Building Bridges for Babies in Foster Care: The Babies Can't Wait Initiative

In 2001, the New York State Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children, chaired by New York State's Chief Judge Judith Kaye, developed the Babies Can't Wait Initiative to maximize the well‐being and permanency prospects of infants in foster care. This court‐based innovation became a path to healthy development for babies in foster care, a bridge to unprecedented collaboration among the New York City Family Court, child welfare system, and service providers and merged knowledge about child development with court and child welfare practice. This article tells the story of the Babies Can't Wait Initiative—its creation, implementation, successes, and lessons.     

Assessing the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency: An Evaluation of a Court‐Based Delinquency Prevention Program

In 2002, the State of Ohio mandated juvenile courts to provide prevention for at‐risk youth. This study examined official court records to evaluate the effectiveness of a prevention program administered by the Greene County Juvenile Court. A sample of 362 youth referred to the program for the years 2002 to 2009 by concerned caretakers, teachers, and police was analyzed. Consistent with intake goals, 81.7% of clients were referred for at‐risk but not actually delinquent behaviors. Completion of the prevention program did not predict future court referrals, but neither did seriousness of referral behavior. Children with two biological parents were significantly more likely to complete the program, whereas referrals to Strengthening Families Program and substance abuse screening significantly predicted program noncompletion. Implications for policy and research are discussed.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• This article highlights efforts by county juvenile court to implement a secondary prevention program for at‐risk but not officially court‐referred youth.
• Delinquency prevention research depends on good juvenile court data and adequate comparison groups.
• Evidence‐based predelinquent interventions with external process and outcome evaluations should be the standard.

     

Development and Pilot of the National Child Traumatic Stress Network Trauma‐Informed Juvenile Court Self‐Assessment

Trauma‐informed practices in the juvenile justice system are increasingly recognized as effective for promoting public safety through case management, rehabilitation, and treatment that is responsive to a traumatic event exposure and current trauma reactions. As court systems explore integration of trauma‐informed practices, tools for identifying best practices and strategically implementing trauma‐informed approaches are integral for judges and court administrators aiming to develop trauma‐informed courts. The current paper reviews the National Child Traumatic Stress Network's development of the Trauma‐Informed Juvenile Court Self‐Assessment (TI‐JCSA). Implications for self‐guided strategies to shift court practices and policies to align with trauma‐informed approaches will be discussed.     

Evaluation of Implementation of the Kentucky Court Rules of Procedure and Practice: An Approach to Assessing the Impact of Court Reform Efforts

This article describes a Supreme Court of Kentucky court improvement initiative designed to promote uniformity and improved court practice with an ultimate goal of the improvement of outcomes for children and families through implementation of Family Court Rules of Procedure and Practice. Twelve jurisdictions were purposely selected to exhibit a range of family and non‐family court jurisdictions, rural and middle‐sized locations. This article focuses on the results of court case file review related to indicators of due process and timeliness. Implications for court evaluation and reform activities are discussed.     

An Evaluation of a Delaware Teen Court

The Kent County Teen Court Program (teen court) provides sanctions for juvenile delinquency from a panel of a juvenile's peers rather than from a Family Court Judge. Part of the concept behind teen peer courts is that the sanction from one's peers carries more weight than sanctions from adults. The Delaware Criminal Justice Council (CJC) awarded a grant to Delaware ‐ Teen Courts, Inc. to support the operation of the Kent County Teen Court Program. The teen court program was designed to provide participants with hands‐on education in the judicial process, to create a sanction pro‐ gram that will not create a permanent record for a juvenile, and to foster, a sense of community responsibility in the program participants. The teen court program is an adult model teen court in which all of the judicial actors are juveniles with the exception of the judge. This article reflects the results of an evaluation on the Kent County Teen Court program's first two years of operation (Garrison, 2001).     

Family‐Centered Practice in Adult Treatment Courts: What Can We Learn from the Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards?

Estimates suggest that upwards of 50% of participants in adult treatment courts (ATC) are parents. Previous studies point to negative impacts of unmet parenting needs on substance use treatment and criminal justice outcomes, and that family‐centered practices such as parenting classes substantially reduce recidivism among ATC participants. Judges and team members interested in adopting family‐centered practices in their ATC program may be unsure where to begin. One recent source of information regarding evidence‐based, family‐centered practices in treatment court settings is the Family Treatment Court (FTC) Best Practice Standards. The FTC Standards suggest adopting a family‐centered mission, expanding partnerships with child‐ and family‐serving agencies, discussing parenting and family roles during hearings, implementing family‐centered case management, and considering the effect of therapeutic responses on children and families. Building on the ATC Standards, the flexibility inherent in voluntary court programs, and existing community partnerships creates a pathway toward family‐centered practice in criminal settings.     

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.     

Time and Transcendence: Narrating Higher Authority at the Caribbean Court of Justice

This article examines the relationship between time and authority in courts of law. Newness, in particular, poses an obstacle to a court's efforts to establish authority because it tethers the institution to a timeline in which the human origins of the court and the political controversies preceding it are easily recalled. Moreover, the abbreviated timeline necessarily limits the body of legal authority (namely, the number of judgments) that could have been produced. This article asks how a court might establish its authority when faced with such problematic newness. Based on extensive ethnographic research at the Caribbean Court of Justice, I demonstrate how the staff and judges at this relatively young tribunal work to create a narrative in which the Court transcends its own troublesome timeline. They do this by attempting to construct a time‐transcendent principle of Caribbeanness and proffering the Court as a manifestation of this higher authority. The Court's narrative of its timelessness, however, is regularly challenged by far more familiar tales of its becoming, suggesting that in this court, as in all courts, the work of building and maintaining authority is ongoing.     

Increasing Family Reunification for Substance‐Abusing Mothers and Their Children: Comparing Two Drug Court Interventions in Miami

This study provides a quasi‐experimental test of 80 consecutive enrollments in the Miami‐Dade (Florida) Dependency Drug Court in order to examine the impact of a family‐based and gender specific intervention, Engaging Moms Program (EMP), on drug court graduation and family reunification. We compared EMP with case management services (CMS). Results indicated that 72% of mothers in the EMP graduated from drug court, and 70% were reunified with their children. In contrast, 38% of mothers receiving CMS graduated from drug court, and 40% were reunited with their children. EMP, then, appears to be a promising family drug court intervention.     

Keeping the Family Together: Why New York Must Amend Evidence Rules to Protect a Parent's Right to be a Parent

In New York, hearsay statements made by children may be admissible in a child protective proceeding. Under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, an out‐of‐court statement only requires corroboration to support the statement's reliability. The Family Court has the choice to determine what evidence will be sufficient for corroboration. In comparison to other statutes from different states, New York's statute is very broad. This Note proposes amending the current evidence statute under Article 10 of the Family Court Act to strengthen the standard for admitting hearsay statements in child protective proceedings.     

Losing,but Accepting: Legitimacy,Positivity Theory,and the Symbols of Judicial Authority

How is it that the U.S. Supreme Court is capable of getting most citizens to accept rulings with which they disagree? This analysis addresses the role of the symbols of judicial authority and legitimacy—the robe, the gavel, the cathedral‐like court building—in contributing to this willingness of ordinary people to acquiesce to disagreeable court decisions. Using an experimental design and a nationally representative sample, we show that exposure to judicial symbols (1) strengthens the link between institutional support and acquiescence among those with relatively low prior awareness of the Supreme Court, (2) has differing effects depending upon levels of preexisting institutional support, and (3) severs the link between disappointment with a disagreeable Court decision and willingness to challenge the ruling. Since symbols influence citizens in ways that reinforce the legitimacy of courts, the connection between institutional attitudes and acquiescence posited by Legitimacy Theory is both supported and explained.     

Realizing the Promise of Well‐Being: Longitudinal Research from an Effective Early Intervention Program for Substance Exposed Babies and Toddlers Identifies Essential Components

The University of Miami Linda Ray Intervention Program (LRIP) is a Part C early intervention program for children under the age of three, with verified developmental delays located in Miami‐Dade County that has established a strong link and referral process from the Juvenile Court as well as local community‐based care agencies. Creating a system where early intervention communicates well with the court system is paramount in changing the well‐being trajectories of these vulnerable children. This article describes the growing need for early intervention services as well as the results of one successful early intervention‐court partnership that has shown promising short and long‐term results for developmentally‐delayed children who were born prenatally exposed to cocaine.     

Treating Substance‐Abusing Parents: A Study of the Pima County Family Drug Court Approach

A geographical comparison‐group design was used to examine the effectiveness of the Pima County (Arizona) Court Assisted Treatment Services (CATS) program and its drug court intervention. The study compared the summary statistics for the volunteers to the family drug court (n=33) with a treatment‐refusal group (n=42) and a treatment‐as‐usual group (n=45) from a matched geographical area. The findings of this study indicate that the family drug court group had higher engagement and completion rates of residential treatment than was true of the other comparison groups. In addition, the volunteers to the family drug court group had fewer parental rights severed, a higher percentage of permanency decisions reached within one year, earlier permanency decisions, and a higher percentage of children placed with their parents. The implications of this study's findings for future evaluations of the components of a family drug court intervention are 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.

     

Family Conferencing: A Success for Our Children

Model Courts, assisted by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, employ innovative best practices to better achieve permanency of children in the dependency system as required by the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA). Family Group Decision‐Making Conferencing has been used in the Miami Model Court since 1998. The judge chooses cases at the initial detention hearing, and parents must agree to the procedure. A Department of Children and Families social worker facilitates a well‐planned meeting between parents and their families and friends where parents' case plans are developed for the court to approve. In an evaluation of 87 such conferences, the National Council determined that the process has assisted families in identifying strengths and resolving problems. Satisfaction rate of participants was high, and parents became highly motivated. Conferencing produced more timely case processing times and more stable placements. In addition, within Miami's multi‐ethnic and multi‐cultural community, the conferences developed good communication between the generally middle‐class court staff and the primarily poor, immigrant, and native‐born parents.     

An Evaluation of Teen Court as a Juvenile Crime Diversion Program

Theories of procedural justice support the American legal system's search for a fair and effective means of diverting offenders from the juvenile court system. Teen Court programs, in which juvenile offenders are tried and sentenced by a jury of peers, are one of the latest developments in attempts to positively influence offenders and direct them free of crime. The present research found that participation in Teen Court increased offenders' legal knowledge and enhanced their attitudes toward some authority figures (i.e., the judge) and themselves to a greater extent than non‐offending juveniles. In addition, only 12.6 percent of juvenile offenders re‐offended within five months of their initial Teen Court involvement. Improved attitudes toward authority and self were associated with a lower incidence of recidivism. Overall, these results contribute to the growing literature indicating that Teen Court can be an effective juvenile crime diversion program. This article also discusses methodological issues for future program evaluations.     

Juvenile Justice Advocacy: Practice in a Unique Court

The defense attorney must remember that the Juvenile Court is a court and not a social agency. But the fact that it is a court should not obscure the fact that it is a court with social objectives and social techniques. Thus, he must have the knowledge and ability to suggest alternative treatments to court adjudication.     

Out on a Limb: Appointing a Parenting Coordinator with Decision‐Making Authority in the Absence of a Statute or Rule

This Article addresses the issue of whether a court may appoint a Parenting Coordinator (PC) with decision‐making authority in the absence of a statute or court rule. The Article identifies possible sources of authority for the appointment of a PC with decision‐making authority in a state with no authorizing statute or court rule. It also provides a paradigm for constructing an appointment that allows for the benefits of Parenting Coordination but does not delegate decision‐making authority to an extent that it would constitute an impermissible delegation of judicial authority.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Where a court seeks to appoint a PC with decision‐making authority in the absence of an authorizing statute or court rule, the court may find some authority allowing the appointment in (1) its equitable authority over child custody and visitation, (2) its authority to enforce its own orders, or (3) its authority to appoint other extrajudicial assistants such as a special master or mediator.
• Where a court seeks to appoint a PC with decision‐making authority in the absence of an authorizing statute or court rule, the court must craft an appointment that delegates enough decision‐making authority to the PC for parenting coordination to be effective yet, at the same time, not so much decision‐making authority as to render the appointment an impermissible delegation of a judicial function, specifically:
  • The PC's role should be limited to assisting the parties in implementing custody and visitation terms already decreed by the trial court.
  • A PC should be appointed only if the parties to the divorce consent to the appointment or if the trial court makes a finding that the case is a high‐conflict case.
  • The parties must have the opportunity for the trial court to meaningfully review any decision of the PC so that the trial court retains ultimate decision‐making authority.

     

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.     

Opinion Construction in the Roberts Court

The Supreme Court's main output is the decision on the merits. Little is known, however, about how such decisions are constructed. This article is one of the first to look at the way Supreme Court opinions are constructed by examining the impact of the core linguistic resources at the Court's disposal. It does so in a novel manner by measuring the Court's reliance on wording from parties’ merits filings, amicus briefs, and lower‐court opinions between the 2005 and 2014 terms. To accomplish this goal, the article compares language in over 13,000 documents in the Court's docket during this period with their respective majority opinions. The article then looks at the relative impact of parties’ briefs and filings, amicus curiae briefs, and lower‐court opinions on the Court's majority opinion language. This article provides both macro– and microlevel analyses by locating the relative effects of these linguistic resources on the Court's overall opinion language as well as by breaking these findings down by individual justice. In the aggregate, this article finds that, of the three resources analyzed, the Court tends to use language from parties’ merits briefs most frequently, then wording from lower‐court opinions, and the least from amicus briefs, but that differences in case level factors shift the relative utility of each of these three resources.