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.     

National Courts,International Crimes and the Functional Immunity of State Officials

Netherlands International Law Review - This article examines the extent to which state officials are shielded from foreign jurisdiction by functional immunity when they stand accused of committing...     

Diversifying State Supreme Courts

Why do some states diversify their supreme courts sooner than others? Using original data on the first black and female state supreme court justices, I contend that political and institutional pressures influence when states diversify their high courts. The results suggest that selection systems, institutions affecting turnover, and the appointment of political minorities to the United States Supreme Court are associated with states seating their first black and female justices. The findings have implications for our understanding of the political and institutional circumstances that promote judicial diversity.     

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.     

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.     

Juvenile Diversion: An Outcome Study of the Hamilton County,Ohio Unofficial Juvenile Community Courts

An overall goal of juvenile diversion programs is to deinstitutionalize and decriminalize minor types of delinquent behavior by minimizing penetration into the justice system. Proponents of juvenile diversion programs have argued that diversion programs provide additional services to youths; and, since diversion programs are less stigmatizing, they may restrain the escalation of delinquency. Nonetheless, many diversion programs are never analyzed. This study describes and presents outcome data from a diversion program in Hamilton County, Ohio.     

The Policymaking Role of State Supreme Courts in Education Policy

In this article, I examine the relationship between courts and legislatures from a comparative perspective. Specifically, I discuss how (1) the ideological composition of the bench, (2) the propensity of court involvement in a given policy area, and (3) the presence of an advisory opinion affect the number of bill introductions and policy enactments by state legislatures. Examination of education policy in the American states reveals that ideologically distant courts limit the number of bill introductions and bill enactments in state legislatures. Alternatively, the presence of an advisory opinion increases policy introduction and enactment in state legislatures. A fundamental implication of these findings is that courts exert the greatest impact on policy during the introduction stage of the legislative process. Previous studies have not examined the introduction stage and have therefore marginalized the real impact of court influence on policy.