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.     

Questions Every Judge and Lawyer Should Ask About Infants and Toddlers in the Child Welfare System

We need to change the culture in our courts. Instead of ignoring the special needs of babies and toddlers, we need to recognize that abused and neglected children are at risk for developing negative sequelae as a result of their maltreatment. The science of early development is unequivocal that early intervention can be effective. The following questions were developed as a guide for lawyers, judges, and child advocates in the child welfare system as a first step toward advocacy and intervention for young children. Armed with the questions, the scientific reasons they need to be asked, and the research that provides support, we recommend that these questions be used as a tool and be asked over and over until the needs of maltreated infants and babies are addressed. It is our legal obligation under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, and it is our moral responsibility to these young children.     

Addressing Infant and Toddler Issues in the Juvenile Court: Challenges for the 21st Century

To achieve the goal of permanency for children in the child welfare system, it is critical that different disciplines work together, improve communication, and understand each other's role and expertise in the process. Through a case study, this article attempts to show the problems, conflicts, and solutions in working to ensure a child's best interests from three points of view: a children's attorney from New York City, a judge from Miami, Florida, and an infant mental health specialist and interdisciplinary trainer from Los Angeles. First, we propose that emotional caregiving is a fundamental right of all children and includes a stable, nurturing, and permanent long‐term relationship. Conflicts between the timing of children's needs, parents' needs, and the judge's legal duties are discussed as a tension with which we all must struggle to resolve if we are to successfully address children's “irreducible needs” (Brazelton & Greenspan, 2000). If the provision of custodial care shifts toward including emotional care as a goal for the growing number of infants entering the foster care system, the ensuing conflicts will provide opportunities for all parts of the foster care system—including the courts—to rethink how infants' needs are evaluated and factored into decision making.