Center for Court Solutions
Center for Court Solutions
Who We Are What We Offer Key Topics Partner Courts News & Events Contact

 

 

 

 

Step 3: Identify potential solutions 

 

Potential strategies for building a more integrated, holistic approach to family cases are identified below.  Courts should consider these strategies in the context of their own legal and service cultures and resources and modify to suit their specific needs.

 

1. Ensure judge is aware of all relevant cases involving family members

Defining family

Determining relevant cases and information

2. Be sensitive to release of personal information

Public Access to Court Records

3. Contract for Attorney and GAL Services

Benefits

Concerns and How to Avoid Them

Establishing Performance Expectations

Selection Criteria

4. Ensure Effective Service Coordination

Identifying families and youth who will benefit from coordinated services

Methods of Coordination

Establishing stable and sustainable sources of funding for programmatic efforts

 

 

1.      Ensure judge is aware of all relevant cases involving family members.

This requires (1) defining “family” and (2) determining which cases and specific information are relevant to the current case.

Defining family
The definition of a family member has expanded during the last several decades. Section 741.28(3) of the Florida Statutes Annotated provides an example of the range of individuals who could be considered part of a family:

[S]pouses, former spouses, persons related by blood or marriage, persons who are presently residing together as if a family or who have resided together in the past as if a family, and persons who are parents of a child in common regardless of whether they have been married.  With the exception of persons who have a child in common, the family or household members must be currently residing or have in the past resided together in the same single dwelling unit.

Section 39.01(28) adds “the parent, legal custodian, or adult relative [who] has a legal responsibility by blood, marriage, or court order to support or care for a child,” and Florida ’s Family Court Tool Kit recommends the further addition of “siblings who may not live in the same house and/or siblings who share one parent” (p. 71).

Another consideration is how closely the court’s definition of family and that of social service and treatment agencies match. Case management and information-sharing is easier to the extent that definitions are common (see Flango, Flango, and Rubin, 1999; Steering Committee on Family and Children in the Court, 2003; and Uekert, Keith and Rubin, 2002).

Determining relevant cases and information
Another key issue is what types of cases and what kinds of information from those cases are relevant to the current case. If a disposition involves a determination of what may be in the best interest of a child, the range of cases that may be relevant can be quite broad. For example, court officials surveyed by Flango and Rubin (1992) associated child abuse and neglect cases with prior divorce, custody, delinquency, and domestic violence cases involving other family members.  Delinquency cases were linked with divorce, custody, support, status offense, and dependency cases. 

At a minimum, case information should include:

  • Case identifiers (name and number of the cases);

  • Case status (including the judge to whom it is assigned or who disposed of the matter);

  • Copies of interim or final orders regarding custody, support, living arrangements, visitation, incarceration, conduct of family members, and provision of treatment and services to the family or family members; and

  • Social, fitness, predisposition, and pre-sentence reports.

As court information systems become more sophisticated, a question that is likely to arise more frequently is the limits that should be placed on a search for related cases.  For example, is a mother’s ten-year old shoplifting conviction relevant in a custody or neglect disposition absent a continuing record of criminal activity? There is currently neither sufficient case law nor research to answer this question.  One possible approach is a presumptive “five-year rule” under which information such as that listed above would be provided to a judge in a disposition proceeding for cases involving the family within the past five years, together with a list of any older cases identified.

Examples and Resources

 

Return to TOP

 

2.      Be sensitive to the release of personal information.

While relevant case information needs to be available to those involved in a juvenile or family court matter, it is important to consider who should have access to the case information and what information should not be available to the general public. 

Public Access to Court Records
Inherent in developing an efficient and effective means for identifying and assembling information that should be available to family courts when making decisions regarding children and families is the responsibility for assuring that information which may harm its subject if publicly released remains confidential.  In family matters, most jurisdictions and commentators have long drawn a distinction between information related to a legal decision versus social, treatment, and financial data.  This distinction has grown even more significant with the advent of hacking, data mining, and identity theft. (See National Advisory Committee for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1980, in Examples and Resources).

The CCJ/COSCA Guidelines on Public Access to Court Records presume open access to court records, but common statutes and rules can restrict part or all of some records.  The types of information to which courts restrict access vary greatly among states.  The Guidelines list the types of information that courts should consider protecting.  These include:

  • Social Security Numbers;

  • Federal and state income or business tax returns;

  • Educational information protected by federal law;

  • Health and medical information;

  • Criminal history information;

  • Names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, places of employment of victims of crime, particularly victims of sexual assault, stalking, or domestic violence;

  • Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of witnesses in domestic violence and protective order cases (other than law enforcement personnel);

  • Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of persons under age 18;

  • Wills;

  • Mental health records including examination, diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment records whether or not related to a court proceeding;

  • Child custody evaluations;

  • Descriptions of an individual’s DNA or biometric identifiers;

  • Financial information including identifying account numbers on specific assets, liabilities, accounts, credit cards, or PIN numbers;

  • Proprietary business information;

  • Pre-disposition reports;

  • Judicial and court work product; and

  • Public employee personnel records.

An increasing number of states are presuming that juvenile and family court type hearings are open with judicial discretion to close them (Government Relations Office Issue Brief 2003, 2004). 

Examples and Resources

 

Return to TOP


3.      Contract for Attorney and GAL Services.

The practice of contracting for attorney services has become increasingly common over the past 20 years, including for children in neglect and abuse cases and more recently for parents in dependency and termination proceedings.  Jurisdictions across the country have begun relying on contracts to simplify the process for finding attorneys to represent indigent litigants and to introduce greater predictability and controls over costs (Spangenberg et al.).

Benefits 
Contracting for attorneys and GAL services results in a pool of experienced, knowledgeable lawyers in child protection matters who are easily overseen by the judges, and are able to manage the caseload effectively.  Contracting simplifies the appointment process, and, where annual fixed fees are used, it has been shown to both reduce transactional costs by limiting the number of invoices and disputes over billing as well as render the cost of providing counsel more predictable.  Indications of satisfaction include that contracts usually are renewed from year to year, and that most jurisdictions reported little difficulty in finding attorneys willing to agree to a contract.  Whether contracting reduces overall costs depends on the level of compensation provided.  In most of the jurisdictions, the contracting process appears to be relatively informal.  Oversight over attorney performance is provided by the trial judge (Spangenberg et al.). 

Concerns and How to Avoid Them
The primary concern about contracting for attorney services “is that contract programs will inevitably lead to a lower standard of representation through the bidding system, which emphasizes cost over quality” (Spangenberg et al.).  Consequently, many states have chosen to set a compensation rate rather than allow the market to set one through cost competition.   Most jurisdictions that contract for attorneys set a fixed annual fee.  This fee does not vary regardless of the number of cases assigned or the number of hours provided, but lawyers may be reimbursed for certain types of expenses in addition to the fee.  This mode maximizes the advantages of predictability and reduction of transaction costs. 

Establishing Performance Expectations
Regardless of the pricing model selected, the contract should include a list of services that an attorney is expected to provide.   Most jurisdictions that contract for services include such a list.  For example, the Agreement for Legal Services used by the 22nd Judicial Circuit of Missouri ( St. Louis City ) specifies that:

Attorney shall at all times be available to appear . . . for any hearing, including permanency and review hearings . . . .  In addition to any in-court activities, Attorney shall conduct investigations, respond to phone calls, respond to motions, research and file briefs, and undertake such other out-of-court activities as may be necessary to provide legal services to each parent to whom she is appointed. 

Selection Criteria
Most jurisdictions set forth only minimal selection criteria.  Clearly, the most important single factor is the qualifications of lawyers to handle child protection cases.  Other criteria could include:

  • The capability to manage the contract and provide the services efficiently and effectively;

  • The capability to create and maintain accurate records; and

  • Adequate professional liability insurance.

Examples and Resources

  • Agreement for Legal Representation of Children and Indigent Parents in Juvenile Matters Proceedings, Superior Court, State of Connecticut

Section 7 – Guidelines for Representation:

A.   Attorneys appointed to represent children and parents in Juvenile Matters shall diligently take steps to protect the interest of the individual for whom he or she is appointed to represent.

B.   Representation provided shall be in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct and the American Bar Association Standards of Practice . . . .

C.   Attorneys shall subsequently conform to the following guidelines for representation:

-     Attend and represent clients in all hearings, case management conferences, case status conferences, pretrial conferences, and all other judicial proceedings unless excused by the court.  (Other qualified counsel may substitute only in exceptional circumstances.)

-     Review court files, reports and related documents prior to judicial proceedings.

-     Interview clients prior to the initial court appearance in each case.  Suggested time frames are:

                                                   i.   Within three (3) days following service of a petition
                                                        accompanied by an application for an Application for an
                                                        Order of Temporary Custody (OTC).

                                                   ii.  Within seven (7) days following service of petition not
                                                        accompanied by an OTC.

-     Interview and present such witnesses and exhibits as necessary to assert the client’s position.

-     File all petitions, motions and other documents in a timely manner.

-     Obtain information concerning implementation of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) Treatment plan and other orders of the court.

-     Monitor DCF compliance with federal and state requirements for administrative review of treatment plans and hearings and participate in such administrative hearings as necessary to process the interests of the client.

-     Inform clients of the status of their cases.

-     Representation will commence with the filing of an appearance and conclude when the case is disposed, when a motion to withdraw has been granted, or when counsel is otherwise excuse by the court

-     Maintain complete financial records in all cases.

  • National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Final Report on the Validation and Effectiveness Study of Legal Representation through Guardian ad Litem (Washington, DC: USDHHS, 1994).

  • National Legal Aid and Defenders Association, Compendium of Standards for Indigent Defense Systems:  A Resource Guide for Practitioners and Policymakers ( Washington , DC : NLADA, 2000).

  • Spangenberg, R.L., et al., Contracting for Indigent Defense Services – A Special Report, ( Washington , DC : Bureau of Justice Administration, 2000).

 

Return to TOP


4.      Ensure Effective Service Coordination.

Many kinds of services can be coordinated for families, including probation, mental health, child protection, child custody evaluations, sexual abuse, anger management therapy, and substance abuse counseling (Flango, Flango, and Rubin, 1999).  However, ensuring effective coordination requires the consideration of many different components, including (1) identifying families and youth who will benefit from coordinated services, (2) using effective methods of coordination, and (3) establishing stable and sustainable sources of funding for programmatic efforts.

Identifying families and youth who will benefit from coordinated services
Families that will benefit most from coordinated services can be identified through the justice system or through community programs such as Children in Need of Services/Supervision (CHINS) and Family Assessment and Planning Teams (FAPTs).  CHINS addresses problems with children in the home as well as truancy.  In Virginia , FAPTs are comprised of supervisory level employees from community agencies, as well as a parent and private service provider.  The purpose of this community team is to develop a “wrap around care plan” that the family, the court, and relevant service providers all work from.

In the context of domestic violence, a resource guide was compiled for judges and court managers to facilitate the court’s identification of families involved in custody and visitation disputes that are either at risk for or are already affected by domestic violence.  The guide recommends that all contested cases be screened for domestic violence, either by reviewing pleadings upon case filing or upon filing a motion, by requiring all litigants to complete a screening questionnaire, or by searching other information systems maintained by related service providers in the community.  (See Domestic Violence and Child Custody Disputes: A Resource Handbook for Judges and Court Managers in Examples and Resources).

Methods of Coordination
There are two kinds of coordination for courts to consider; in-house coordination between courts of the same jurisdiction, and coordination of services between the court and community service providers.  With regard to the former, it is important that the various divisions and units within a courthouse or jurisdiction coordinate with one another to ensure that resources such as victim advocacy, safety planning, appointment of a GAL, and custody evaluations are provided consistently.  This in-house coordination can occur through a variety of means, including through an intake center, by assigning a case manager to each case, or by checking cases against a protection order database.  (See Domestic Violence and Child Custody Disputes: A Resource Handbook for Judges and Court Managers in Examples and Resources).

Common methods for coordinating services between courts and service providers are to either have a staff liaison from each agency assigned to a specific court, or to have representatives from agencies located in the offices of the court (Flango, Flango, and Rubin, 1999).  Coordination with outside agencies is facilitated by maintaining current lists of qualified service providers (mediators, custody evaluators, guardians ad litem, victim advocates, other victim services), establishing liaisons with service providers, and establishing communication mechanisms (such as periodic meetings among court staff and service providers). (See Domestic Violence and Child Custody Disputes: A Resource Handbook for Judges and Court Managers in Examples and Resources).

Another communication mechanism is the sharing of information through databases that can be accessed by both the courts and service providers.  For example, the Juvenile On-Line Tracking System (JOLTS) was developed by the Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts for use by members of the juvenile justice system such as state juvenile courts, child protective services, probate court, the attorney general’s office, and many more.  This system tracks the time that elapses between specific stages of cases.  The Family Automated Court Tracking System (FACTS) is used across the state of New Jersey for online case management, and tracks case history and state inquiries. 

In collaborative efforts between courts and service providers, it is important to establish who the collaborating parties are, the role of each collaborator, and how information will be shared between collaborators (Uekert, Keith, and Rubin, 2002).

One strategy for increasing the court’s role in the coordination of services involves integrating child welfare, juvenile justice, mental health, education, and substance abuse programs in a wrap-around model of service delivery.  The Comprehensive Strategy framework involves integrating public and private services that build on the strengths of each child and family and reflects evidence-based practices.  In order to implement the framework, communities need to complete an assessment of research-based risk and protective factors for delinquency in their specific jurisdictions and mold the strategy to meet their specific problems.  The community should also assess their at-risk and client populations for specific needs.  The active participation from the juvenile justice system is crucial because of its role in making determinations such as removal from home, involuntary receipt of mental services, and service coordination (See Howell, Kelly, Palmer, Mangum (2004) in Examples and Resources) 

Another justification for the active participation of the court in service coordination is found through the Mental Health Consensus Project.  This national project focused on defining measures for improving community responses to individuals afflicted with mental illness who are either involved with, or who are at risk of becoming involved with the justice system.  The report contains several policy statements and recommendations, 3 of which focus on effective collaboration:

  • Obtain and share resources

  • Share information

  • Institutionalize the partnership

In the development of the policy statements and recommendations, collaboration between the justice system and the mental health system was clearly a prerequisite for a community’s success in improving its response to individuals with mental illnesses.

Drug courts are especially well-known for bringing several stakeholders together in the effort to force substance-abusing offenders to confront his or her addiction.  One advantage of the cooperation between judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, substance abuse treatment specialists, probation officers, law enforcement and correctional personnel, educational and vocational experts, community leaders and others increased cost effectiveness of substance-abuse programs (National Association of Drug Court Professionals).

The use of case managers (also known as facilitators or court coordinators) can prove invaluable to family and juvenile cases. Such persons can provide intake/referral services, mediation or other ADR, a consistent resource or point of contact for the family, and coordination with service providers.  The result is less confusion for families, increased use of and access to appropriate services, and quality control over service providers and other resources for the courts. 

For example:

  • The Family Mediation Program at the D.C. Superior Court provides mediation services for parties with a family-related dispute such as custody, child support, divorce, and visitation.  

  • Maricopa County, AZ appoints a family court advisor if the court finds that parents are persistently in conflict; history of parental alienation, substance abuse, or family violence; concerns about the mental health of either parent; the children involved are infants or toddlers; a child has special needs; or it would be in the child’s best interest (Maricopa County Local Rules of Practice, R6.12). 

  • Other jurisdictions with statutory authority over parent coordinators include California , Colorado , Idaho , Massachusetts , Oklahoma , Oregon , and Vermont . (see Coates et al. (2003) in Examples and Resources).

  • Travis County, Texas (Austin) uses the Cooperative Parenting Program (CPP). Part of the program includes case managers who monitor cases, assure compliance, and maintain weekly to biweekly contacts with third parties to monitor progress (See Coates et al.)

  • The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Court Coordination Program is currently being piloted in eight communities to determine “whether a coordinator in the court structure can leverage the court’s authority to improve service delivery and outcomes for juveniles in cases that required intensive, specialized care from more than one agency”.  

Unfortunately, there are obstacles to effective coordination that judges and court executives must consider.  One obstacle can be the disparate definitions of services or criteria that are used by the different agencies and the courts.  A family that is eligible for a service under one provider may not be eligible for a different provider (see Anderson , 2000, in Examples and Resources).  In addition, an agency’s interpretation of a statute may be different than that of the court, which might delay the court’s involvement with a family in need of services if, for example, a protective order is filed with the court later rather than sooner.

Another obstacle is that the measures by which courts and agencies gauge performance may not be the same due to the differing overall goals and objectives of each institution.  This could lead to a conflicting focus of their coordinated efforts.  Furthermore, the methods for coordinating services that are successful in one jurisdiction may not be successful if applied to a different jurisdiction due to the fact that legal and service cultures as well as available resources vary across jurisdictions.  Integrating service coordination into individualized performance measures can help to adapt methods to the nuances of each jurisdiction and of each court and agency (Casey and Hewitt, 2001).

Establishing stable and sustainable sources of funding for programmatic efforts
While federal funding is often available to initiate a program or specialized court, several bits and pieces of funding at the state and local level are often patched together to sustain the program or initiative.  One study of so-called “hodge-podge budgeting” that examined the funding of drug courts in Arizona and South Carolina found that after the initial federal funds had been spent, funding was obtained through a variety of sources, including: federal funding from DOJ or Medicaid; state funding through grants, other state entities, discretionary budgetary funds or appropriations; county funding through appropriations, in-kind contributions of personnel and office space, supplies, utilities, etc., county probation departments and public defenders offices; probation fees; participation fees; donations; and other sources such as grants from private foundations and private insurance (see Douglas and Hartley, 2004, in Examples and Resources).

Many courts have begun setting up 501(c)(3) organizations and partnering with other non-profit organizations through bar associations, which allows for greater flexibility in the receipt and use of funds (Skove, 2001).

There are many resources for locating domestic violence-related funding opportunities, including NCJRS Family Violence Grants & Funding, Office on Violence Against Women, Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), National Institute of Justice (NIJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP).

Juvenile justice-related funding opportunities can be found at the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), National Youth Court Center.

Examples and Resources

  • Anderson, Jeffrey A. (2000). “The need for interagency collaboration for children with emotional and behavioral disabilities and their families”. Families in Society Vol.81(5), p.484.

  • Casey, Pamela and William E. Hewitt. Court Responses to Individuals in Need of Services: Promising components of a service coordination strategy for courts. (Williamsburg , VA : National Center for State Courts, 2001).

  • Coates, Christine A., William Jones, Phil Bushard, Robin Deutsch, Bethany Hicks, Philip Stahl, Matthew Sullivan, BeaLisa Sydlik, and Robert Wistner. “Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues.” Family Court Review 41 (October 2003): 533, 536-538.

  • Douglas, James W., and Roger E. Hartley (2004). “Sustaining Drug Courts in Arizona and South Carolina : An Experience in Hodgepodge Budgeting”, Justice System Journal, Vol.25, p.75-86.

  • Domestic Violence and Child Custody Disputes: A Resource Handbook for Judges and Court Managers. (State Justice Institute, National Center for State Courts, National Institute of Justice, 1997: 9-11).

  • Flango, Carol R., Victor E. Flango, and H. Ted Rubin. How are Courts Coordinating Family Cases? (Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1999).

  • Howell, James C., Marion R. Kelly, James Palmer, Ronald L. Mangum. (2004). “Integrating Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice, and Other Agencies in a Continuum of Services”. Child Welfare Vol.83(2), p.143.

  • National Center for State Courts, Funding State Courts Web Module, 

  • National Center for State Courts, Grant Solicitation/Alternative Funding Sources, 

  • National Center for State Courts, Family Violence FAQs, has lots of information on funding for domestic violence courts.

  • Skove, Anne . “Non-profit Status Options for Courts”, in Annual Report on Trends in the State Courts.  ( Williamsburg , VA : National Center for State Courts, 2001: 12).

  • Uekert, Brenda K, with Ann Keith and Ted Rubin. Integrating Criminal and Civil Matters in Family Courts. ( Williamsburg , VA : National Center for State Courts, 2002).

 

Return to TOP

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   Previous Step: Step 2: Determine Changes   << >>   Next Step: Step 4: Prepare Plan