Knocking on the Door: Juvenile and Family Courts as a Forum for Facilitating School Attendance and Decreasing Truancy

While there is debate about whether courts should be involved in truancy reduction efforts, less recognized is how courts can impact school attendance without lengthening their reach or further penalizing children and families. Courts are already involved with school‐related decision making in child welfare and delinquency cases. This article reports on data from a qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives (N = 64) on school attendance in Maryland. Respondents suggested that courts adopt engagement‐focused approaches to guide their work such as family assessments, school attendance plans, monitoring coordination and delivery of services, and ensuring that agencies meet their obligations to children.     

A SURVEY OF UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS

The American Bar Association Coordinating Council on Unified Family Courts, with the assistance of Hofstra University's Center for Childre. Family and the Courts, recently conducted a survey of various courts and jurisdictions that either implemented or experimented with a unified family court structure. The purpose of the project was to get a sense of the state of unified family courts with the goal of building more support for the unified family court concept based on demonstrated effectiveness. The findings of the survey have been summarized in this article. The survey, survey data, and list of survey respondents can be found in the article's appendices.     

“I WANT MY MOMMIES”: THE CRY FOR MINI‐DOMAS TO RECOGNIZE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN OF SAME‐SEX COUPLES*

In child custody cases, courts will look to the best interests of a child to maintain visitation/custody rights only with the child's biological parent, not third parties. However, with a same‐sex couple, it is inevitable that one parent will not be the biological parent. Thus, when that parent is in a mini‐DOMA state, where same‐sex couples from non‐mini‐DOMA states do not have to be recognized, that parent will be viewed as a third party and lose all visitation/custody rights if the couple separates. This note advocates that mini‐DOMAs allow both the biological and nonbiological parents of a same‐sex couple to have visitation/custody rights of their children if it would be in the best interest of the children to do so.     

Judicial Perspectives on Family Drug Treatment Courts

Family Drug Treatment Courts are a specialized calendar or docket that operates within the juvenile dependency court. These courts provide the setting for a collaborative effort by the court and all the participants in the child protection system to come together in a non‐adversarial setting to determine the individual treatment needs of substance‐abusing parents whose children are under the jurisdiction of the dependency court. This article is intended to give judges and others a judicial perspective on FDTCs, and to offer some assistance for those who are operating or who are considering creating one.     

REEVALUATING WHERE WE STAND: A COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF AMERICA'S FAMILY JUSTICE SYSTEMS

The call for court reform remains critical in the face of the growing complexity of burgeoning family law cases nationwide. Many states have restructured their court systems using the unified family court model, resolving legal, personal, emotional, and social disputes with the aim of improving the well‐being of families and children. Other states utilize the traditional approach, resulting in cases being handled in a fragmented, time‐consuming and expensive manner. In this article, Professor Barbara A. Babb presents the results of her nationwide survey regarding how each state handles family law matters. The survey is a follow‐up to her comprehensive 1998 survey and her 2002 survey update. The results of the recent analysis reveal that a total of thirty‐eight states now have either statewide family courts, family courts in selected areas of the state, or pilot or planned family courts, representing seventy‐five percent of states. The number of states without a specialized or separate system to handle family law matters has decreased from seventeen states in 1998 to thirteen in 2006. These changes are significant when one considers the complexities involved in court reform. The need for court reform remains an urgent one, as family law cases occupy a significant percentage of court dockets across the country. Families and children deserve a court system where justice is effective and efficient and where their legal, personal, emotional, and social needs are resolved in a therapeutic and holistic manner.     

CHILDREN OF SAME‐SEX PARENTS DESERVE THE SECURITY BLANKET OF THE PARENTAGE PRESUMPTION*

This article considers what rights are important to children of same‐sex couples, and concludes that these children must be protected by the presumption of parentage. In reaching this conclusion, the article first analyzes the limited protections currently provided to children of same‐sex couples. It then concludes that there is no persuasive reason to treat these children differently from children of “traditional” heterosexual marriage. As such, the parentage presumption should apply equally to children born of a same‐sex marriage, domestic partnership, or civil union, as well as to children who live with a same‐sex partner in a parent‐child relationship. Only with such broad protection can these children receive the economic and psychological support that they deserve.     

REENTRY COURTS: PROVIDING A SECOND CHANCE FOR INCARCERATED MOTHERS AND THEIR CHILDREN

Each year many incarcerated mothers are released from prison and must endure the difficult process of prisoner reentry. The rate of recidivism remains significantly high among this transitioning population, which negatively affects many children. The traditional parole system has not adequately addressed the complexities of a mother‐prisoner's reentry and reunification with her child. This Note proposes that states should expand or adopt the use of problem solving parole courts, or “Reentry Courts” to support a mother and her child through the transition from prison to home. Reentry Courts provide a multi‐agency coordinated solution, which utilizes judicial authority for women seeking to transform their lives and reunify with their children upon their release from prison.     

NIPPING IT IN THE BUD®: ADOPTING A FAMILY DRUG COURT APPROACH TO FIGHTING THE CYCLE OF ALCOHOL ADDICTION FOR CHILDREN WHEN PARENTS ARE CONVICTED OF DUI

Many states have implemented Drug Courts in recent years by combining drug and alcohol treatment with ongoing judicial supervision. Through the use of incentives such as reduced and dismissed charges and fines combined with supervised treatment, Drug Courts have been shown to be very effective in helping to break the cycle of addiction, crime, and repeat incarceration for those involved. However, these courts do little to address situations in which the addict is the custodial parent of a minor child, who is exponentially more at‐risk for future alcohol addiction simply by being the child of an alcoholic, due to both environmental and biological factors. Thus, while the parent's addiction is theoretically being addressed by the courts, little is being done, absent a showing of abuse or neglect, by the judicial system to combat the seeds of addiction that have already been planted in these children. Therefore, this Note advocates for states to include an alcohol education and counseling program aimed at children of alcohol‐related offenders based on the Drug Court Model. Participation in this program would then act as a mitigating factor for the addicted offender when receiving their final sentence. This proposed program would then serve as a model for other states to adopt in the near future.     

Institutional Arrangements and the Dynamics of Agenda Formation in the U.S. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals

The manner in which agenda change occurs demonstrates how institutional arrangements influence agenda priorities in the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals. A neo-institutional theoretic perspective is employed to examine the dynamics of agenda formation in these courts. The article finds that the Supreme Court's agenda choices influence the decisions of litigants, interest groups, and lawyers to appeal certain cases to the Courts of Appeals. While the Supreme Court's agenda primarily is influenced by internal factors, it is constrained by agenda changes in the appeals courts. Critically, it is shown that these federal appellate courts exist within an endogenous system with respect to agenda formation, as both courts respond to agenda changes made in the other over time.     

A Roadmap for CANS Validation

In nearly every jurisdiction, juvenile or family courts will be using the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) tool to assess whether children can safely be treated in family-like settings to meet federal Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA) requirements. Yet, a number of peer-reviewed publications have raised serious concerns regarding the lack of CANS validation research. Rather than reject CANS, this article provides a roadmap for validating the tool with data that jurisdictions have already collected. Courts should require these three simple analyses before relying on the assessment.     

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.     

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.     

Cross-border public care and adoption proceedings in the European Union

The free movement of persons within the EU has meant that children at risk of harm from family members may be living in a Member State of which they are not a national. The child may be made subject to legal measures under the national law of the host State for the protection of their welfare. This article explores the competence of the EU to protect children in these circumstances, and the scope of the Brussels IIa Regulation in governing jurisdiction over child protection proceedings. It discusses the difference between national child protection systems and the political controversy surrounding English law on adoption following care proceedings issued over a child who is a national of a different Member State. It suggests that further information sharing on national systems and cooperation between courts is necessary for the effectiveness of the law and to encourage understanding of legitimate variation in Member State national family law.     

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.     

Parental Alienation in U.S. Courts, 1985 to 2018

Courts have been dealing with alienating behaviors in high conflict family litigation for hundreds of years. Experts in the behavioral sciences have been writing about mothers and fathers manipulating their children to disparage the other parent for more than seventy years. But in the last two decades some social scientists and legal professionals have questioned the legitimacy of parental alienation as a concept and its admissibility in child abuse and child custody litigation. This study was designed to examine the extent to which courts in the United States have found the concept of parental alienation material, probative, relevant and admissible. Thirty‐four years of cases were found with a WESTLAW query and analyzed. Cases were selected for study only if the record reflected that a judge or an independent expert found the concept of parental alienation to be of value in the litigation. Results illustrate increasing awareness of the concept and document its admissibility in every one of the United States. The numbers, sex of the alienating parent and prevalence of significant custody changes are discussed. Limitations inherent in this form of quantitative analysis are also discussed with recommendations for future research.     

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.     

HIGH‐CONFLICT CONTACT DISPUTES: EVIDENCE OF THE EXTREME UNRELIABILITY OF SOME CHILDREN'S ASCERTAINABLE WISHES AND FEELINGS

This article challenges an increasing orthodoxy regarding the weight which courts might place upon the expressed views of children in a specific situation—high‐conflict contact disputes. I am a child psychiatrist who acts as an expert witness within the family courts of England & Wales. I have conducted a statistical analysis of cases in which I have conducted assessments of children caught in such disputes between their separated parents. Fifty‐eight children met the criteria for inclusion in the study—the child's consistent opposition to contact with the non resident parent (NRP), despite the court having determined that there was no good reason to constrain contact. My assessment routinely included attempted observation of the child at a visit with the NRP. Despite their stated views most children had a positive experience in those visits that took place, and despite the fact that most had not seen the NRP for a long time. Overall there was a statistical association between increased resistance to contact and the greater age of the child and the longer the time during which no contact had occurred. However, the responses of children and young people were unpredictable and it was impossible to conclude that apparent maturity or intelligence was a guide to the reliability of their expressed resistance. The possible reasons for this unreliability are discussed. I emphasize that my sample of children is unusual as many of the cases had involved serious, though unfounded, allegations of abuse. In addition most of the children showed indications of having become “alienated” from the NRP. I conclude that courts might exercise caution when evaluating the views of children and young people in this situation, and emphasises that assessors should consider including at least one observation of the child at a prolonged visit to the NRP. Because of the new orthodoxy some parents may be tempted to misuse their child's right to a “voice” in court in order to achieve their own ends. Practitioners who advise courts may need to be more aware of these difficulties.     

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.     

Deference on Questions of Law

Contrary to the modern English position, it may be appropriate for reviewing courts to accord deference to interpretations of law rendered by administrators. There is no basis for the current strong presumption against according such deference. It is possible that the legislature intended to delegate the resolution of many questions of law to administrators, rather than to courts. Moreover, relative to administrators, courts may lack institutional competence to resolve questions of law. Courts must always police the boundaries of interpretation, in order to keep administrators in check and safeguard the rule of law, but the general presumption that the resolution of questions of law is a matter for courts should be jettisoned.     

RESPONSE TO TROXEL v. GRANVILLE

In today's world, children grow up in families that take many different forms, and society can no longer consider the traditional nuclear family the normal or optimal family structure. As a result, in cases of divorce, courts are increasingly relying on the results of psychological research when awarding custody and visitation privileges. In contrast to recent trends, however, the U.S. Supreme Court's majority decision in Troxel v. Granville favors biological parents' rights over the psychological interests of children. This article discusses the potential contributions of attachment theory to the contest between biology and psychology in America's divorce courts.