MEDIATION AND THE DEPENDENCY COURT

This study examines mediation in three dependency courts in the United States and identifies major policy questions regarding the use of mediation in these proceedings.     

THE TRUANCY COURT DIVERSION PROGRAM OF THE FAMILY COURT,WARREN CIRCUIT COURT DIVISION III,BOWLING GREEN,KENTUCKY: AN EVALUATION OF IMPACT ON ATTENDANCE AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Educators, parents, and community services partnered with the family court judge to implement the Truancy Court Diversion Program (TCDP). TCDP significantly impacted unexcused absences, unexcused tardies, and academic performance of the elementary and junior high students participating in the program. Elementary participants were more likely to maintain their improved attendance following participation than were junior high participants. Nonetheless, junior high participant grade point averages increased during TCDP and were maintained subsequent to TCDP. TCDP was an effective intervention for improving attendance and academic performance and helping preclude future delinquency.     

ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER AND THE FAMILY COURT

A major focus of the Youth at Risk Initiative is the provision of appropriate community based mental health services to help prevent unnecessary residential placement of troubled youth and thereby reduce the risk of troubled youth becoming criminal offenders. Yet, inexplicably, one of the major factors contributing to the risk of criminal offending has received scant attention. That factor is Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). This article established the widespread prevalence of ADHD among troubled youth and hence, the critical importance of identifying and treating ADHD as an essential component for any best practices model for the Family Court. It also examined the major mechanisms whereby ADHD increases the risk for criminal offending.     

SOLVING THE FAMILY COURT PUZZLE: INTEGRATING RESEARCH,POLICY, AND PRACTICE

In my opening remarks to the 42nd Annual Conference of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, I discuss trends in family law cases from the Supreme Court of Washington and the U.S. Supreme Court. I also review the wide variety of advancements in the way that court systems approach family law cases. Noting a recent emphasis on the fundamental rights of parents, I advocate a new paradigm, moving away from a focus on the parents and toward a focus on the child.     

PUBLIC OPINION AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE JUVENILE COURT*

Over 100 years ago, juvenile courts emerged out of the belief that juveniles are different from adults—less culpable and more rehabilitatable—and can be "saved" from a life of crime and disadvantage. Today, the juvenile justice system is under attack through increasing calls to eliminate it and enactment of statutes designed to place younger offenders in the adult justice system. However, little evidence exists that policy makers have taken the full range of public views into account. At the same time, scholarly accounts of calls to eliminate the juvenile justice system have neglected the role of public opinion. The current study addresses this situation by examining public views about 1) abolishing juvenile justice and 2) the proper upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction. Particular attention is given to the notion that child‐saving and "get tough" orientations influence public views about juvenile justice. The analyses suggest support for the lingering appeal of juvenile justice among the public and the idea that youth can be “saved,” as well as arguments about the politicization and criminalization of juvenile justice. They also highlight that the public, like states, holds variable views about the appropriate age of juvenile court jurisdiction. We discuss the implications of the study and avenues for future research. Why is it not just and proper to treat these juvenile offenders, as we deal with the neglected children, as a wise and merciful father handles his own child whose errors are not discovered by the authorities? Why is it not the duty of the state, instead of asking merely whether a boy or a girl has committed a specific offense, to find out what he is, physically, mentally, morally, and then if it learns that he is treading the path that leads to criminality, to take him in charge, not so much to punish as to reform, not to degrade but to uplift, not to crush but to develop, to make him not a criminal but a worthy citizen.     

ROMANCING THE COURT

Problem‐solving courts, created at the end of the twentieth century, make court‐based solutions central to addressing significant societal problems, such as substance abuse and its impact on criminal activity and family functioning. Yet, lessons gleaned from over 100 years of family court history suggest that court‐based solutions to intractable social problems have rarely been effective. This article asks three questions of the problem‐solving court movement: What problem are we trying to solve? Is the court the best place to solve the problem? What are the consequences of giving authority to a court for solving the problem? Answering those questions through the lens of specific examples from family court—the original problem‐solving court—leads to the conclusion that neither the structural issues that courts face, such as overwhelming numbers of cases, nor the momentous societal issues that problem‐solving courts have recently begun to shoulder can be adequately addressed through court‐based solutions. The factors that allegedly distinguish new problem‐solving courts from earlier exemplars, especially the family court, are both less unique and less successful than they have been portrayed by problem‐solving court enthusiasts. These factors alone fail to justify the expansion of problem‐solving courts without further evidence of their effectiveness. Moreover, the potential dangers inherent in problem‐solving courts are not theoretical. By examining illustrative examples from the history of the family court, the dangers become clearly apparent.     

THE FUTURE COURT

This article sets forth the author's vision of a true family court. It examines some of the liabilities inherent in an adversary system and proposes a problem-solving approach.     

THE PRESS AND THE JUDICIARY： COURT AND JUDICIAL REPORTS IN THE PREss IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Western scholars have argued that image making and image management are a preoccupation of the judiciary. Images of the judiciary may take a variety of forms and be produced for kinds of audiences. One form of judicial image making and image management is live performances in the courtroom and other court settings. Another is the written judgment where the preoccupation is the style of the written text. Press and other mass media reports of judicial activity are another. The audience for judicial images is equally diverse, from fellow judges, lawyers in the courts and the wider legal community, the litigants before the courts to the executive, legislature and the public both in the courtroom and beyond. The image of the judiciary that is available to the public has a particular significance in Western rule of law democracies. As a general rule courts and the judiciary are required to operate in public and their activities must be open to public scrutiny. A recent policy manifestation of this goal is debated about confidence in the justice system and initiatives designed to improve confidence. In the majority of cases public scrutiny of judicial activity and public confidence in the judiciary relies upon the media. Objective and accurate press and media reports play a key role in shaping public understanding of the judiciary and generating or undermining confidence in that institution. Reports in regional and national newspapers have long been an important source of information, shaping public knowledge and facilitating public scrutiny of the justice system. In the UK, there is almost no scholarship on these representations past or present. The result is little known about the representation of the courts and the judiciary in press reports. Little is known about what the diligent reader of these reports can learn about judicial activity. The aim of this article is to take a first step towards changing that state of affairs. It uses a data set made up of 205 contemporary domestic newspaper reports of court and judi     

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.