SUBSTANCE-ABUSING FATHERS IN FAMILY COURT

Although all forms of substance abuse disproportionately affect men during early to middle adulthood, when many are fathering children, the status of substance-abusing men as parents is largely ignored in public policy, service delivery, and research exploring the consequences of chronic drug and alcohol abuse. In this review, the authors highlight issues of potential concern to professionals working with this poorly understood, negatively stereotyped population of fathers in family court settings. After reviewing the existing literature on substance-abusing fathers and their children, the authors challenge family court personnel to use (a) awareness of stereotyping, (b) clinical assessment, (c) the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence, and (d) treatment resources to minimize, as much as possible, the risk for poor developmental outcomes incurred by children with a substance-abusing father.     

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?     

KEY LINKAGES BETWEEN CHILD WELFARE AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT: SOCIAL FUNCTIONING IMPROVEMENTS AND CLIENT SATISFACTION IN A FAMILY DRUG TREATMENT COURT*

This article summarizes early findings regarding social functioning and client satisfaction from a longitudinal study of women receiving treatment in a family drug treatment court located in the Midwestern United States (N = 33). Drug treatment court participants were interviewed at program entry and when they had completed 6 months of treatment. Family drug court participants reported significant improvements in employment status and increases in earned income after 6 months of treatment. Respondents also reported improved social functioning and high overall levels of satisfaction with treatment. Findings and implications for future research are discussed.     

A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE SUITABILITY AND LIMITATIONS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS IN FAMILY COURT

Psychologists are frequently consulted by the courts to provide forensic evaluations in a variety of family court proceedings. As part of their evaluations, psychologists often use psychological tests to assess parents, guardians, and children. These tests can have profound effects on how psychologists arrive at their opinions and are often cited in their reports to the court. However, psychological tests vary substantially in their suitability for these purposes. Most projective tests in particular appear to possess little scientific merit for evaluations within family court proceedings. Despite these serious limitations, expert testimony derived from evaluations using both projective and objective tests is often admitted uncontested. This article reviews the psychometric properties of psychological tests that are widely used in family court proceedings, cautions against their unfettered use, and calls upon attorneys to inform themselves of the limitations of evaluations that incorporate these tests.     

CONFIDENTIALITY,DUE PROCESS,AND JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION IN THE UNIFIED FAMILY COURT: REPORT TO THE HONORABLE STEPHANIE DOMITROVICH

To the extent that courts realize the pure one judge–one family notion of the unified family court—in which one judge handles all domestic relations, probate, juvenile dependency, juvenile delinquency, and domestic violence cases involving members of the same family—they encounter three potential legal barriers: confidentiality of court records in some of the cases, due process issues arising from the consideration of material from a related case file in which the parties to the current case may or may not be parties, and judicial disqualification arising from the judge's handling of a previous case involving the family. This article summarizes information obtained from a survey conducted for the Children and Family Law Committee of the National Conference of State Trial Judges, of courts in sixteen states, to learn how they have resolved these legal issues.     

THE BEST SEAT IN THE HOUSE: THE COURT ASSIGNMENT AND JUDICIAL SATISFACTION

A survey of 355 judges examined the differences in judicial satisfaction between those assigned to problem-solving courts—such as drug treatment and unified family—and judges in other more traditional assignments such as family law and criminal courts. The unified family court systems, like drug treatment courts, have generally adopted the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence. Significant differences were found on each of the three survey scales: (1) helpfulness, (2) attitude toward litigants, and (3) positive effects of assignment. The judges who were in the problem-solving courts (drug treatment and unified family court) scored higher on all three scales than those who were not (traditional family and criminal court). The group of problem-solving court judges consistently scored higher than the other group of judges, with the drug treatment court judges scoring the highest. The group of traditional criminal court and family court judges scored less positively, with the criminal court judges having the lowest scores. The problem-solving court judges were more likely to report believing that the role of the court should include helping litigants address the problems that brought them there and were more likely to observe positive changes in the litigants. They were also more likely to believe that litigants are motivated to change and are able to do so. They felt more respected by the litigants and were more likely to think that the litigants were grateful for help they received. The problem-solving court judges were also more likely to report being happy in their assignments and to believe that these assignments have a positive emotional effect on them.     

A COMMENT ON WILLIAM J. HOWE AND HUGH MCISAAC'S ARTICLE “FINDING THE BALANCE” PUBLISHED IN THE JANUARY 2008 ISSUE OF FAMILY COURT REVIEW

This article is a response to an article written by William Howe and Hugh McIsaac that questions their recommendations that court‐based mediation not be used when certain types of persons appear in court. We assert that it will be very difficult for the court to identify these people. Further, we argue that mediation practice has advanced so far that even these persons (those with serious issues of domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health) should be given an opportunity to participate in mediation before being referred to the adversarial court process.     

THE TRUANCY COURT DIVERSION PROGRAM OF THE FAMILY COURT,WARREN CIRCUIT COURT DIVISION III,BOWLING GREEN,KENTUCKY: AN EVALUATION OF IMPACT ON ATTENDANCE AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Educators, parents, and community services partnered with the family court judge to implement the Truancy Court Diversion Program (TCDP). TCDP significantly impacted unexcused absences, unexcused tardies, and academic performance of the elementary and junior high students participating in the program. Elementary participants were more likely to maintain their improved attendance following participation than were junior high participants. Nonetheless, junior high participant grade point averages increased during TCDP and were maintained subsequent to TCDP. TCDP was an effective intervention for improving attendance and academic performance and helping preclude future delinquency.     

“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.     

PARTICIPANTS’ EVALUATIONS OF ASPECTS OF THE LEGAL CHILD CUSTODY PROCESS AND PREFERENCES FOR COURT SERVICES

Domestic relations courts continue to experience large caseloads. As the volume of cases in which families are in crisis continues to grow, policy makers, practitioners, judges, and attorneys struggle to meet the growing demand and seek more effective ways to address the needs and issues of those who are engaged in child custody processes. The present study provides an examination of parent attitudes concerning various aspects of the legal process and preferences concerning a variety of court‐based family services and interventions.     

SUMMIT ON UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS: SERVING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EFFICIENTLY,EFFECTIVELY, AND RESPONSIBLY

As president of the American Bar Association when the “Summit on Unified Family Courts” convened in May 2007, Karen J. Mathis welcomed summit attendees. Recounting the many reasons children wind up in court, Mathis observed that society is lucky if these problems even come before the courts. Too often, she said, the underlying problems of destructive behavior among youth are lost in the shuffle of too many lawyers, case workers, and judges. “Many times they’re ignored by the professionals among us who are not trained to be aware that the problems even exist,” she said. The solution to this fragmented approach is unified family courts, she concluded.     

FAMILIES,COURTS, AND THE END OF LIFE: SCHIAVO AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FAMILY JUSTICE SYSTEM

The article discusses a proposed universal adoption of comprehensive family law subject matter jurisdiction, inclusive of end‐of‐life (EOL) cases, as articulated in the unified family court (UFC) concept. It posits, using the Schiavo matter to illustrate the difficulties inherent in EOL disputes, that contested EOL cases are unlike other civil court cases in that they involve intimate facts and emotionally laden family dynamics. As such, these cases pose a distinctive challenge for the courts. The article suggests that contested EOL cases should be heard in a UFC because UFCs include alternative dispute resolution (ADR) protocols to deescalate family strife with the goal of facilitating out‐of‐court settlements and that litigation is an imperfect solution for an EOL dispute. It is also noted that judges presiding in UFCs are more experienced in handling fractious family matters and thus they are more likely to avert protracted litigation if the matter is not settled via ADR.     

FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCING AND CHILD PROTECTION MEDIATION: ESSENTIAL TOOLS FOR PRIORITIZING FAMILY ENGAGEMENT IN CHILD WELFARE CASES

Family group conferencing (FGC) and child protection mediation maximize family engagement in child welfare cases by prioritizing families' roles in discussions and decisions. This article examines how FGC helps professionals to focus on family and community strengths, encourages family engagement, and provides targeted case plans for families and timely, permanent placements for children. It explores how courts and agencies use these interventions to empower families to contribute to resolutions in ways that are not possible in traditional litigation processes. These complementary processes help children and families by providing forums where families are allowed to make informed choices and take an active role in creating plans for their future.     

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.     

MEDIATIVE EVALUATIONS: THE PROS AND PERILS OF BLENDING ROLES

Child custody evaluators with experience in mediation may be tempted to use mediation skills and strategies in their evaluation processes. This article explores the benefits and risks of blending mediation with evaluation, comparing the perspectives of professionals and clients.     

BEYOND POLITICS AND POSITIONS: A CALL FOR COLLABORATION BETWEEN FAMILY COURT AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROFESSIONALS

The domestic violence advocacy and family court communities have each grown dramatically over the last three decades. Although these professional communities share many values in common, they often find themselves at odds with one another on a host of issues. This article examines the practical, political, definitional, and ideological differences between the two communities and calls for them to join forces and collaborate on behalf of children and families.     

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.     

THE JUVENILE PENALTY: A COMPARISON OF JUVENILE AND YOUNG ADULT SENTENCING OUTCOMES IN CRIMINAL COURT*

This study uses criminal court data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) to investigate the sentencing of juvenile offenders processed in adult criminal court by comparing their sentencing outcomes to those of young adult offenders in similar situations. Because the expanded juvenile exclusion and transfer policies of the 1990s have led to an increase in the number of juveniles convicted in adult courts, we argue that it is critical to better understand the judicial decision making processes involved. We introduce competitive hypotheses on the relative leniency or severity of sentencing outcomes for transferred juveniles and interpret our results with the focal concerns theoretical perspective on sentencing. Our findings indicate that juvenile offenders in adult court are sentenced more severely than their young adult counterparts. Moreover, findings suggest that juvenile status interacts with and conditions the effects of other important sentencing factors including offense type, offense severity and prior criminal record. We discuss these results as they relate to immediate outcomes for transferred juveniles, criminal court processes in general and the broader social implications for juvenile justice policy concerning the transfer of juveniles to criminal court.     

CHILDREN,THE UNCRC,AND FAMILY LAW IN ENGLAND AND WALES

There is no doubt that, overall, there has been a great deal of activity in relation to children's rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) since it was ratified by the UK government in 1991. Of particular significance in the context of family law, however, are the provisions of Article 12, which have in many ways proved to be more problematic than other provisions, not least because, in the context of family law, children's participation rights are necessarily juxtaposed with the long‐standing and hitherto unchallenged rights of parents to make important decisions about family life. The reorganisation in 2001 of the family court welfare services in England and Wales with the creation of the Children and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), generated a new impetus for the consideration of children's participation rights and, at an organizational level, considerable progress has been made in embracing the provisions of the UNCRC. More problematic, however, is the acceptance of children's participation in making decisions about their futures by adults using and working in the family justice system. At the level of the courts, judicial attitudes are slow to change and in England, as court judgments often demonstrate, these are firmly rooted in a view of children as being incompetent in such issues; at the level of parents using the system, it is arguable that new discourses about the best interests of the child serve as a proxy for continuing discourses about parents’ rights that have become evident, most recently, in the context of an increasingly influential fathers’ rights lobby; and at the level of welfare practitioners, recent research also demonstrates that, although the rhetoric of children's rights is widely accepted, the willingness and ability to make these real in the context of family proceedings is, for a variety of reasons, less in evidence.