WHEN JAIL FAILS: AMENDING THE ASFA TO REDUCE ITS NEGATIVE IMPACT ON CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS

The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) requires states begin termination proceedings when a child resides in foster care for fifteen out of the last twenty‐two months. Many states interpret this to mean that an incarcerated parent is unfit when they leave their child in foster care just because they are separated from their children. Parents and children can still have meaningful relationships even when separated. Thus, parental unfitness should depend on many factors such as the relationship with the child, age of the child, and ability to provide support for the child—not just the time spent away from the child. This Note advocates for the amendment of ASFA to include factors courts should consider when terminating the parental rights of incarcerated parents and encouraged states to focus not on a time frame for termination, but rather consideration of circumstances relevant to each individual family. States should incorporate the factors into their state laws. Further, states should actively work with prisoners and their children to help maintain contact and if possible, reunify families after incarcerations. These services will help prevent the need for termination after a parent completes their sentence and will help to reduce recidivism.     

LESSENING THE STING OF ASFA: THE REHABILITATION‐RELAPSE DILEMMA BROUGHT ABOUT BY DRUG ADDICTION AND TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) as a response to children waiting in foster homes for years without permanent placement. In addressing the problem of permanency, however, Congress set a strict limit on how long a child could be in foster care (15 out of the most recent 22 months) before a state must either commence a proceeding to terminate parental rights or else lose valuable federal funding. Due to health care funding schemes and quality of treatment, this requirement, in particular, negatively impacts parents currently in drug rehabilitation whose parental rights may be permanently terminated before a realistic chance to recover is permitted. Although ASFA requires that states make “reasonable efforts” to keep families united, it does not define “reasonable efforts,” leaving parental rights and family unity subject to a chaotic interpretation of this requirement from state to state. “Reasonable efforts” should be interpreted to take into account current drug addiction and recovery research and drug court programs should be used to facilitate this goal. Research has shown that focusing on adequate treatment saves states money and improves the lives of children and their families, reducing the need for reliance on termination of parental rights.     

WHEN THE COST IS TOO GREAT: THE EMOTIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT ON CHILDREN OF INCARCERATING THEIR PARENTS FOR DRUG OFFENCES1

The advent of the modern “war on drugs” and its accompanying “lock 'em up and throw away the key” crime policies largely explain the evolution of mass incarceration in the U.S. and account for much of the emotional and psychological pain caused to children who have lost their parents to long prison sentences. It is by reducing reliance on incarceration to tackle the “drug problem” in the United States that there will be a positive impact on reducing the number of parents being separated from their children for inordinate amounts of time, thereby potentially reducing the negative emotional and psychological impact on children. Aiding parents combat their addiction outside of prison walls is perhaps to most sensible criminal justice policy in addressing the needs of children who are caught in the cross‐fire of the war on drugs. In the meantime, as policy makers review, assess, and, eventually, reform draconian drug laws and sentencing policies, it is imperative that front‐line service providers who work with children and family and juvenile court judges be mindful of the emotional and psychological impact that parental incarceration has on youth. A more in‐depth understanding of the complexities of these young people's life experiences will hopefully enable the development of appropriate support services.     

RISK AND PROTECTIVE FACTORS FOR SECONDARY GIRLS OF INCARCERATED PARENTS

In a review of the literature on child gender and gender‐specific effects for children of incarcerated parents, the present paper examines what we do and do not know about gender‐specific protective and risk factors for children of incarcerated parents. The nuanced effects of parental separation based on child gender are offered, drawn from secondary level girls in an all‐female support group operated at a secondary school in Little Rock, Arkansas for the past six years. Other programs are examined that evidence gender‐specific effects for boys and girls in those programs. A few basic statistical indices suggest that the gender of an adolescent separated from his or her incarcerated parents has differential impacts to be better studied and possibly considered in service programming. The results may enhance the outcomes for the girls, and perhaps the boys.     

THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF INCARCERATION REVISITED: A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS ON CAREGIVERS OF CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS*

While policy makers have long extolled the benefits of incarceration, criminologists have expended considerable effort demonstrating the harmful collateral consequences of incarceration. Sampson (2011) recently challenged researchers to move beyond this dichotomy and to assess the “social ledger” of incarceration, where both the potential benefits and harms associated with incarceration are examined. To shed light on the variation in the collateral consequences of incarceration, we focus on the experiences of a valuable group of individuals directly impacted by imprisonment: those caring for children of incarcerated parents. Drawing from in‐depth interviews with a diverse group of caregivers (N= 100), we examine the various consequences (both positive and negative) that occur in their lives as a result of incarceration, as well as the causal processes responsible for the outcomes we observe. Our findings reveal marked variation in the effects of incarceration on caregivers. Such effects are shaped by (1) the prisoner's prior parental involvement, (2) the interpersonal relationship between caregiver and prisoner, and (3) the caregiver's family support system. These findings have important implications for future work conducted on the collateral consequences of incarceration for caregivers, children, and families.     

TWO WORLDS FAR APART: BLACK‐WHITE DIFFERENCES IN BELIEFS ABOUT WHY AFRICAN‐AMERICAN MEN ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPRISONED*

Analyzing The Washington Post, Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University 2006 African American Survey, the current project focuses on three related issues. First, I examine whether African Americans and whites share a common “sensibility” or “cognitive landscape” when considering why African‐American men are disproportionately imprisoned. Second, the current research investigates whether the sensibilities held by African Americans and whites are collectively held. Third, I investigate whether the relative subordinate position of African Americans—as manifested in their personal experiences with racial discrimination—shapes the opinions that they have about why black men are disproportionately incarcerated. Findings reveal that African Americans and whites significantly differ in their opinions about why black men are imprisoned. They also show that deep divisions exist among whites, whereas African Americans tend to share a common sensibility as to why black males are disproportionately incarcerated. The results reveal that the cognitive landscape that African Americans collectively hold about why black men are incarcerated is shaped by their personal experiences with racial discrimination.     

PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN FAMILY COURTS: BALANCING AUTONOMY AND STATE INTERVENTION

This work considers how court‐connected parent education programs can assist parents to access dispute resolution processes that best suit their families’ needs, in a manner involving appropriately curtailed levels of state interference with parental autonomy. After reviewing traditionally accepted limits on state interference with family functioning, the increased concern for children's emotional well‐being, and data relating to one parent education program, the author concludes that providing mandatory “basic level” informational programs to all separating parents seeking access to the family law regime is a warranted level of state intervention. “Skills‐building” programs aimed at achieving demonstrably changed parental practices should be available on a voluntary attendance basis.     

Law and Family Formation Among LGBQ‐Parent Families

This article addresses how the law affects family formation among families with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ) parents in the United States. Our discussion draws on a socio‐legal approach to law that focuses not only on the law on the books (what we refer to as “legal barriers”) but also on issues like how the law is practiced, how people experience the law in everyday life, and how the law serves as an interpretive framework through which people understand themselves and their families (what we refer to as “social barriers”). In our review, we highlight how attorneys can play a role in valuing and advancing rights for LGBQ‐parent families and LGBTQ prospective parents.     

Breaking The Cycle Of Intergenerational Child Maltreatment: A Case For Active Efforts For Dependent Minor Parents And Their Children In State Custody

Dependent minor parents placed in foster care with their children often face significant hurdles. These parents are responsible to make caregiving decisions for their children, while they themselves fall under the caregiving responsibility of the state child welfare system. As such, dependent minor parents live in a “twilight zone” – they hold full parental rights, but limited rights as teenagers. For a number of reasons, the children of minor parents in foster care often come into state custody. When two generations are in foster care at the same time, states must balance the safety and best interests of the children with the rights of minor parents to care for their own children. Currently, the state child welfare system is only required to provide “reasonable efforts” to reunify parents with children when they have been removed from their care for abuse, neglect, or dependency. However, dependent minor parents in state custody often require more supportive services in order to successfully reunify with their children than in a typical child welfare case. This article places the circumstance just described in the context of dependent minor parents’ constitutionally protected rights, and advocates for a higher standard which would require states to provide “active efforts” to protect and preserve these young families.     

Why Medical Child Support is Important—and Complex

Courts resolving child support cases involving separated, divorced, and non‐marital children are charged with defining responsibility for health care coverage for the children under that order. This article explores historical and current medical child support requirements under Title IV‐D of the Social Security Act—the national child support enforcement (“IV‐D”) program. It analyzes legal requirements and policy recommendations, and provides a practical tool judges may use to determine whether health care coverage available to either or both parents is appropriate—that is, comprehensive, accessible, and affordable.     

Using Reasonable Efforts Determinations to Improve Systems and Case Practice in Cases Involving Family Violence and Child Maltreatment

The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 reinforced that the safety, permanency, and well‐being of the child should be the primary concerns when making decisions about child protection interventions, child placement, and efforts at reunification. The court's role in oversight of agency practice in individual cases through the requirement of specific judicial findings as a condition of receipt of certain funding was also maintained and strengthened by ASFA. Based on the recognition of the number of cases where there is a co‐occurrence of domestic violence and child maltreatment, there is a need for communities and agencies to set reasonable expectations of good practice for responding to the issues raised. As the community sets the expectations of good practice through agency policy, training, and service delivery, the judiciary, through the findings regarding “continuation in the home” or “reasonable efforts” in each individual case, provides the oversight of practice required by ASFA. This article will explore the current applications of reasonable efforts, discuss ways that courts and communities are defining the concept, and examine the need for the development of a reasonable efforts protocol.     

Spousal Rejection as a Risk Factor for Parental Rejection of Children

Limited information is available about the international generalizability of the common conclusion that marital discord tends to be associated with problematic parenting. Pakistan is a sociocultural context known for a high frequency of marital distress. Accordingly, this study draws from a sample of 270 Pakistani families with children between the ages of 9 to 13 years (M?=?11.21 years). In this study we explore the question: Are Pakistani children’s perceptions of maternal and/or paternal rejection related to their parents’ perceptions of spousal rejection? Results of a hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed that wives’ perceptions of husbands’ rejection predicted children’s perceptions of maternal rejection, as well as—but to a significantly lesser extent—children’s perceptions of paternal rejection. Similarly, husbands’ perceptions of wives’ rejection predicted children’s perceptions of paternal rejection, as well as—but to a significantly lesser extent—children’s perceptions of maternal rejection. Results of this research, along with the slim body of prior international research, suggests that the concept of “spillover effect” used to explain the association between spousal rejection and parental rejection may have widespread international applicability.     

THE DIVIDED WORLD OF THE CHILD: DIVORCE AND LONG‐TERM PSYCHOSOCIAL ADJUSTMENT

This study evaluated the extent to which divorce creates the “divided world of the child,” as well as consequences of this “divided world” for long‐term adjustment. An ethnically diverse sample of 1,375 young‐adult university students completed retrospective measures of parental nurturance and involvement, and current measures of psychosocial adjustment and troubled ruminations about parents. Results indicated that reports of maternal and paternal nurturance and involvement were closely related in intact families but uncorrelated in divorced families. Across family forms, the total amount of nurturance or involvement received was positively associated with self‐esteem, purpose in life, life satisfaction, friendship quality and satisfaction, and academic performance; and negatively related to distress, romantic relationship problems, and troubled ruminations about parents. Mother‐father differences in nurturance and involvement showed a largely opposite set of relationships. Implications for family court practices are discussed.     

TENUOUS BORDERS: GIRLS TRANSFERRED TO ADULT COURT*

There are tremendous gaps in our theories and knowledge about girls who have committed crimes deemed so serious as to justify adult sentencing. This study is guided by a feminist approach to “give voice” to 22 girls incarcerated in a women's prison in the Midwest. Through in‐depth interviews, the girls describe their lives before prison and their perceptions of being tried and convicted as adults. Consistent with other research on female offenders, these girls reported lives fraught with violence and victimization, sexism, racism, and economic marginalization. This study calls for a more careful and complex look at issues of victimization, agency, and responsibility among female offenders, particularly those proclaimed “adults” by the legal system.     

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.     

Supporting Children and Parents in Sweden through Collaboration Teams

Coordinated, multidisciplinary collaboration teams have been developed in Sweden with the purpose of preventing or mitigating conflicts between parents and promoting effective parental cooperation. The screening and assessment tool, known as the Family Law Detection of Overall Risk Screen (FL‐DOORS), was used to assess the children's and parents’ situation and need for support or protection. The overall results based on the children's and the parents’ situations and experiences demonstrate that a collaboration team is a promising model. The development project (2014–2017) has demonstrated the importance of offering children and families preventative support at an early stage in order to avoid prolonged and conflict‐ridden separations.     

DIRECT PARENTAL CONTROLS AND DELINQUENCY*

Until recently, “direct controls” by parents have been summarily dismissed by delinquency researchers as theoretically and empirically unimportant. Although prior research indicates that various measures of direct parental controls (e.g., the amount of time spent interacting with parents) are related to delinquency, the correlations are uniformly weak and often not significant. However, when the term “direct control” is reconceptualized to include specific components—normative regulation, monitoring, and punishment—the results indicate that direct controls by parents have as great an impact on delinquency as that of “direct controls” or parental “attachments.” Further, the results suggest that the form of the relation between direct controls and delinquency is not simple, direct, and linear. Depending on which specific component of direct control is examined, its relationship to delinquency may be either linear or nonlinear, positive or inverse.     

Reforming Relocation Law: A Reply to Prof. Thompson

This article provides a response to Prof. Thomson's critique, noting many points of agreement and also the broader consensus that is emerging among experts in the field. The research evidence, and the wider body of knowledge on children's well‐being generally, supports the proposition that relocation is a risk factor for children after parental separation but provides no support for a general presumption either in favor of, nor against, relocation. Nor should it be assumed that the interests of children are the same as those of their primary caregiver. We defend our three questions arguing the need in an adult‐centric debate to focus resolutely on children's interests rather than on adult rights. Both Prof. Thompson's approach and our own involve guided decision making with the child's best interests as the paramount consideration—his through weak presumptions based upon research about how judges respond to relocation issues and ours through focused questions based on research on how parents and children respond to relocations issues. We do not consider that codifying the existing practices of the courts represents real reform. We identify various risks involved in using presumptions, but note that, in jurisdictions with limited publicly funded resources for individual case assessment, presumptions, burdens or guidelines may be needed to offer rough justice to impecunious parents.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Notes points of emerging agreement on relocation within the research community
• Explores the differences between the use of presumptions and focused questions and highlights the role of empirical research of the lived experience of children and families postrelocation disputes
• Identifies how the level of public resourcing for the family law system may impact upon decisions about the substance of the law concerning relocation

     

Children Resisting Contact with a Parent Due to Abuse,Alienation, or Other Causes: Can a Proactive Role for Lawyers Contribute to Better Outcomes?

Lawyers have a significant role to play in cases where children are resisting contact with a parent, or the family appears to be going down that path, in the context of parental alienation, family violence or other factors. These cases pose great challenges for lawyers dealing with parents, as their clients are often anxiety‐ridden, angry, scared, and may have difficulty focussing on the long‐term interests of their children or themselves. A lawyer may be one of the first professionals encountered by the parents; lawyers for parents are advocates, but they are also in a position to provide wise counsel, to help triage the situation, provide practical advice, and early, helpful solutions. This article sets out practical suggestions for lawyers acting for parents. What can and should lawyers do to ensure they are part of the solution, not part of the problem? Lawyers need to be able to identify the potential problems and provide practical help to the family – whether they are acting for the “preferred” parent, the “rejected” parent, or the involved children.     

RECIDIVISM AMONG PAROLED PROPERTY OFFENDERS RELEASED DURING A PERIOD OF PRISON REFORM*

Data from four successive yearly cohorts and one special early release cohort of parolees are used to explore the question of whether rapid statewide changes in the administration of criminal justice affected the patterns of recidivism among persons on parole for property offenses. Given the earlier broadly constructed research reported by Ekland–Olson et al. (1993), and their conclusion that variation in shifting policies would have different effects on different types of offenses, we decided to sharpen the focus of the research questions posed by concentrating on recidivism patterns among property offenders. Three alternative explanations—compositional effects, administrative discretion, and deterrence—are explored to interpret the differences found across cohorts While suggestive, these alternative explanations remain open to question given the limitations inherent in quasi-experimental research. Conclusions related to issues of prison construction policy suggest that more attention be paid to the “replacement factor,” whereby “vacancies” left by incarcerated offenders are rapidly filled by others. If future research supports the rapid replacement hypothesis, increased levels of incarceration will yield a larger, more experienced criminal “work force” and ironically a heightened collective potential for crime.