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.     

The State of the Debate About Children's Disclosure Patterns in Child Sexual Abuse Cases

In current research studies about the disclosure patterns of sexually abused children, experts agree that most victims delay disclosure for years, often until adulthood. Researchers disagree about disclosure rates and recantation rates among children during formal interviews. Studies of children who had not previously disclosed but are known through corroborative evidence to have been sexually abused show lower rates of disclosure than do studies of children who had disclosed prior to the formal interview. Gradual disclosures among children are common, and more than a single interview may be necessary in some cases. Prior disclosure, level of support by non‐offending parents, developmental level, and relationship to perpetrator affect children's rates of disclosure and their disclosure patterns. More research is necessary to clarify children's post‐disclosure recantation rates and predictors.     

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.     

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.