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.     

OVERCOMING BARRIERS FAMILY CAMP:A PROGRAM FOR HIGH‐CONFLICT DIVORCED FAMILIES WHERE A CHILD1 IS RESISTING CONTACT WITH A PARENT

Overcoming Barriers Family Camp is an innovative program designed to treat separating and divorced families where a child is resisting contact or totally rejecting a parent. Both parents, significant others, and children participate in a 5‐day family camp experience that combines psycho‐education and clinical intervention in a safe, supportive milieu. This article describes the components of the program, from referrals to intake to aftercare. Evaluation immediately following the camp experience is provided for the camps that ran in 2008 and 2009, and 6‐month follow‐up interview information is provided for the 2008 camp program as well as 1‐month follow‐up about the initiation of aftercare with the 2009 families. A discussion of the strengths and challenges of this approach with entrenched, high‐conflict family systems concludes the article.     

Cognitive‐Behavioral Methods in High‐Conflict Divorce: Systematic Desensitization Adapted to Parent–Child Reunification Interventions

Children who are triangulated into their parents' conflicts can become polarized, aligning with one parent and rejecting the other. In response, courts often order families to engage mental health professionals to provide reunification interventions. This article adapts empirically established systematic desensitization and flooding procedures most commonly used to treat phobic children as possible components of a larger family systems invention designed to help the polarized child develop a healthy relationship with both parents. Strengths and weaknesses of these procedures are discussed and illustrated with case material.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Family law and psychology agree that children should have the opportunity to enjoy a healthy relationship with both parents
• Adult conflict can polarize a child's relationships, including rejection of one parent
• Existing clinical and forensic “reunification” strategies often prove inadequate
• Reliable and valid cognitive behavioral methods can be adopted to facilitate this process
• A cognitive‐behavioral “exposure‐based” reunification protocol is discussed

     

Family Drug Court,Targeted Parent Training and Family Reunification: Did this Enhanced Service Strategy Make A Difference?

This article reports findings from an evaluation of reunification outcomes for children and families who participated in a family drug court (FDC) that incorporated the use of two innovative evidence‐based parenting programs. In addition to comprehensive FDC services, families participated in the Strengthening Families Program and Celebrating Families!^TM programs in a sequential format. Data analyses were conducted on a sample of 214 children whose child welfare cases were adjudicated through the FDC and 418 matched comparison cases. Entry‐cohort survival analysis results indicated that families receiving FDC services were more than twice as likely to reunify in a 45 month observation window.     

Working from Inside and Outside Institutions: How Safety Audits Can Help Courts' Decision Making Around Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment

As systems begin to work collaboratively to address the overlap of domestic violence and child maltreatment, systems‐analysis approaches are also being explored to test the effectiveness of collaborative interventions in meeting the needs of victims and their families. The institutional safety audit model is one such approach currently being explored in sites across the country. Under this model, case files of families receiving services are submitted to an analysis that compares the interventions received with the needs that were demonstrated. Though still in a formative stage, the institutional safety audit has the potential to be used by the courts as an innovative information‐gathering tool on the effectiveness of court‐ordered interventions. This article will provide a detailed overview of the safety audit model, describe how safety audits are currently being used in the field, and discuss how the courts can incorporate safety audit findings into decision‐making around domestic violence and child maltreatment.     

Judicial Oversight of Parental Visitation in Family Reunification Cases

This article explores the issue of visitation between a child and parents in the context of child protection proceedings, addressing the following areas: 1) the importance of visitation in the context of family reunification; 2) the results of an informal study of visitation practices in several jurisdictions; 3) the law relating to visitation in child protection proceedings; 4) some best practices that have been identified by commentators; 5) the role of the judge regarding visitation issues; and 6) some recommendations for judges and court systems regarding visitation. The article concludes that visitation between a child and her parents often occurs too infrequently; as a result, the relationship between the child and parents can be damaged, the child can suffer further trauma, and the chances for successful family reunification may be reduced. Finally, judges and social service agencies can and must improve both the quality and quantity of parent‐child visitation.     

Designing Heart‐Based Systems to Encourage Forgiveness and Reconciliation in Divorcing Families

Conflicts in intimate relationships are often accidental, occasional, and unique; yet they are also systemic, repetitive, and alike. For this reason, they are amenable to systemic analysis and resolution by altering them at their chronic sources and applying the preventative methodology of conflict resolution systems design. The central difficulties with using traditional forms of conflict resolution systems design in marriages, couples, and families are that they do not effectively address the emotional meaning or significance of the conflict within the relationship; are not grounded in the heart; and do not address the intimate, relational aspects of intimate, affective conflicts. Marriages and families are deeply sensitive, highly complex emotional relationships that require systems design methodologies that are profoundly informed by the heart. This article proposes a heart‐based systems design approach that includes forgiveness and reconciliation for use in marriages and families, including those that end in divorce.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Conflicts in intimate relationships are accidental, occasional, and unique; yet they are also systemic, repetitive, and alike.
• Marriages and families are deeply sensitive, highly complex emotional relationships that require systems design methodologies that are profoundly informed by the heart.
• It is possible to create a heart-based systems design approach to marital, family and divorce conflicts that includes forgiveness and reconciliation.

     

Duel or Dual: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Parenting Coordination for Uber‐Conflicted Parenting Relationships

Parenting coordination for families struggling with severe conflict can be challenging for both the family and the parenting coordinator (PC). These families can put an inordinate strain on the PC as they lobby their positions and try to bias the PC against the other parent. The interdisciplinary dual‐PC model is an innovative approach using aspects of the collaborative practice model to enhance the efficacy of the process while utilizing the strengths of both disciplines. Through a case illustration, the identification of the family dynamics and situations that give rise to use of this approach shall become clear. This article also demonstrates the potential benefits to both the family and the PCs. All aspects synthesize into a cohesive, well‐balanced approach to the uber‐conflicted parenting relationships.     

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.     

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.

     

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.     

CHILD CUSTODY DISPUTES IN FAMILIES OF MUSLIM TRADITION

Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in America and by all accounts, there are 2.35 million Muslims in the country today. Muslims separate and divorce at rates consistent with the general population and almost half of those born in the United States are in relationships with non‐Muslims. It is not surprising that issues of religious education take center stage in child custody disputes. In addition, 64% of foreign Muslims cite the U.S. disrespect for Islam as the overwhelming factor in their resentment for America and Americans and they constitute the greatest potential risk for child abduction of American Muslim children. As more Muslim Americans separate and access the family law courts, we as lawyers, judges and child custody experts must be prepared to address the unique aspects of religion and foreign travel that these families present.     

Evaluation of the University of Denver's Center for Separating and Divorcing Families: The First Out‐of‐Court Divorce Option1

The Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families (RCSDF) is the first U.S. alternative dispute resolution model to provide legal dispute resolution, therapeutic, educational, and financial services to separating and divorcing families in a single location outside the courthouse. Data were collected on 82 families at entry and service completion: service utilization, process timeliness, family satisfaction, and outcomes. Parents were highly satisfied with the process and demonstrated significant improvements in personal well‐being, co‐parenting, parenting quality, and reported reductions in children's anxiety/depression. Community partners felt RCSDF was a positive innovation in their community. The RCSDF model represents a culture shift from an adversarial process to a cohesive alternative that supports the well‐being of all family members.     

The Greenbook and the Overrepresentation of African American,Hispanic, and Native American Families in the Child Welfare System

Effective Intervention in Domestic Violence & Child Maltreatment Cases: Guidelines for Policy and Practice (the Greenbook) provided a valuable framework for child welfare agencies, domestic violence agencies, and the courts to work together to address the co‐occurrence in families of child maltreatment and domestic violence. It did not specifically address the overrepresentation of families of color in the child welfare system or the disparity of outcomes for these families. Yet the Greenbook’s approach to systems change can be used as a foundation to implement strategies to reduce overrepresentation and to improve safety, permanency, and stability for children and families.     

Risk Factors for Family Abduction: Demographic and Family Interaction Characteristics

Previous research in the study of family abduction has been plagued by three problems in efforts to establish risk factors for the experience of these events: (1) failure to use appropriate comparison groups; (2) focus on only the most severe cases of abduction, without consideration of the full spectrum of these events; and (3) use of data drawn only from some “reported” source (i.e., police, court, or missing children agency reports). This paper addresses these three methodological difficulties, using data drawn from a national sample of families, and including both abducted and nonabducted children. We find that race, age of children, family size, and incidence of violence in the family all appear to bear on the risk of experiencing a family abduction event. Further, recency of divorce or separation appears to be associated with the risk for more serious or alarming cases of family abduction.     

Family Reunification Rights of (Migrant) Union Citizens: Towards a More Liberal Approach

Over the years, in the case‐law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) determining the availability of family reunification rights for migrant Member State nationals, the pendulum has swung back and forth, from a ‘moderate approach’ in cases such as Morson and Jhanjan (1982) and Akrich (2003), towards a more ‘liberal approach’ in cases such as Carpenter (2002) and Jia (2007). Under the Court's ‘moderate approach’, family reunification rights in the context of the Community's internal market policy are only granted in situations where this is necessary for enabling a Member State national to move between Member States in the process of exercising one of the economic fundamental freedoms; in other words, where there is a sufficient link between the exercise of one of those freedoms and the need to grant family reunification rights under EC law. Conversely, under the Court's ‘liberal approach’, in order for family reunification rights to be bestowed by EC law, it suffices that the situation involves the exercise of one of the market freedoms and that the claimants have a familial link which is covered by Community law; in other words, there is no need to illustrate that there is a link between the grant of such rights and the furtherance of the Community's aim of establishing an internal market. The recent judgments of the ECJ in Eind and Metock (and its order in Sahin) appear to have decidedly moved the pendulum towards the ‘liberal approach’ side. In this article, it will be explained that the fact that the EU is aspiring to be not only a supranational organisation with a successful and smoothly functioning market but also a polity, the citizens of which enjoy a number of basic rights which form the core of a meaningful status of Union citizenship, is the major driving force behind this move. In particular, the move towards a wholehearted adoption of the ‘liberal approach’ seems to have been fuelled by a desire, on the part of the Court, to respond to a number of problems arising from its ‘moderate approach’ and which appear to be an anomaly in a citizens' Europe. These are: a) the incongruity caused between the (new) aim of the Community of creating a meaningful status of Union citizenship and the treatment of Union citizens (under the Court's ‘moderate approach’) as mere factors of production; and b) the emergence of reverse discrimination. The article will conclude with an explanation of why the adoption of the Court's liberal approach does not appear to be a proper solution to these problems.     

Exploring Factors Which Lead to Successful Reunification in Domestic Violence Cases: Interviews with Caseworkers

This exploratory study investigated factors that Child Protective Service caseworkers believe lead to change for the domestic violence abuser and victim, and ultimately lead to success in terms of reunifying children who have been removed from their parents due to domestic violence. In-depth interviews with six caseworkers examined both successful reunification cases and unsuccessful reunification cases. The interview was structured around three areas of interest: services, the caseworker’s relationship with the parents, and social supports, in order to identify variables that may influence the family’s ability (or inability) to make the necessary changes for reunification with their children. Results revealed that successful reunifications took place within the families who fully engaged in services, admitted the issues within the family home, set clear boundaries with each other, and sought and maintained an appropriate support system. Implications for caseworkers involved with families experiencing domestic violence, as well as directions for future research, are discussed.     

The Child's Right to Family Unity in International Immigration Law*

Family cohesion is crucial to refugee and immigrant children. National immigration policies frequently give discretionary preference to family reunification, but subject it to restrictions, and seldom does domestic law grant the refugee or the alien resident a right to prompt reunification with foreign family members. While recognizing a right to family life, international law did. not in the past recognize a right of entry for the alien for the purposes of family reunification. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, however, requires states to ensure the child's right to family unity and entitles all children to family reunification.     

Innovative Family Mediation Research Initiative Embedded in the Community In Ireland

The Family Mediation Project is a not‐for‐profit means‐tested research initiative at Waterford Institute of Technology, based on an innovative family mediation model developed by Dr Roisin O’ Shea, following her Irish Research Council funded doctoral research. The project, led by W.I.T.’s Dr Sinéad Conneely (coordinator) and Dr Roisin O’ Shea (principal investigator), is test‐running the next iteration in family mediation, embedded in the community, comprising of the most effective elements sourced globally, with a particular focus on innovations in Canada, and is gathering empirical data to evidence outcomes. The final “real world” phase of the project commenced in May 2018, an exciting collaboration between voluntary, statutory agencies and a research institution to further test the effectiveness of this innovative approach on a larger scale at community level in the south Dublin area. This paper will discuss the project innovations and efficacy of the projects objectives, to provide effective mediation as quickly as possible for families and their children, within their community, by experienced family mediators, with hook‐ups and sign‐posting to trusted existing resources, such as the support services offered by the Family Resource Centres, and on‐line and face‐to‐face resources, with the court‐room as an end of pipe‐line solution or emergency forum only.     

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.