Juvenile Courts after 100 Years: Past and Present Orientations

Juvenile institutions were developed in the nineteenth century. In the United States, they prompted an extension of the parens patriae doctrine, which provided a basis for the creation of the juvenile court a century ago. The protective orientation of the court was intended both for juvenile delinquents and children in danger. Important changes have occurred since the 1960s. Procedural guarantees for delinquents and de-institutionalisation of children in danger have created a clear distinction between the two groups. Diversion has introduced an alternative to the court process. Policies aimed at young offenders have moved gradually in the direction of the adult criminal court model. The article presents an overview of this evolution, essentially for North America.     

Confidentiality and the Juvenile and Family Courts

Court proceedings and court records are traditionally open to the public. The courts are public institutions, and openness serves a number of important purposes including protection of the free discussion of governmental affairs and the enhancement of the quality and integrity of the fact finding process. But court proceedings also address family matters including adoptions, juvenile delinquency, child protection, and domestic relations cases. These types of cases often involve personal issues, and many family members would prefer that they remain private. In most states, many of these proceedings have been closed to the public. Strong policy reasons support both openness of family court proceedings and privacy considerations for family members, particularly children. This article addresses confidentiality in the context of juvenile and family court proceedings. It takes the position that the tension between these conflicting policies can be reduced if most family court proceedings are presumptively open, but judges are given the authority to place conditions on the information that can be revealed by observers outside the courtroom. Additionally, the article asserts that if the courts and the media take steps to change their practices and their relationship with one another, both the public interest and the confidentiality interest of the parties can be better served.     

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.     

Enhancing the Mental Health and Well‐Being of Infants,Children, and Youth in the Juvenile and Family Courts: A Judicial Challenge

At the invitation of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, judges from the 30 largest juvenile jurisdictions in the country and mental health professionals met for two days in Tampa, Florida, March 18–19, 2000. Their discussions over this two‐day period resulted in the first draft of this document. Meeting again in July in Snowbird, Utah, members of the group reviewed and revised the original document. This second revision was mailed to members of the group and to the officers and board of the National Council for their review. Comments from this second draft were incorporated into the final document as it appears in this issue of the Juvenile and Family Court Journal. The experience and expertise represented by this dedicated group of judges and mental health professionals is reflected in the contents of this paper. Each of the participants is actively engaged in the process of systemic change in the delivery of mental health services in their communities, each can recount both successes and failures in the process of creating this change, and each brings experience and insight to this forum. This position paper is intended for the use of judges, court administrators, and mental health professionals who work with youth in the juvenile courts of our country. It is intended as a basic framework for the development of community systems of care which will serve children, youth, and families experiencing mental health problems appropriately and well.     

Lessons Learned from Developing a Trauma Consultation Protocol for Juvenile and Family Courts

Juvenile and family courts hold a unique position among the many stakeholders that comprise a healing community for persons experiencing adversity or trauma. Specifically, judges and other court leaders can promote the implementation of screening for trauma, the alignment of appropriate and effective treatment for trauma when indicated, and the accountability of systems for coordination and support of such services. To that end, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges undertook a field‐based project — consisting of multiple semi‐structured court surveys — to elucidate the key features of a trauma‐informed court and how to assist courts in becoming more trauma‐responsive for both consumers and staff. With the assistance of courts in 11 pilot sites across the nation, the project has led to the development of a protocol called trauma consultation or trauma audit, which is outlined here. Our work in developing the consultation protocol highlighted the need to better understand (1) the prevalence and impact of secondary traumatic stress in court staff, (2) the potential for environment to contribute to traumatic stress reactions, and (3) the importance of consistent trauma screenings and subsequent use of findings. Practical suggestions for courts to become more trauma‐informed are also provided.     

Knocking on the Door: Juvenile and Family Courts as a Forum for Facilitating School Attendance and Decreasing Truancy

While there is debate about whether courts should be involved in truancy reduction efforts, less recognized is how courts can impact school attendance without lengthening their reach or further penalizing children and families. Courts are already involved with school‐related decision making in child welfare and delinquency cases. This article reports on data from a qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives (N = 64) on school attendance in Maryland. Respondents suggested that courts adopt engagement‐focused approaches to guide their work such as family assessments, school attendance plans, monitoring coordination and delivery of services, and ensuring that agencies meet their obligations to children.