How to Maintain Emotional Health When Working with Trauma

Vicarious traumatization, compassion fatigue, or secondary traumatization refers to the cumulative effect of working with survivors of traumatic life events as part of everyday work. Although this issue has been acknowledged and addressed among professionals such as police officers and medical professionals, it has been discussed less among juvenile and family court judges who also experience secondary traumatic stress. In fact, in one recent study, a majority of judges reported one or more symptoms of secondary traumatization. This article describes the common signs and symptoms of secondary trauma, job‐related factors that contribute to secondary trauma among judges, and the potential negative impact on organizational performance. The authors conclude with specific recommendations tailored for juvenile and family court judges.     

Judges’ Perceptions of Screening,Assessment, Prevention,and Treatment for Substance Use, Mental Health,and HIV among Juveniles on Community Supervision: Results of a National Survey

Juvenile Justice‐Translational Research on Interventions for Adolescents in the Legal System (JJ‐TRIALS) National Survey was funded in part to describe the current status of screening, assessment, prevention and treatment for substance use, mental health, and HIV for youth on community supervision within the US juvenile justice system. Surveys were administered to community supervision agencies and their primary behavioral healthcare providers, as well as the juvenile or family court judge with the largest caseload of youth on community supervision. This article presents the findings from the judges’ survey. Survey results indicated juvenile and family court judges were open to innovations for improving the court's performance, rated their relationships with collaborators highly, and appreciated the impact of screening, assessment, prevention, and treatment on judicial practices.     

Juvenile and Family Court Judges’ Knowledge and Attitudes About Sex Trafficking of Minors: Associations with Gender,Race, and U.S. Region

Juvenile and family court judges are a professional group that have a significant amount of decision-making power in cases of sex trafficking of minors. The purpose of this project is to examine the association of juvenile and family court judges’ gender, race, and U.S. region with their attitudes and knowledge about sex trafficking of minors. Drawing from a survey of 55 juvenile and family court judges in the U.S., this study used standardized scales to measure attitudes and knowledge about child sex trafficking. Results indicate some differences by gender and geography in a sample of experienced judges across the U.S. The consistency of these findings are discussed in the context of other research and implications for targeted training.     

Predictors of Initial Court Agreement and 1‐Year Relitigation in Title IV‐D Contested Paternity Cases

We examined potential predictors of initial court agreement and 1‐year relitigation in a sample of contested paternity cases involving unmarried parents coming to court to establish paternity, child support, and other issues. Cases participated in an RCT of a parent program and of a waiting period between establishment of paternity and court hearing. We controlled for RCT study factors and used baseline assessment data to predict likelihood of reaching full agreement in the initial court hearing and relitigation in the following year. Findings suggest that cases in which parents get along better outside of court are more likely to reach agreement and less likely to return to court. Additionally, particular parent demographics predict lower likelihood of reaching initial agreement (e.g., parents are non‐White, father earns below $10,000 yearly), more relitigation (e.g., parents are non‐White, mother earns above $10,000 yearly, father has children with others), and less relitigation (e.g., father earns above $10,000 yearly). Child demographics and most parent relationship characteristics did not predict outcomes. We discuss findings and offer suggestions for court interventions.     

DIVORCE AND THE FAMILY COURT: WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

Approximately 50% of couples who have separated report being victims of violence and/or emotional abuse by their former intimate partners. Family courts can make an important contribution toward reducing the number of intimate partners who report being victims of domestic violence and abuse during and following their participation in divorce proceedings in three ways. First, increase opportunities for participation in nonadversarial procedures. Second, implement mandatory assessment/screening for domestic violence using field‐tested instruments that link subscores on sets of items (e.g., control motivated violence, conflict instigated violence/abuse, substance abuse associated violence/abuse) with appropriate community‐based treatments and/or resources. Third, educate family court judges, lawyers, mediators, and other court personnel in the dynamics of domestic violence generally, as well as the dynamics associated with separation/divorce.     

The Impact of Safe Harbor Legislation on Court Proceedings Involving Sex Trafficked Youth: A Qualitative Investigation of Judicial Perspectives

The passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) facilitated the conceptual shift in reframing youth involved in sex trafficking as victims, rather than criminals. Many states have passed legislation in the form of Safe Harbor laws to protect sex trafficked juveniles from criminal charges and provide rehabilitative services (Polaris, 2015). Nevertheless, limited research has examined the impact of Safe Harbor laws and the role juvenile and family court judges play in how minor victims of sex trafficking are treated by the court system. Consequently, the purpose of this qualitative study was to examine juvenile and family court judges’ knowledge and perceptions of Safe Harbor legislation and identify legal challenges when presiding over cases involving sexually exploited youth. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with a national sample (N = 82) of family and juvenile court judges. Findings suggest that respondents perceive Safe Harbor laws to have positively affected both attitudes and practices, although several challenges and unintended negative effects were identified. Further, dispositional issues, difficulties with case identification, legal and policy issues, and challenges with interagency collaboration were identified as ongoing issues to address. Legal implications as well as practice and policy considerations based on the study findings are discussed.     

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.     

Faith in the Court: Religious Out‐Groups and the Perceived Legitimacy of Judicial Decisions

The question of whether judges’ personal characteristics and values bias their decision making has long been debated, yet far less attention has been given to how personal characteristics affect public perceptions of bias in their decision making. Even genuinely objective judges may be perceived as procedurally biased by the public. We hypothesize that membership in a religious out‐group will elicit stronger public perceptions of biased decision making. Using a survey experiment that varies a judge's religious orientation and ruling in a hypothetical Establishment Clause case, we find strong evidence that judges’ religious characteristics affect the perceived legitimacy of their decisions. Identifying a judge as an atheist (a religious out‐group) decreases trust in the court, while identifying the judge as a committed Christian has no bearing on legitimacy. These results are even stronger among respondents who report attending church more often. Thus, we argue that perceptions of bias are conditioned on judges’ in‐group/out‐group status.     

From Helping Court to Community‐Based Services: The 30‐Year Evolution of Australia's Family Relationship Centres

As a centrepiece of Australia's 2006 family law reforms, the community‐based Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) represented a major development in the Government's commitment to incorporate family relationship services into its family law system. This paper sees FRCs as a logical development of the original conceptualising the Family Court of Australia as a “helping court”. The paper suggests that the aspiration to create a helping court was partially achieved in 1976 via the creation of an in‐house family court counselling service, which was primarily focused not on law and legal principles, but on supporting the ways in which family members were managing the task of redefining relationships. While generally valued by judges and others, this service nonetheless found itself in tension with the Family Court's continued primary commitment to legally informed and adversarially driven negotiation and decision‐making processes. Since 2006, the creation of FRCs has spearheaded a family law system that provides relationship‐focused interventions away from the courts as the default option for most parenting disputes. Consistent with this aim, there is evidence of a diminished percentage of cases now requiring judicial intervention. The 2006 legislation also provides for courts to conduct “less adversarial trials.” Paradoxically, this has occurred alongside unequivocal evidence from the Australian Institute of Family Studies’ evaluation data that judicial officers are dealing mainly with families displaying seriously dysfunctional attitudes and behaviours. The legal challenge in dealing with these cases is for courts to provide child focused, fair and non‐destructive internal processes. In addition, however, it is increasingly clear that to support and help facilitate their decisions, courts also need good working relationships with FRCs and other community based services. FRCs and the 2006 reforms offer the possibility of moving beyond the ideal of a “helping court” to the broader concept of helping family law system.     

Perspectives on Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Dependency Court in Cases Involving Battered Mothers

A qualitative study was conducted involving clients, victim advocates, and judges participating in one of Miami‐Dade County's (Florida) “therapeutic” juvenile court based programs, the Dependency Court Intervention Program for Family Violence (DCIPFV). The primary objective of this study was to assess how battered mothers’ perceptions of the dependency court judges’ actions impacted the women's motivation to take appropriate actions to promote their own, and their child(ren)'s safety.     

Youth Transfer Decisions: Exploring County Variations

In an effort to control violent and chronic juvenile offenders, many state legislatures have created statutes that give exclusive jurisdiction to adult criminal courts for certain violent offenses. Much research has been conducted on juvenile transfers, but relatively few studies rely on official and self‐report data to evaluate this process. By using data from four counties within Washington State, this study examines how legal, extra‐legal, and organizational variables impact waiver decisions. In cases where youths were selected for transfer proceedings, data from official records are used to compare transfers within and between counties. In addition, interview data with juvenile court personnel (e.g., juvenile court judges, probation officers, legal advisors) are used to assess the factors associated with transfer decisions. Policy implications are presented along with recommendations for future research.     

FAMILIES,COURTS, AND THE END OF LIFE: SCHIAVO AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FAMILY JUSTICE SYSTEM

The article discusses a proposed universal adoption of comprehensive family law subject matter jurisdiction, inclusive of end‐of‐life (EOL) cases, as articulated in the unified family court (UFC) concept. It posits, using the Schiavo matter to illustrate the difficulties inherent in EOL disputes, that contested EOL cases are unlike other civil court cases in that they involve intimate facts and emotionally laden family dynamics. As such, these cases pose a distinctive challenge for the courts. The article suggests that contested EOL cases should be heard in a UFC because UFCs include alternative dispute resolution (ADR) protocols to deescalate family strife with the goal of facilitating out‐of‐court settlements and that litigation is an imperfect solution for an EOL dispute. It is also noted that judges presiding in UFCs are more experienced in handling fractious family matters and thus they are more likely to avert protracted litigation if the matter is not settled via ADR.     

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.     

Decision Making and Justice

This article considers how judges can improve decision making, especially in cases that involve children in the family court. It looks specifically at improvements that are being implemented in England and Wales following a major review of family justice in 2011. All judges need to be well‐trained and well‐informed if they are to make the best‐quality decisions they can. Three principles underpin the approach to improving judicial decision making, which must be systematic, evidence based, and tested, and the evidence that informs judicial decisions must be robust. Collaboration among professionals in the development of good practice, its dissemination, and its application should be the acknowledged goal, and it should involve the views and perceptions of the young people and families involved.     

A research note on the association between work–family conflict and job stress among Chinese prison staff

Job stress, which has been found to have numerous negative effects on U.S. correctional staff, occurs as a result of stressors in the work environment. Recent research in the U.S. suggests that work–family conflict (e.g. time-based conflict, strain-based conflict, behavior-based conflict, and family-based conflict) may contribute to job stress for correctional staff. This exploratory study examined how different dimensions of work–family conflict were associated with job stress by surveying 322 staff at 2 Chinese prisons, 1 for male inmates and 1 for female inmates, in Guangzhou. An Ordinary Least Squares regression equation was computed with the job stress index as the dependent variable, and the personal characteristics (i.e. age, tenure, gender, educational level, and marital status) and the four work–family conflict variables as the independent variables. The independent variables explained about 49% of the observed variance in the job stress variable. The personal characteristics, time-based conflict, and family-on-work conflict did not have a statistically significant association with job stress in the multivariate analysis, but both strain-based conflict and behavior-based conflict had negative associations.     

Modeling job stress among police officers: interplay of work environment,counseling support,and family discussion with co-workers

Existing literature indicates that various factors affect police stress. This article uses data from the ‘Work and Family Services for Law Enforcement Personnel in the United States, 1995’ downloaded from the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (‘ICPSR’) website. Respondents include 594 sworn police officers from 21 agencies in New York City. Using structural equation modeling, results indicate that sex, race, education, and tenure do not have a direct influence on total job stress, but have a direct impact on family discussion with co-workers, counseling support, and negative working environment. Rank has a direct impact on total job stress, negative working environment, and family discussion with co-workers. In addition, both negative working environment and counseling support directly impact police total job stress.     

Gender,Critical Mass,and Judicial Decision Making

We examine the role of gender in legal decision making by applying critical mass theory to the U.S. federal district courts. We analyze whether behavioral differences manifest themselves in the decision‐making proclivities of male and female judges, contingent on the existence of a critical mass of female judges at a court point (i.e., each city in which a district court is located). Our results indicate that women jurists exhibit distinctive behavior in certain cases when there is a critical mass of women at a court point. These differences are most significant in criminal justice cases; modest differences between men and women are also identified in civil rights and liberties cases. Gender is not significant in labor and economic regulation cases. These findings suggest that the increasing presence of women on the federal bench could have substantial policy ramifications in the American polity.     

Roles and Power within Federal Problem Solving Courtroom Workgroups

Problem solving (PS) courts (e.g., drug, family, gang, prostitution, reentry) are becoming more commonplace. Today, PS courts exist or are planned in nearly all of the ninety‐four U.S. federal districts. These courts focus on integrating therapeutic jurisprudence into the courtroom environment while emphasizing group decision‐making processes among courtroom workgroup members. In this legal setting, courtroom workgroup teams, regularly consisting of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers (POs), and treatment providers engage a collective, case management approach to decision making with shared power among team members. However, despite the court's therapeutic and collaborative design, we find that POs wield powerful influence in decision making. Informed by sixteen months of qualitative fieldwork, including semistructured interviews, observation of courtroom workgroup meetings, and court observations in five federal PS courts in three federal districts, we find that POs exert undetected informational, technical, and relational power within the PS courtroom workgroup. This role and its accompanying power transforms POs into key decision makers, regardless of PS court type, workgroup dynamics, and decision‐making style. The POs' role makes them critical contributors to the outcomes in federal PS courts with important implications for punishment decisions in the federal justice system. With an increasing number of PS courts currently in the planning stages at the federal level, our study has implications for the structure and decision outcomes in these growing courtroom workgroups.     

The judge's view of competency evaluations. II

Twenty trial court judges were surveyed to determine what information they considered pertinent in psychiatric examinations for competence. These judges showed a clear understanding of what they were asking for in ordering the examinations but also showed a significant tendency to use the competency exam to advise them about other issues in addition (e.g., dangerousness or the need for treatment). As a group the judges appeared to be eager for psychiatric input. Typical judges could be described as pragmatic in their views of psychiatry in the courtroom, having a relatively low level of expectation but a high degree of satisfaction with the psychiatric opinions they receive.     

The Prosecution Role where Courts Decide Cases

This article explores the role played by prosecutors during the court stage of criminal proceedings. It complements Peter et al.’s chapter on negotiated case settlements in showing how the power to decide cases is divided between judges and prosecutors when cases are taken to court. Providing information as to, e.g. what influence prosecutors in the 11 study countries have on what evidence is brought to court in “normal” and accelerated court proceedings, this chapter explores the balance of responsibilities in court rooms across Europe.