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.     

An Ecological Examination of Factors That Impact Well‐Being Among Developmentally‐Disabled Youth in the Juvenile Justice System

Youth with developmental disabilities make up a large proportion of those in the juvenile justice system, and experience various unique and intricate threats to their well‐being. This review examines the complexity of these challenges, exploring the multiple levels of contextual factors that influence youth's well‐being as they experience adjudication. Using an ecological framework, this paper reviews findings on the individual socio‐demographic characteristics, as well as the micro, meso, exo, and macro factors that impact their development and functioning. Specific policy and practice implications are provided to address improving outcomes of youth in this population at each ecological level.     

A Judicial‐Mental Health Partnership to Heal Young Children in Juvenile Court

In this article, we describe the background and issues to be addressed related to dependent children in juvenile court. In an important effort to systematically examine developmental functioning and treatment needs in maltreated and violence‐exposed young children, the Prevention and Evaluation of Early Neglect and Trauma (PREVENT) initiative of the Dependency Court Intervention Program for Family Violence, a national demonstration project in the Miami‐Dade Juvenile Court, developed a program to evaluate all infants, toddlers, and preschoolers who are adjudicated dependent by the court. The goal of the intervention is to raise awareness of the needs of infants and toddlers in juvenile court and to work toward healing the child. The PREVENT program involved the evolution of a judicial‐mental health partnership designed to assist the court in making more informed decisions about the best interest of the child by adding scientific knowledge about development, prevention, intervention, evaluation, and treatment. The outcome of the partnership and multidisciplinary approach is illustrated through presenting a case vignette of a mother and baby showing the challenges and strengths of intervention. Finally, we consider overall outcomes of the intervention and directions for the future.     

Affirmative Action: Well‐Being,Justice, and Qualifications

A common concern regarding affirmative action is that it sanctions the selection of candidates whose qualifications are not the best overall and that this is inefficient or unjust or both. I argue that this concern is misguided, since there is no independent concern regarding qualifications with respect to the moral status of affirmative action. The only sense in which qualifications are not morally arbitrary—and the only sense in which there is a reason to select the most qualified candidate—is purely instrumental to the promotion of moral values whose fundamental concern is not qualifications.     

Expert Evidence,Judicial Reasoning,and the Family Courts Information Pilot

The Family Courts Information Pilot took a modest step towards open justice in Children Act cases by publishing 161 judgments of the County Courts and Family Proceedings Courts. Combining socio‐legal and philosophical analysis on lines inspired by the work of Habermas, this article examines the epistemology of expert testimony implicit in the judgments. What emerges is a form of reasoning based on ‘inference to the best explanation’: judges seek to show that the best explanation for experts saying what they do is that they have good reasons for their opinions. While this approach is not blindly deferential, it has serious limitations in cases where the only experts are local authority social workers and the guardian, and an awareness of these limitations is one reason for the courts' willingness to allow other experts to be instructed. The article also criticizes the analysis of the courts’ use of experts by the recent Family Justice Review.     

Environmental Considerations for Trauma‐Responsive Juvenile and Family Courts: A Review of the Literature with Recommendations for Practice

Juvenile and family courts serve some of our most vulnerable populations, many of whom have experienced some traumatic event. People suffering with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are known to be more sensitive to environmental stimuli, and many of the environmental conditions within courts can be challenging for those suffering traumatic stress. Trauma‐responsive practices help foster conditions of healing, which can benefit both the court user and those who work within the court. Research reviewed in this article demonstrates the likelihood of negative behavioral and emotional responses to specific environmental factors for people suffering PTSD and other stress reactions, and offers recommendations to minimize environmental stressors.     

Juvenile Shackling Reform: The Judicial Role in Ensuring Trauma‐Informed Courts and Why States Are Rethinking Restraints

In juvenile courts around the country, youth are routinely shackled, without any evidence that these young people are a danger to anyone or likely to attempt flight. A number of states are moving away from this practice. Shackling reform initiatives are motivated by constitutional issues, emerging science around adolescent development, and a growing recognition of the need for trauma‐informed, evidence‐based courts. Judges are ultimately responsible for safeguarding the rights of the young people who appear in court, and must uphold the dignity of the courtroom. A review of jurisdictions that have adopted limits on juvenile shackling shows that these policies have not resulted in breaches of safety.     

Patterns of Practice in Mental Health Courts: A National Survey

Mental health courts (MHCs) represent an important new development at the interface of the criminal justice and mental health systems. MHCs are criminal courts for persons with mental illness that were in part created to divert this population from jail/prison into community treatment. MHCs are proliferating rapidly despite limited knowledge regarding their characteristics or their efficacy. We surveyed the entire population of adult MHCs in the United States, n = 90. In the past 8 years, MHCs have been created in 34 states, with an aggregate current caseload of 7,560 clients in MHCs nationally. Most courts (92%) reported using jail as a sanction for noncompliance, if only rarely. Further, jail sanction use was significantly predicted by increased judicial supervision and number of felons in the court. Implications for MHCs and social monitoring are discussed.     

Reduction in Recidivism in a Juvenile Mental Health Court: A Pre‐ and Post‐Treatment Outcome Study

A review of an evaluation of the Court for the Individualized Treatment of Adolescents (a prototype Juvenile Mental Health Court in Santa Clara, California) is presented along with admission criteria. Participant demographics are described. McNemar Test and Paired T Test results show that study participants committed violent, aggressive, and property crimes in significantly lower numbers in the 23 months following court admission than in the 18 months preceding court admission, despite escalating patterns of antisocial behavior prior to court involvement. The importance of developing multidisciplinary models to address moderately severe offenders with serious mental illness is discussed.     

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.

     

Enrollment in Mental Health Courts: Voluntariness,Knowingness, and Adjudicative Competence

Mental health courts (MHCs) are rapidly expanding as a form of diversion from jails and prisons for persons with mental illness charged with crimes. Although intended to be voluntary, little is known about this aspect of the courts. We examined perceptions of voluntariness, and levels of knowingness and legal competence among 200 newly enrolled clients of MHCs at two courts. Although most clients claimed to have chosen to enroll, at the same time, most claimed not to have been told the court was voluntary or told of the requirements prior to entering. The majority knew the “basics” of the courts, but fewer knew more nuanced information. A minority also were found to have impairments in legal competence. Implications are discussed.     

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.     

When the Bough Breaks the Cradle Will Fall: Promoting the Health and Well Being of Infants and Toddlers in Juvenile Court

Approximately one‐third of the children in the child welfare system are under the age of six. These children are almost invisible in our juvenile courts. It is now clear from the emerging science of early childhood development that during the first few years of life children develop the foundation and capabilities on which all subsequent development builds. Living in emotional and environmental impoverishment and deprivation provides a poor foundation for healthy development. These very young and vulnerable children are exhibiting disproportionate developmental and cognitive delays, medical problems, and emotional disorders. However, there is growing evidence that early planned interventions can help. The juvenile court must take a leadership role in focusing on the very young child and learning more about risk, prevention, and early intervention in order to facilitate the healing process.     

Family Environment Characteristics and Mental Health Outcomes for Youth in Foster Care: Traditional and Group-Care Placements

Journal of Family Violence - Foster care is meant to provide a safe, temporary out-of-home placement for children exposed to maltreatment, yet little is known about how youth and foster caregivers...