FATHERHOOD IN THE CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM: AN INNOVATIVE PROBLEM‐SOLVING APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM1

The article is a summary of the development of the District of Columbia Superior Court's Fathering Court Initiative. The Fathering Court Initiative is a problem‐solving court that has developed an innovative approach to child support cases that involves noncustodial parents returning from a period of incarceration. The program is designed to operate as a court based partnership between government and private sector organizations that match resources with family needs to promote responsible co‐parenting.     

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.     

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.     

A Coordinated Approach to Improving Outcomes for Substance‐Abusing Families in Juvenile Dependency Court

This paper describes a coordinated approach to providing enhanced services for substance‐abusing families in the juvenile dependency court. The enhanced services consisted of an interagency collaborative model including the Department of Social Services, Court Appointed Special Advocates, Public Health Nurses, and Family Support Specialists. The purpose of the intervention was to increase the likelihood of family reunification. Families were randomly assigned to either the enhanced services (N=48) or to a regular services group (N=41). Variables included social background factors, data related to court hearings and court orders, and final court outcomes regarding placement and custody. Significant factors predicting final placement of the child were completion of court ordered programs, a stable home, and mothers' cooperation and motivation. Families who received the enhanced services had significantly higher rates of reunification of children with parents.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.

     

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF SUPERVISED ACCESS AND CUSTODY EXCHANGE SERVICES

An exploratory outcome study to investigate the ability of a supervised access and custody exchange center to function as a safe visitation enforcement mechanism of the court was accomplished as part of a larger study investigating child well-being. During a 6-month period of program participation, frequency and consistency of noncustodial parents' access to children dramatically increased and interparental conflict significantly decreased, demonstrating that supervised visitation and custody exchange centers that function in partnership with family court during interim court processes can address the unmet needs of family court and high-conflict domestic disputant as well.     

Questions Every Judge and Lawyer Should Ask About Infants and Toddlers in the Child Welfare System

We need to change the culture in our courts. Instead of ignoring the special needs of babies and toddlers, we need to recognize that abused and neglected children are at risk for developing negative sequelae as a result of their maltreatment. The science of early development is unequivocal that early intervention can be effective. The following questions were developed as a guide for lawyers, judges, and child advocates in the child welfare system as a first step toward advocacy and intervention for young children. Armed with the questions, the scientific reasons they need to be asked, and the research that provides support, we recommend that these questions be used as a tool and be asked over and over until the needs of maltreated infants and babies are addressed. It is our legal obligation under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, and it is our moral responsibility to these young children.     

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.     

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).     

When the Bough Breaks the Cradle Will Fall: Promoting the Health and Well Being of Infants and Toddlers in Juvenile Court

Approximately one‐third of the children in the child welfare system are under the age of six. These children are almost invisible in our juvenile courts. It is now clear from the emerging science of early childhood development that during the first few years of life children develop the foundation and capabilities on which all subsequent development builds. Living in emotional and environmental impoverishment and deprivation provides a poor foundation for healthy development. These very young and vulnerable children are exhibiting disproportionate developmental and cognitive delays, medical problems, and emotional disorders. However, there is growing evidence that early planned interventions can help. The juvenile court must take a leadership role in focusing on the very young child and learning more about risk, prevention, and early intervention in order to facilitate the healing process.     

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.     

Troubled Children and Children in Trouble: Redefining the Role of the Juvenile Court in the Lives of Children

This Essay considers the emerging research in the area of dual‐jurisdiction children, often referred to as “crossover kids”—those currently or previously involved in maltreatment proceedings who have also committed delinquent acts. Part I describes the development of the juvenile courts in the early twentieth century. Part II of this Essay questions the need to “track” children along one legal path or another and points to the pitfalls of providing services to some children through a criminal justice paradigm instead of treating all children through a social work paradigm. Finally, Part III advocates a redesign of the juvenile court—a return to its roots—to better enable a court to consider the needs of the whole child, in context with the needs of her/his family.     

WORKING TOGETHER

Family Court of Australia has employed four Aboriginal Family Consultants within the Family Court Mediation Service in Darwin and Alice Springs. The consultants were selected from local indigenous people and assist indigenous families who are often in heated dispute over children following family breakdown and separation. The program ultimately seeks to promote access to justice for Aboriginal and Torres Stvait Islander people in the jurisdiction of family law. The program seeks to achieve this by assisting indigenous people to access and utilize the dispute resolution services provided by the Family Court. Family consultants work closely with court mediators in responding to the needs and issues of indigenous families in dispute. The article describes the model of intervention adopted and highlights the benefits of the program with reference to case studies.     

Expressed‐Interest Legal Representation for Children in Substitute Care: Evaluation of the Impact of Representation on Children's Permanency Outcomes

Based on a combination of administrative data; juvenile court record review; and informed‐participant interviews of juvenile court judges, attorneys, and service providers, the current study examines the impact of the Foster Children's Project (FCP). FCP is a program that provides professional legal representation to children in substitute care. Legal representation by FCP attorneys is found to increase the rate of children's exit to adoption, leading to a higher overall rate of exit to permanence. The rate of exit to reunification is not, however, found to be affected by FCP representation. Implications for juvenile court policy and practice are discussed.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• The study is the first of its kind to examine the impact of client‐directed representation in cases of children in foster care through examination of Palm Beach County's Foster Children's Project (FCP), which provides professional legal representation to those in state care.
• FCP representation was found to increase the rate of children's exit to adoption, leading to a higher overall rate of exit to permanence. The rate of exit to reunification, however, remained stable.
• Research findings are based on administrative data; juvenile court record review; and interviews of juvenile court judges, attorneys, and service providers.

     

Healing Families: An Outcome Evaluation of a Community Family Court

In this paper, a model community family court program that seeks to break the intergenerational cycle of crime and substance abuse by treating families holistically will be presented. This model court seeks to reduce crime and provide safe and permanent homes for children of substance‐abusing parents. In this community family court, the prototypical problem‐solving court has been both focused and expanded. The community family court provides a focused response designed to address the unique combination of problems facing families on a family‐by‐family basis. At the same time, supervision and treatment services have been expanded to include every family member and all open court cases including criminal charges, juvenile delinquency, dependency, and civil cases. An overview of the court's evolution and discussion of integrated services designed to provide a wraparound style intervention will be highlighted as key contributors to the largely positive results of this community family court's evaluation.     

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.