FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCING AND CHILD PROTECTION MEDIATION: ESSENTIAL TOOLS FOR PRIORITIZING FAMILY ENGAGEMENT IN CHILD WELFARE CASES

Family group conferencing (FGC) and child protection mediation maximize family engagement in child welfare cases by prioritizing families' roles in discussions and decisions. This article examines how FGC helps professionals to focus on family and community strengths, encourages family engagement, and provides targeted case plans for families and timely, permanent placements for children. It explores how courts and agencies use these interventions to empower families to contribute to resolutions in ways that are not possible in traditional litigation processes. These complementary processes help children and families by providing forums where families are allowed to make informed choices and take an active role in creating plans for their future.     

THE BEST SEAT IN THE HOUSE: THE COURT ASSIGNMENT AND JUDICIAL SATISFACTION

A survey of 355 judges examined the differences in judicial satisfaction between those assigned to problem-solving courts—such as drug treatment and unified family—and judges in other more traditional assignments such as family law and criminal courts. The unified family court systems, like drug treatment courts, have generally adopted the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence. Significant differences were found on each of the three survey scales: (1) helpfulness, (2) attitude toward litigants, and (3) positive effects of assignment. The judges who were in the problem-solving courts (drug treatment and unified family court) scored higher on all three scales than those who were not (traditional family and criminal court). The group of problem-solving court judges consistently scored higher than the other group of judges, with the drug treatment court judges scoring the highest. The group of traditional criminal court and family court judges scored less positively, with the criminal court judges having the lowest scores. The problem-solving court judges were more likely to report believing that the role of the court should include helping litigants address the problems that brought them there and were more likely to observe positive changes in the litigants. They were also more likely to believe that litigants are motivated to change and are able to do so. They felt more respected by the litigants and were more likely to think that the litigants were grateful for help they received. The problem-solving court judges were also more likely to report being happy in their assignments and to believe that these assignments have a positive emotional effect on them.     

WHEN IT HAPPENS IN A FAMILY: AIDING PARENTS OF SUBSTANCE‐ABUSING ADOLESCENTS*

This article first summarizes key data on the scope of teen substance abuse and the lack of teen access to needed treatment services. It then describes how and why attorneys may be helpful to parents who discover their teen's drug or alcohol problem and seek advice and counsel about the legal implications of various actions that can or may be taken. The article explores such issues as parents finding illegal drugs in the house or on their teen's person, various modalities of treatment and how family members are involved, how parents might secure residential evaluations for their youth without the necessity of juvenile court involvement (and why this is important), concerns about placing youth in unlicensed residential treatment facilities, health insurance coverage issues, home drug testing, and how past American Bar Association (ABA) policy on youth drug and alcohol abuse is being followed up with a new ABA project to aid parents of substance‐abusing teenagers and their families.     

“YOUTH IS ENMESHED IN A HIGHLY DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY SYSTEM”: EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILIES,PARENTAL INCARCERATION,AND JUVENILE COURT DECISION MAKING*

Although prior work has substantiated the role of external attributes in juvenile court decision making, no study to date has examined how family situational factors as well as maternal and paternal incarceration affect juvenile court officials' responses to troubled youth. Using quantitative and qualitative juvenile court data from a large urban county in the southwest, this study draws on attribution theory to examine how family structure, perceptions of family dysfunction, and parental incarceration influence out‐of‐home placement decisions. Findings reveal that juvenile court officials' perceptions of good and bad families inform their decision making. This study emphasizes the need to unravel the intricate effects of maternal and paternal incarceration and officials' attributions about families and family structure on juvenile court decision making.     

FAMILY BRIDGES: USING INSIGHTS FROM SOCIAL SCIENCE TO RECONNECT PARENTS AND ALIENATED CHILDREN*

This article describes an innovative educational and experiential program, Family Bridges: A Workshop for Troubled and Alienated Parent‐Child Relationships^TM, that draws on social science research to help severely and unreasonably alienated children and adolescents adjust to court orders that place them with a parent they claim to hate or fear. The article examines the benefits and drawbacks of available options for helping alienated children and controversies and ethical issues regarding coercion of children by parents and courts. The program's goals, principles, structure, procedures, syllabus, limitations, and preliminary outcomes are presented. At the workshop's conclusion, 22 of 23 children, all of whom had failed experiences with counseling prior to enrollment, restored a positive relationship with the rejected parent. At follow‐up, 18 of the 22 children maintained their gains; those who relapsed had premature contact with the alienating parent.     

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.