The Use of Domestic Violence Advocates in Juvenile Court: Lessons from the Dependency Court Intervention Program for Family Violence

The Dependency Court Intervention Program for Family Violence (DCIPFV) is a national demonstration project awarded to the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida (Miami) by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. Developed by Judge Cindy Lederman and Susan Schechter in 1997, the DCIPFV identifies victims of domestic violence in the dependency court system. DCIPFV advocates provide a variety of services to such victims, helping them achieve safe environments for themselves and their children with the understanding that the well‐being of children can be better assured by addressing the safety and self‐efficacy of their mothers. This article discusses the DCIPFV program and makes recommendations for communities seeking to implement a similar program in their jurisdiction.     

A Family Affair: The Juvenile Court and Family Violence Cases

Little attention has been devoted to studies of adolescent family violence offending, yet research on adult populations show that victim relationship may make a difference in how offenders are treated in the criminal justice system. Given that the intergenerational transmission of violence may operate through adolescent family violence, a detailed examination of these youth is warranted. Through an analysis of detained youth in a small northeastern state, this study examines differences in court treatment between family and non-family offenders. Family violence offenders are significantly more likely to be minor offenders and to be female than are non-family offenders. Results of logistic regression show that, all else being equal, family violence youth are treated more leniently by the court than non-family offenders. Finally, while most youth are released to community dispositions, there are no differences in court-ordered family counseling between family and non-family offenders. These findings point to areas of needed research on adolescent family violence offenders and larger policy questions about how such youth should be treated relative to other youth. A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Denver, CO.     

Intervention for Abusive Fathers: Promising Practices in Court and Community Responses

Fathers who have abused their children or their children's mothers constitute a significant challenge to court and community service providers. Although legislation offers direction for court dispositions, resulting court orders are only the starting point for ensuring children's safety. This article begins with a rationale for expanding services to include intervention for abusive fathers. Using the Caring Dads program as an example, we identify four principles to guide appropriate intervention with abusive fathers and discuss their theoretical and practical implications. Throughout the article we contrast the model we are proposing with more traditional court and intervention program responses to abusive fathers.     

Juvenile Shackling Reform: The Judicial Role in Ensuring Trauma‐Informed Courts and Why States Are Rethinking Restraints

In juvenile courts around the country, youth are routinely shackled, without any evidence that these young people are a danger to anyone or likely to attempt flight. A number of states are moving away from this practice. Shackling reform initiatives are motivated by constitutional issues, emerging science around adolescent development, and a growing recognition of the need for trauma‐informed, evidence‐based courts. Judges are ultimately responsible for safeguarding the rights of the young people who appear in court, and must uphold the dignity of the courtroom. A review of jurisdictions that have adopted limits on juvenile shackling shows that these policies have not resulted in breaches of safety.     

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.     

Environmental Considerations for Trauma‐Responsive Juvenile and Family Courts: A Review of the Literature with Recommendations for Practice

Juvenile and family courts serve some of our most vulnerable populations, many of whom have experienced some traumatic event. People suffering with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are known to be more sensitive to environmental stimuli, and many of the environmental conditions within courts can be challenging for those suffering traumatic stress. Trauma‐responsive practices help foster conditions of healing, which can benefit both the court user and those who work within the court. Research reviewed in this article demonstrates the likelihood of negative behavioral and emotional responses to specific environmental factors for people suffering PTSD and other stress reactions, and offers recommendations to minimize environmental stressors.     

Using Reasonable Efforts Determinations to Improve Systems and Case Practice in Cases Involving Family Violence and Child Maltreatment

The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 reinforced that the safety, permanency, and well‐being of the child should be the primary concerns when making decisions about child protection interventions, child placement, and efforts at reunification. The court's role in oversight of agency practice in individual cases through the requirement of specific judicial findings as a condition of receipt of certain funding was also maintained and strengthened by ASFA. Based on the recognition of the number of cases where there is a co‐occurrence of domestic violence and child maltreatment, there is a need for communities and agencies to set reasonable expectations of good practice for responding to the issues raised. As the community sets the expectations of good practice through agency policy, training, and service delivery, the judiciary, through the findings regarding “continuation in the home” or “reasonable efforts” in each individual case, provides the oversight of practice required by ASFA. This article will explore the current applications of reasonable efforts, discuss ways that courts and communities are defining the concept, and examine the need for the development of a reasonable efforts protocol.     

Popular Constitutionalism's Hard When You're Not Very Popular: Why the ACLU Turned to Courts

Through a case study of the early American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), this article examines the empirical ramifications of constitutional scholars' recent exhortations to "take the Constitution away from the courts" in order to promote democratic deliberation about constitutional meaning. While it is now one of the most prominent examples of a litigation-based interest group, the ACLU began its existence demonstrating a commitment to constitutionalism outside the courts. Through coding a decade's worth of meeting minutes and examining archival sources, I demonstrate that the ACLU's mounting unpopularity rendered extrajudicial politics impossible, precipitating the ACLU's shift toward litigation. The ACLU's move toward litigation, despite its early devotion to political activism outside the courts, suggests that it is not always possible for political actors to make constitutional arguments without courts. Furthermore, the ACLU's use of courts to publicize and dramatize its constitutional arguments demonstrates that litigation may actually promote popular deliberation about constitutional meaning. These political realities both highlight and contradict two empirical assumptions underlying arguments about the normative desirability of restricting courts' involvement in constitutional politics. First, the state is not a neutral arena in which all political actors are equally free to pursue their constitutional visions through majoritarian processes. Second, courts may facilitate (rather than hinder) popular deliberation about constitutional questions.