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.     

Enhancing the Mental Health and Well‐Being of Infants,Children, and Youth in the Juvenile and Family Courts: A Judicial Challenge

At the invitation of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, judges from the 30 largest juvenile jurisdictions in the country and mental health professionals met for two days in Tampa, Florida, March 18–19, 2000. Their discussions over this two‐day period resulted in the first draft of this document. Meeting again in July in Snowbird, Utah, members of the group reviewed and revised the original document. This second revision was mailed to members of the group and to the officers and board of the National Council for their review. Comments from this second draft were incorporated into the final document as it appears in this issue of the Juvenile and Family Court Journal. The experience and expertise represented by this dedicated group of judges and mental health professionals is reflected in the contents of this paper. Each of the participants is actively engaged in the process of systemic change in the delivery of mental health services in their communities, each can recount both successes and failures in the process of creating this change, and each brings experience and insight to this forum. This position paper is intended for the use of judges, court administrators, and mental health professionals who work with youth in the juvenile courts of our country. It is intended as a basic framework for the development of community systems of care which will serve children, youth, and families experiencing mental health problems appropriately and well.     

Lessons Learned from Developing a Trauma Consultation Protocol for Juvenile and Family Courts

Juvenile and family courts hold a unique position among the many stakeholders that comprise a healing community for persons experiencing adversity or trauma. Specifically, judges and other court leaders can promote the implementation of screening for trauma, the alignment of appropriate and effective treatment for trauma when indicated, and the accountability of systems for coordination and support of such services. To that end, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges undertook a field‐based project — consisting of multiple semi‐structured court surveys — to elucidate the key features of a trauma‐informed court and how to assist courts in becoming more trauma‐responsive for both consumers and staff. With the assistance of courts in 11 pilot sites across the nation, the project has led to the development of a protocol called trauma consultation or trauma audit, which is outlined here. Our work in developing the consultation protocol highlighted the need to better understand (1) the prevalence and impact of secondary traumatic stress in court staff, (2) the potential for environment to contribute to traumatic stress reactions, and (3) the importance of consistent trauma screenings and subsequent use of findings. Practical suggestions for courts to become more trauma‐informed are also provided.     

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.     

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.     

现代性与后现代性之间的中国司法——诉讼社会的中国法院

诉讼社会是社会转型和法治现代化的必经阶段,随着经济市场化和快速融入全球化,中国已经进入诉讼社会。诉讼社会具有彰显公民理性和社会文明,彰显现代司法价值和公信,彰显法律与司法的公正性与确定性等现代性与后现代性表征。在当下中国,诉讼社会在表征法律与社会现代性的同时,也存在司法机制扭曲、司法尊严和权威严重削弱、司法地方化倾向加剧、司法行政化日益严重、司法公信力缺失等现代性问题。随着中国司法现代化和法治中国建设的推进,这些问题必将在司法现代化历史进程中得到消解。     

现代化视野中的法院建构--评《人民法院五年改革纲要》

本文运用现代化理论,对法院制度进行了类型化分析,并简要归纳总结出现代型法院的六大特征.以此为基点,作者从分化、独立、功能的多元化、裁判依据的一元化、程序的妥当性、法官的专业性等六个方面对《纲要》的利弊得失进行了详尽剖析,进而得出结论《纲要》之后的法院现代化进程将是长期的,进一步改革不可避免.