Judicial Issues in Child Maltreatment

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Child Maltreatment book series (MALT, volume 2)

Abstract

This chapter outlines the expectations, legal constraints, and obligations of juvenile dependency courts. Both the expectations and constraints of the juvenile dependency court have been increasing over recent years. The role of the juvenile court judge has become clearer and more codified, as well as substantially more expansive – both on and off the bench. However, big questions remain about the direction of system change and the role of juvenile dependency courts. There is no national “standard” for juvenile court operation that has been adopted by all state and local courts. The knowledge and commitment of an individual judge coupled with the local mores and beliefs in a community all affect the operation of the juvenile courts across the U.S. Juvenile dependency judges are in a unique position to assume the mantle of leadership to effect system change and to bring dependency stakeholders to the table and to lead a change effort by nature of their positional power. Historically, there has been a dearth of rigorous research on juvenile dependency court practices, judicial decision-making, or the impact of the court on children and families. The future of research on juvenile dependency court practice is likely to continue with a greater focus on outcomes, further evaluation of established best practices, continued assessment of how courts react to new social issues, and an increased focus on objective performance measurement.

Keywords

Child Welfare Foster Care Child Welfare System Juvenile Court Child Welfare Agency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. (1997). Pub. L. No. 105–89, 111 Stat. 2115.Google Scholar
  2. Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. (1980). Pub. L. No. 96–272, 94 Stat. 500.Google Scholar
  3. Casey Family Programs. (2011). Ensuring safe, nurturing and permanent families for children: Foster care reductions and child safety. Seattle: Author. http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/pdf/FosterCareReductionsandChildSafety.pdf
  4. Casey Family Programs. (2011). New England safety and risk assessments. Seattle: Author. http://www.casey.org/resources/publications/pdf/BreakthroughSeries_NewEnglandSafetyRisk_FR.pdf
  5. Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93–247, 88 Stat. 4 (1974). Child Welfare League of America (2012).Google Scholar
  6. Chuang, E., Moore, K., Barrett, B., & Young, M. S. (2012). Effect of an integrated family dependency treatment court on child welfare reunification, time to permanency and re-entry rates. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 1896–1902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coakley, T. M. (2008). Examining African American fathers’ involvement in permanency planning: An effort to reduce racial disproportionality in the child welfare system. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 407–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Courtney, M. E., & Hook, J. L. (2012). Evaluation of the impact of enhanced parental legal representation on the timing of permanency outcomes for children in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(3), 1337–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dettlaff, A. J. (2012). Immigrant children and families and the public child welfare system: Considerations for legal systems. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 63(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dobbin, S. A., Gatowski, S. I., Litchfield, M. M., Maxwell, D. M., & Oetgen, J. A. (2003). An evaluation of Utah Court Improvement Project reforms and best practices: Results and recommendations. Technical Assistance Bulletin, 7(1), 1–147. Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.Google Scholar
  11. Dobbin, S. A., Gatowski, S. I., & Maxwell, D. M. (2004). Building a better collaboration: Facilitating change in the court and child welfare system. Technical Assistance Bulletin, 8(2). Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Retrieved from http://ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/Building%20a%20Better%20Collaboration.pdf
  12. Edwards, L. (1992). The juvenile court and the role of the juvenile court judge. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 43, 1–2.Google Scholar
  13. Edwards, L. (2005). The role of the juvenile court judge revisited. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 56, 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flango, V. E. (2001). Measuring progress in improving court processing of child abuse and neglect cases. Family Court Review, 39, 158–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gatowski, S., & Dobbin, S. (2008). Court performance measures in child abuse and neglect cases: User’s guide to nonautomated data collection. Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.Google Scholar
  16. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court. (1982). 457 U.S. 596.Google Scholar
  17. Green, B. L., Furrer, C. J., Worcel, S. D., Burrus, S. W. M., & Finigan, M. W. (2009). Building the evidence base for Family Drug Treatment Courts: Results from recent outcome studies. Drug Court Review, 6, 53–82.Google Scholar
  18. Han, M., & Osterling, K. L. (2012). Characteristics and factors impacting reunification outcomes among Vietnamese immigrant families in the child welfare system. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(1), 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hardin, M., & Koenig, S. (2008). Court performance in child abuse and neglect cases: Technical guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/223570.pdf.Google Scholar
  20. Hill, R. B. (2007). An analysis of racial/ethnic disproportionality and dispartiy at the national, state, and county levels. Seattle: Casey Family Programs.Google Scholar
  21. House Ways and Means Committee. (1990). Green book. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  22. Huddleston, W., & Marlowe, D. B. (2011). Painting the current picture: A national report on drug courts and other problem-solving court programs in the United States. Alexandria: National Drug Court Institute. Retrieved from http://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/PCP%20Report%20FINAL.PDF.
  23. Marlowe, D. B., & Carey, S. M. (2012). Research update on family drug courts. Alexandria: National Association of Drug Court Professionals. http://www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/Reseach%20Update%20on%20Family%20Drug%20Courts%20-%20NADCP.pdf.
  24. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (1995). Resource guidelines: Improving court practice in child abuse & neglect cases. Reno: Author.Google Scholar
  25. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2011). Right from the start: The CCC preliminary protective hearing benchcard study report – testing a tool for judicial decision-making. Reno: Author.Google Scholar
  26. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2012). Child welfare finance reform policy statement. Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.Google Scholar
  27. Oliveros, A., & Kaufman, J. (2011). Addressing substance abuse treatment needs of parents involved with the child welfare system. Child Welfare, 90, 25–41.Google Scholar
  28. Portune, L., Gatowski, S., & Dobbin, S. (2009). RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Supporting best practices and building foundations for innovation in child abuse and neglect cases. Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Retrieved from http://ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/The%20RG%20Supporting%20Best%20Practices%20and%20Building%20Foundations%20for%20Innovation%20in%20CAN%20Cases.pdf.Google Scholar
  29. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court. (1986). 478 U.S. 1.Google Scholar
  30. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California. (1984). 464 U.S. 501.Google Scholar
  31. Richmond Newspaper, Inc. v. Virginia. (1980). 448 U.S. 555.Google Scholar
  32. Russell, J., & Summers, A. (2013). Reflective decision-making and foster care placements. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(2), 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. San Bernardino County Department of Social Services v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County. (1991). 232 Cal. App. 3d 188, 201.Google Scholar
  34. Summers, A., Dobbin, S. A., & Gatowski, S. I. (2008). The state of juvenile dependency court research: Implications for practice and policy. Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.Google Scholar
  35. Summers, A., Wood, S., & Russell, J. (2011). Assessing efficiency and workload implications of the King County mediation pilot. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 1, 48–59.Google Scholar
  36. Summers, A., Wood, S., & Russell, J. (2012). Disproportionality rates for children of color in foster care. Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.Google Scholar
  37. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). Child maltreatment 2006. Washington, DC: GPO. www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/child-maltreatment-2008.Google Scholar
  38. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. (2012). Instructions for state courts applying for Court Improvement Program (CIP) funds for fiscal years (FYs) 2012–2016. Washington, DC: Author. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/policy/pi/2012/pi1202.pdf
  39. Westat & Chapin Hall Center for Children. (2001). Assessing the context of permanency and reunification in the foster care system. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  40. Wood, S. M., & Russell, J. R. (2011). Effects of parental and attorney involvement on reunification in Juvenile dependency cases. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1730–1741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jesse R. Russell
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nancy Miller
    • 2
  • Michael Nash
    • 3
  1. 1.National Council on Crime and DelinquencyMadisonUSA
  2. 2.National Council of Juvenile and Family Court JudgesRenoUSA
  3. 3.Edmund D. Edelman Children’s Court, Los Angeles Superior Court, and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court JudgesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations