Bringing Justice Back to the Community

As states and local governments struggle to meet the demands of increasing workloads with decreasing revenues, a strategy is emerging that brings new energy and resources to the juvenile justice system. This strategy, Community Justice, empowers the community to prevent and resolve problems once thought to be the exclusive responsibility of the justice system. Juvenile courts operating within this new approach are discovering that community residents are willing to become actively involved when allowed to participate in defining the goals, objectives, and their roles in furthering community safety. This article describes this new approach, provides examples of promising practices, and articulates the crucial role of the court in promoting community justice strategies.     

Babies Can't Wait: A Judicial Response

During my career as a Family Court Judge over the past 12 years, I was faced daily with the difficult task of deciding whether or not to remove a newborn infant from the care of her mother and place the child in foster care upon discharge from the hospital. In the huge majority of cases, removal was ordered based upon the mother's history of substance abuse and the subsequent positive toxicology of the infant at birth. I could not risk the health and safety of this often premature and vulnerable infant to a mother with such an addiction to drugs that she would expose her child in utero to these toxic substances. Such a mother was incapable of caring for the basic needs of this vulnerable infant, and therefore removal was ordered. This decision saddened me because, as a mother myself, I knew of the critical bond existing between infant and mother during those critical first days and weeks of a child's life. That bond must be nurtured and strengthened and is crucial to a child's development.     

A Model Response to Truancy Prevention: The Louisville Truancy Court Diversion Project

The Jefferson County Truancy Diversion Project in Louisville, Ky., is a judicially‐driven school and community initiative created to improve school attendance and to enhance family function and behavior. Initiated in 1997, this program brings the judge and community resources directly to the schools and students for a hands‐on, no‐efforts‐spared intervention. Now a national model, this program has far‐reaching implications in the prevention of juvenile delinquent behavior and in the establishment and preservation of safe and permanent homes for children. This article addresses the history and methodology for program implementation.     

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 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.     

The Transition to Group Decision Making in Child Protection Cases: Obtaining Better Results for Children and Families

It was only a few years ago that in most jurisdictions across the United States, decisions at each stage of a child welfare case were made by individual professionals (law enforcement, child protection workers, social workers, and judges) who were all a part of the community's response to child abuse and neglect crises. In the last decade, the development and continuing evolution of best practices have brought about many changes in how professionals approach the resolution of these issues, how they convene interested persons in the decision‐making process, and how families and children participate in decisions. This article will examine some of these changes, with a particular focus on the expanding use of groups and the inclusion of families in these groups to make better decisions in child protection cases.     

High Conflict Divorce,Violence, and Abuse: Implications for Custody and Visitation Decisions

Today, judges are faced with the daunting task of determining the best interests of the child and making appropriate custody awards to that end. The best interests of children becomes a critical question when domestic violence is involved; yet, determining what constitutes domestic violence is often debated. Research is often divided on what constitutes domestic violence. One body of research focuses on conflict, another focuses on domestic violence. What the first group identifies as intense emotional distress and disagreement, the other identifies as abuse. Judges making custody determinations in such cases are faced with the difficult challenge of distinguishing between a divorce with “high conflict” and a domestic violence case with ongoing abuse. This article will summarize the legal, philosophical, and historical understandings of the “high conflict” family and its potential impact on children. It will also provide practical judicial guidelines for making the important distinction between high conflict and domestic violence and subsequently crafting appropriate and safe child custody awards.     

Juvenile Mental Health Court: Rationale and Protocols

Under the sponsorship of the judiciary, the Santa Clara County, California Juvenile Court, in partnership with the Juvenile Mental Health Department and a technical assistance agency (SOLOMON), has pioneered a Juvenile Mental Health Court for seriously mentally ill children who have become involved in the criminal justice system. The judiciary, probation department, district attorney, public defender, county counsel, and service providers have collectively embarked upon the implementation of a modern approach to mental health diagnosis, triage, and treatment services for youth and families who come in contact with the justice system as a result of the combination of serious mental illness and juvenile delinquency. This article presents the court's rationale and protocols.