custody. Significant factors predicting final placement of the child were completion of court ordered programs, a stable home, and mothers' cooperation and motivation. Families who received the enhanced services had significantly higher rates of reunification of children with parents.     

ALLEGATIONS AND SUBSTANTIATIONS OF ABUSE IN CUSTODY‐DISPUTING FAMILIES1

In this study of 120 divorced families referred for child custody evaluations and custody counseling, multiple allegations of child abuse, neglect, and family violence were raised in the majority of cases. About half of the alleged abuse was substantiated in some way with one fourth involving abuse perpetrated by both parents. Different kinds of allegations were raised against mothers compared with fathers. Implications of these findings for social policy, family court interventions, and the provision of coordinated services within the community are discussed.     

DIVORCING FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN IN THE COURT'S FAMILY SERVICES UNIT Profiles and Impact of Services

Little is known about the families being served by court support services, or the effectiveness of the services provided. This study investigates 137 higher conflict, divorcing families with young children, who received services from the Family Services division. The study utilizes questionnaire data filled out by family services clinicians. The families presented with multiple mental health needs, including allegations of substance use and physical, emotional and sexual abuses of spouses and, to a lesser extent, children. Results detailed evaluation outcomes pertaining to joint legal and physical custody, showing an increase in joint legal custody, with little difference in physical custody arrangements. Evaluators did encourage less parental dropout. The data also profiled parents least likely to attend mandatory parenting education, accept evaluators' recommendations, and settle their case with mediation assistance. Identifying these families early can help family services clinicians track families into individualized service plans as needed.     

LEGAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT OF CASES WITH AN ALIENATED CHILD

Cases entering the family court with an alienated child require intensive and coordinated case management to intervene effectively. It is critical to link the authority of the court with the delivery of mental health services to address the complex systemic factors that may entrench a chilďs unwarranted rejection of a parent. This article provides principles of legal and psychological case management for families with an alienated child, followed by various structural interventions, including sample court orders, for managing these cases as they progress through the family court process. Finally, criteria for making custody recommendations in the most severe cases of child alienation are provided.     

SUPERVISED VISITATION A Profile of Providers

Surveys with 94 administrators of supervised visitation programs, 51 family court judges, and 40 administrators of child protective services agencies provide a national picture of supervised visitation services, their utility, and areas of unmet need. Although the programs are perceived to fill an important need, they struggle to survive financially, particularly those that handle family court cases. In addition, because many programs operate without adequate access to the assessment and treatment services that some families need, judges frequently want visitation supervisors to assist them in determining suitable custody and visitation arrangements, a role that supervised visitation programs do not feel is appropriate. Many different types of entities provide effective supervised visitation services; many different service formats work. Architects of new programs should fashion services that use local resources to maximum advantage.     

WORKING TOGETHER

Family Court of Australia has employed four Aboriginal Family Consultants within the Family Court Mediation Service in Darwin and Alice Springs. The consultants were selected from local indigenous people and assist indigenous families who are often in heated dispute over children following family breakdown and separation. The program ultimately seeks to promote access to justice for Aboriginal and Torres Stvait Islander people in the jurisdiction of family law. The program seeks to achieve this by assisting indigenous people to access and utilize the dispute resolution services provided by the Family Court. Family consultants work closely with court mediators in responding to the needs and issues of indigenous families in dispute. The article describes the model of intervention adopted and highlights the benefits of the program with reference to case studies.     

“YOUTH IS ENMESHED IN A HIGHLY DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY SYSTEM”: EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILIES,PARENTAL INCARCERATION,AND JUVENILE COURT DECISION MAKING*

Although prior work has substantiated the role of external attributes in juvenile court decision making, no study to date has examined how family situational factors as well as maternal and paternal incarceration affect juvenile court officials' responses to troubled youth. Using quantitative and qualitative juvenile court data from a large urban county in the southwest, this study draws on attribution theory to examine how family structure, perceptions of family dysfunction, and parental incarceration influence out‐of‐home placement decisions. Findings reveal that juvenile court officials' perceptions of good and bad families inform their decision making. This study emphasizes the need to unravel the intricate effects of maternal and paternal incarceration and officials' attributions about families and family structure on juvenile court decision making.     

Family Peacemaking with an Interdisciplinary Team: A Therapist's Perspective

Interdisciplinary teams provide an unparalleled opportunity for peacemaking in families within the consensual dispute resolution continuum. This interdisciplinary environment was born out of the integration of Collaborative Law, in which lawyers limit the scope of their services to settlement by way of a signed agreement, and Collaborative Divorce, a team approach to divorce services that includes a lawyer for each party along with a Collaborative Divorce Coach for each party, a neutral financial specialist, and a neutral child specialist. Taken together, Interdisciplinary Collaborative Practice supports the resolution of legal issues out of court as well as addressing any emotional, relational, or behavioral problems that create obstacles to the successful resolution of the separation process.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Collaborative Practice creates legal representation in a consensual environment limiting services to settlement negotiations by way of a written agreement.
• The International Academy of Collaborative Professionals includes 5,000 members in twenty‐five countries.
• Legal representation in a consensual environment together with interdisciplinary teams create endless possibilities for dispute resolution processes.
• Collaborative Lawyers, Collaborative Divorce Coaches, child specialists, and financial specialists can create custom‐fit interdisciplinary teams that work together out of court to support families through marital transition.
• Interdisciplinary teams are family centric, bridging appropriate disciplines and resources to the needs of the family to address the vast majority of divorce‐related problems.
• Divorcing families are moving targets, learning and evolving through the process.
• Therapeutic teams support families with more complex relational, emotional, and mental health problems to find resolutions out of court.
• Divorce is a mainstream event in Western culture; we need supportive processes to encourage the best possible outcomes for all family members, especially the children.

     

Family Drug Court,Targeted Parent Training and Family Reunification: Did this Enhanced Service Strategy Make A Difference?

This article reports findings from an evaluation of reunification outcomes for children and families who participated in a family drug court (FDC) that incorporated the use of two innovative evidence‐based parenting programs. In addition to comprehensive FDC services, families participated in the Strengthening Families Program and Celebrating Families!^TM programs in a sequential format. Data analyses were conducted on a sample of 214 children whose child welfare cases were adjudicated through the FDC and 418 matched comparison cases. Entry‐cohort survival analysis results indicated that families receiving FDC services were more than twice as likely to reunify in a 45 month observation window.     

Evaluating the work of Australia's Family Relationship Centres: Evidence from the first 5 years

Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) have been described as a centerpiece of Australia's 2006 family law reforms. This paper places these centres in the larger context of the reforms and their commitment to providing community‐based family services in the family law area. The paper also examines the empirical evidence regarding FRCs' use and effectiveness. It notes that while the objectives and intentions of FRCs place considerable emphasis on strengthening family relationships and assisting families to stay together, the centres themselves have only a modest level of direct involvement with intact families. FRCs tend to have strong links with other community‐based family services, many of whom are more engaged with intact families; but it is difficult to gauge their effectiveness in this area. Most FRCs' direct services are aimed at separating families and most of that work involves family dispute resolution (family mediation) and associated services such as screening and assessment and the provision of relevant information. A substantial majority of clients who attend FDR at an FRC reach agreement about their parenting arrangements either at FDR or subsequent to attending FDR. These agreements also tend to hold up in the medium term. A majority of parents believe that at FDR, the child(ren)'s needs were taken into account; the parenting agreement worked for the child(ren); and the parenting agreement worked for them. A substantial proportion of FRC clients come from families that have experienced family violence or other dysfunctional behaviours, and such behaviours reduce the chances of resolving parenting disputes. The paper concludes by suggesting that having been created mainly as a default alternative to legal interventions and court processes, it is likely that a major future strength of FRCs will lie in their emerging capacity to work constructively not only with other relationship services and networks, but with family lawyers and the courts.     

MOTHERING,FATHERING, AND DIVORCE: THE INFLUENCE OF DIVORCE ON REPORTS OF AND DESIRES FOR MATERNAL AND PATERNAL INVOLVEMENT*

The present study investigated the extent to which young adults' reports of—and desires for—maternal and paternal involvement differed between intact and divorced families. An ethnically diverse sample of 1,376 young adults completed measures of reported and desired mothering and fathering across 20 parenting domains. Results indicated that both reports of and desires for father involvement differed sharply by family form (intact versus divorced), whereas few family form differences emerged for reported or desired mother involvement. These findings are discussed in terms of implications for custody and access decisions within the family court system.     

Enhancing Information Sharing in Family Drug Courts: A Lean Six Sigma Case Study

Given the variety of stakeholders involved in cases within family drug courts, efficient communication and information sharing, which are needed to support decision‐making, can be quite challenging. Through a case study in one family drug court system, this research employed an action research approach to improve the information sharing process following the Lean Six Sigma methodology. The solutions implemented through this study contributed to improving the quality of the services provided by this court system and its overall productivity. In addition, this research extends our knowledge about methods for improving court systems from which others can learn to guide future improvement efforts.     

THE COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE PROJECT: A Court-Based Intervention for Separating Parents with Young Children

The role the legal process of separation and divorce plays in affecting outcomes for young children and their families was examined in the Collaborative Divorce Project (CDP), an intervention designed to assist the parents of children six years old or younger as they begin the separation/divorce process (married and unmarried couples). Evaluation and outcome data were collected from 161 couples, their attorneys, teachers, and court records. In addition to positive evaluations from both parents, intervention families benefited through lower conflict, greater father involvement, and better outcomes for children than the control group. Attorneys and court records indicate that intervention families were more cooperative and were less likely to need custody evaluations and other costly services. The CDP illustrates how prevention programs can be located within the courts, can be systematically evaluated, and can aid in helping the legal system function optimally for families with young children.     

Unique Role of the Court

The court is a unique and vital institution within the American system of government. The court's fundamental responsibility is to assure that all members of society are protected under law from harm by others. Juvenile and family courts have, within this system, the equally important responsibility to protect the best interests of children, families, and communities. These responsibilities convey to the courts a role vital to our anti-substance abuse efforts on behalf of society and especially on behalf of children and their families. Such efforts must recognize the existence of non-traditional, as well as traditional, family units within today's society.     

III. Assessment,Referral and Treatment

Each court must have access to a complete range of services for effective screening, identification, assessment, evaluation, treatment, and rehabilitation. Such services may be developed within the court operation or in cooperation with related agencies or through contracted service providers. Many jurisdictions will use a combination of these basic approaches for provision of services. However they are organized, the key is that they must be in place and consistently used.     

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

     

From Helping Court to Community‐Based Services: The 30‐Year Evolution of Australia's Family Relationship Centres

As a centrepiece of Australia's 2006 family law reforms, the community‐based Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) represented a major development in the Government's commitment to incorporate family relationship services into its family law system. This paper sees FRCs as a logical development of the original conceptualising the Family Court of Australia as a “helping court”. The paper suggests that the aspiration to create a helping court was partially achieved in 1976 via the creation of an in‐house family court counselling service, which was primarily focused not on law and legal principles, but on supporting the ways in which family members were managing the task of redefining relationships. While generally valued by judges and others, this service nonetheless found itself in tension with the Family Court's continued primary commitment to legally informed and adversarially driven negotiation and decision‐making processes. Since 2006, the creation of FRCs has spearheaded a family law system that provides relationship‐focused interventions away from the courts as the default option for most parenting disputes. Consistent with this aim, there is evidence of a diminished percentage of cases now requiring judicial intervention. The 2006 legislation also provides for courts to conduct “less adversarial trials.” Paradoxically, this has occurred alongside unequivocal evidence from the Australian Institute of Family Studies’ evaluation data that judicial officers are dealing mainly with families displaying seriously dysfunctional attitudes and behaviours. The legal challenge in dealing with these cases is for courts to provide child focused, fair and non‐destructive internal processes. In addition, however, it is increasingly clear that to support and help facilitate their decisions, courts also need good working relationships with FRCs and other community based services. FRCs and the 2006 reforms offer the possibility of moving beyond the ideal of a “helping court” to the broader concept of helping family law system.