How Are Courts Coordinating - CiteSeerX

How Are Courts Coordinating Family Cases?

Carol R. Flango,

Victor E. Flango, and H. Ted Rubin

StateJusticeInstitute SJI

1999 National Center for State Courts ISBN 0-89656-197-6 NCSC Publication Number R-212

This document was developed by the National Center for State Courts under a grant from the State Justice Institute (No. SJI-96-12C-B-222). The points of view expressed do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Center for State Courts or the State Justice Institute.

Advisory Committee

Mr. Michael Arrington, Esq. Delaware Family Court Director of Special Court Services 1st Federal Plaza, 704 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801

Honorable Arline S. Rotman Associate Justice Trial Court of Massachusetts Probate & Family Court Department 2 Main Street Worchester, MA 01608

Bonnie Homrich Deputy Commissioner 275 East Main 3W-A Frankfort, KY 40601

Carol (Lesniowski) Willetts Family Court Manager (Retired) Monmouth County, NJ 468 Millcreek Road SE Bolivia, NC 28422

Honorable Cindy S. Lederman Florida Circuit Court Eleventh Judicial Circuit 201 Juvenile Justice Center Miami, FL 33142

National Center for State Courts

Carol R. Flango Project Director

Chris Shelton Senior Court Management Consultant

Susan Keilitz Senior Research Associate

Tracee Washington Research Analyst

Valerie Hansford Senior Administrative Specialist

Consultants

Sharon Denaro 460 East Eighth Avenue Vancouver, BC Canada V5T-1S7

H. Ted Rubin Former Juvenile Court Judge 203 Granite Drive Boulder, CO 80302

State Justice Institute

Sandra Thurston Program Manager 1650 King Street, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22314

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their appreciation to the advisory committee members for their donation of time and ideas to the project. Their reviews and constructive suggestions to the project and its work products were invaluable.

It is difficult to list all of the people at each research site who contributed so much to the project. In Oregon, many people were involved: Chief Justice Wallace P. Carson, Kingsley W. Click, state court administrator, and Alice B. Phalan, from the Oregon Judicial Department at the state level; in Descutes County (Bend) Oregon, Ernest J. Mazorol, III, trial court administrator, Judge Stephen H. Tiktin, Bea Paulson, Carolyn Brooks, and Judge Alta J. Brady; in Jackson County (Medford) Jim Adams, trial court administrator, Judge Rebecca Orf, Ruth Miller, Chloe Sternola, and Jim Fong; and in Multnomah County (Portland), Doug Bray, trial court administrator, Judge Elizabeth Welch, Judge Stephen B. Herrell, and Judge Dale R. Koch. We also would like to thank the following individuals from King County Superior Court, Regional Justice Center in Kent: Linda Ridge, director, Judge Marsha Pechman, Mary Coleman, Ruth Garrett, Sharon Lendman, Nancy Bradburn-Johnson, Patricia Magnani, Eric Watness, Alice Wheeler, and Jim Reed. Our appreciation also extends to Michael Arrington, Susan Graham, Donna Ward, Jennifer Barber, Abigail Corrigan, Judge Peggy Ableman, Mark Burnitsky, Adrienne Koltenuk, Frederic Kenney and, Lynn Shreve from the Delaware Family Court, and Larry Webster, Delaware’s state court administrator. Also, Jim Birmingham contributed to the sections on the Louisville Family Court and Lauren Lazarus to the section on the Miami Domestic Violence Court.

Much of the information presented here was learned during the extended telephone interviews. A list of the people interviewed

vi • HOW ARE COURTS COORDINATING FAMILY CASES?

is found in Appendix A. Tracee Washington conducted many of the interviews. Data on technology coordination was provided by Kate Brault for the Maryland Automated Judicial Information System; Cy Guerney for the Guardian Ad Litem Information System (GALIS); Linda Heuretz on the CASA Outcomes, Management, and Evaluation Tool (COMET); and Jennifer Mankey for the Denver Juvenile Justice Integrated Network. Ursula Krueger provided information for the state/county child welfare administration in Chapter 4.

Roger Warren, president of the National Center for State Courts, was very encouraging to project staff; Dr. Brian Ostrom and Dr. David Rottman read the manuscript and provided many helpful suggestions. Dr. Pam Casey and Susan Keilitz contributed ideas and suggestions from their expertise and parallel projects. Tim Fautsko also provided the project with research results from his work in Kentucky. Karen Way and Rosalie Guerrero helped improve the manuscript’s readability; Pam Petrakis put the manuscript into publishable form; and Margaret Fonner helped with formatting. Dawn Spinozza copyedited the final publication and coordinated its printing. Special acknowledgment is made to Valerie Hansford whose hard work and unfailing good humor contributed greatly to this publication.

Finally, we are very grateful for the State Justice Institute’s support and Sandra Thurston, project monitor, for her help, guidance, and enduring patience to see this project to completion.

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 1 Chapter 1: Coordinating Family-Related Cases ........................................... 9

Which Cases Should Be Coordinated and Why? ................................................ 9 What Is a Related Case? ........................................................................................11 Issues in Identifying Related Cases .....................................................................13 Will Court Structure Promote Coordination? ....................................................17 Promising Coordination Mechanisms.................................................................20

Chapter 2: One Family/One Judge and Its Variations ............................... 23

One Family/One Judge: The Concept................................................................23 One Family/One Judge/One Hearing Officer...................................................26 One Family/One Judge/One Treatment Team .................................................29

Chapter 3: Court-Centered Coordination of Family Support Services .......................................................................................... 39

Intake Services ........................................................................................................40 Legal Representation of Families .........................................................................43 Coordination of Information ................................................................................50

Chapter 4: Coordination Between Courts and Human Service Agencies .......................................................................... 57

Court Partnerships with Service Providers and the Community ....................60 Coordination of Information Between Courts and Agencies ...........................67 Statewide Coordination.........................................................................................70

Chapter 5: Which Coordination Mechanisms Work Most Effectively?.................................................................................... 81

Quality Resolution of Disputes ............................................................................84 Services Tailored to the Strengths and Needs of Families or Participants .....86 Effective Access to Justice .....................................................................................90 Conclusions.............................................................................................................95

viii • HOW ARE COURTS COORDINATING FAMILY CASES?

Chapter 6: Creating a Family-Focused Court ..............................................97 Access ......................................................................................................................99 Expedition and Timeliness .................................................................................102 Equality, Fairness, and Integrity........................................................................103 Independence and Accountability.....................................................................106

Epilogue ............................................................................................................115 References.........................................................................................................117 Appendices

Appendix A: List of Courts and Interviewees............................................125 Appendix B: Coordination Mechanisms in Courts ...................................127 Appendix C: An Example: Case Coordination at Work:

Deschutes County (Oregon) Family Court..........................139

List of Figures Figure 1. Percentage of Family Law Cases with Pro Se Clients ..................45 Figure 2. Problems Experienced by Pro Se Clients in Family Law Cases ..........................................................................................46 Figure 3. Denver Juvenile Justice Integrated Treatment

Network Members............................................................................69 Figure 4. Denver Juvenile Justice Integrated Treatment Network .............................................................................................70 Figure 5. Family Self-Sufficiency Scale...........................................................88

List of Tables

Table 1. Types of Related Cases Involving the Family.................................12 Table 2. State and County Administration of Courts and Child Welfare Agencies..............................................................72 Table 3. Degree of Service Consolidation.......................................................74

Executive Summary

The goal of a court dealing with family disputes should be more than simply resolving the particular issues before them. Rather, such resolution should leave the family with the skills and access to support services necessary to enable them to resolve subsequent disputes constructively with a minimum need for legal intervention.1

This statement by the Governor’s Task Force on Family Law succinctly states the ultimate goals for all courts addressing family issues.

Cases involving children and families are increasing not only in volume, but also in complexity. Moreover, they differ from other cases in that they:

• May require coordination with other courts. Unless they

reside in a state with a unified family court, family members often are enmeshed concurrently in multiple actions in several courts;

• May be less adversarial, with the implication that alternative methods of dispute resolution, if available, are more likely to be used, and courts are more likely to face parties not represented by counsel;

1 Governor’s Task Force on Family Law, Family Court and Court Services Committee, Recommendations and Procedures for Establishing a Family Court in Maryland, Final Report (October 1992).

2 • HOW ARE COURTS COORDINATING FAMILY CASES?

• May require court monitoring after disposition. Even after a decision is rendered, children and families must come to court to review progress on supervision, service, and treatment programs, to adjust levels of child support payments, to review permanency plans, and to hear repeated violations of domestic violence protection orders; and

• May require coordination with social service agencies. Courts must often order, monitor, and enforce treatments recommended by human services professionals, sanctions sought by law enforcement agencies, and mandates imposed by federal and state legislation.

All of these key differences imply a strong need for

coordination. Cases that reach the courts represent only a very small proportion of instances in which families need the services of human service providers and other governmental agencies to resolve a myriad of interrelated problems. Courts and other governmental entities are realizing that dealing with each issue and each family member separately not only wastes scarce resources, but also fails to provide the family with the services it needs. Consequently, if issues are not addressed when first raised, families must return to court subsequently for related problems. Resolving only partial service needs of the family, or the needs of only some of the family members, transfers the problems from one human service agency to another. Coordination permits intervention earlier in the process, prevents courts and agencies from working at cross-purposes, and provides a consistent plan of service that should increase the likelihood of success.

The goal of this project is to catalog innovative coordination mechanisms used throughout the country and to offer them as a

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • 3

menu of options for others to emulate or adapt. Some methods of coordination are so new that evaluation of their effectiveness is not possible, but awareness of their existence may trigger experiments by other courts.

Court-Based Coordination

The conventional recommendation for achieving coordination is the establishment of a unified family court. All legal matters relating to the welfare of a family are heard in one court, which is not only convenient for the family but also efficient for the court. Bringing various types of cases involving the family into one setting facilitates, but does not guarantee, coordination. Moreover, absence of a family court does not relieve states of the responsibility to coordinate their response to the legal needs of families. In brief, coordination among cases is something that must be planned and nurtured regardless of court structure.

Michigan recently merged its separate probate court, which historically has handled both traditional juvenile and probate cases, into its general jurisdiction trial court. A comparable effort made by Multnumah County, Oregon, to blend the family and probate courts shows that the jurisdiction of family courts may evolve. Are these isolated examples of a different case blend for family courts or the start of a new trend?

Chapter 2 discusses the various one-family/one-judge/one-judicial officer methods of coordinating cases involving families. For example, one judge can hear a family’s cases that arise in two different courts, as in Jefferson County (Louisville), Kentucky. Deschutes County (Bend), Oregon, created a one-family/one-judge system without creating a separate, stand-alone family court. All of the judges in Bend maintain a general caseload and become family court judges for a specific set of families. Consequently, judges


maintain their continuity with these families and rotation is unnecessary.

The use of screening teams and treatment teams increases coordination and facilitates obtaining the resources so necessary for families with multiple service needs The use of nonjudicial hearing officers, as permitted in some jurisdictions, can be a helpful adjunct to judges. If greater judicial hearing officer continuity is a valid objective, then greater continuity of lawyer representation for adults, children, and the state, as well as increased continuity for intervention agency staff members, including probation department staff, should be advantageous as well.

Regardless of court organization, courts need to share information among themselves. This permits judges and judicial officers the most current, accurate information upon which to base decisions. Chapter 3 references the various types of automated information systems now in use for coordinating cases among courts.

Court and Human Service Agency Coordination To positively affect a family member’s behavior, thereby achieving a therapeutic outcome, family law remedies should reflect an integrated approach to family legal issues. This means that decision makers must consider all of the parties related to family legal proceedings, as well as all of the institutions or organizations affecting the behavior of families and children, including the community, peer groups, educational institutions, and religious organizations.2

2 Robert W. Page, “Family Courts: A Model for an Effective Judicial Approach to the Resolution of Family Disputes,” in ABA Summit on Unified


A discussion of the courts’ role in the coordination of cases involving children and families presumes that such a role exists. The role of courts is expanding in this area, not because courts are assuming responsibilities once held by child welfare or social service agencies, but because the need for coordination across courts and between courts and agencies is becoming recognized. The most important services required by children and families are the administrative responsibility of social service or child welfare agencies, but courts have the oversight responsibility to see that families receive services. State legislatures often impose a responsibility on courts to see that services are delivered. Indeed federal law calls on courts to monitor social service agencies.3 In many instances, courts are the service coordinators of last resort for dysfunctional families, matching the needs of individuals to the services available in the community.

Professional staff are needed to coordinate the delivery of multiple services required by families. These services range from the more traditional—for example, probation, mental health, child protection, and child custody evaluations—to the more recent—for example, sexual abuse and anger management therapy and substance abuse counseling. Regular family court coordinator conferences with the family and the human service agency staff foster the accountability of the family, the judge, and intervention agencies alike.

Some families need many services, and the court can help make it easier for a family to get the services it needs. For example, a judge can call for interagency coordination as part of a case

Family Courts: Exploring Solutions for Families, Women and Children in Crisis (Chicago: American Bar Association, 1998), p. 16. 3 See, for example, The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1997, Public Law 105-89, 111 Stat. 2115 (1997).


disposition. That call will be more credible if it comes from a judge obviously familiar with the various service options available. The judge can inform an agency representative present in court that a meeting should be arranged with another involved agency and that an oral or written report should be made to the court on or before a specified date. Agencies that frequently appear in court should designate a staff liaison to coordinate service delivery. Observation suggests that executive branch agencies appreciate judicial interest in their service delivery, and even judicial encouragement of service delivery coordination. Effectiveness of Coordination

How should the role of courts in coordinating service delivery be assessed? Although the goal of coordination of services is not in dispute, there is no consensus on outcome measures that should be used to evaluate success. Courts should be available to assist families in obtaining the social services and treatment they require. An assessment essentially entails evaluating the quality of the process, the timeliness of the decision making, accessibility, and the satisfaction of those who use court services. For example, unified family courts are being created to coordinate multiple cases involving the same family as well as the types of services required by families. Creating family courts does not automatically guarantee that service delivery is effective and efficient, however; evaluation is necessary to see where success is achieved and where it is not. Perhaps some jurisdictions without family courts are also very successful at delivering services to children and families. The point here is that all coordination mechanisms should be evaluated against stringent outcome criteria so that children and families benefit regardless of the court structure used by the various states.


Courts have responded to the challenge of handling cases involving children and families in a variety of creative and innovative ways. One of the primary benefits of the federal system of government is that states are free to experiment with procedures and structures that meet their individual needs. The ingredients for a family-focused court are listed under four of the key principles underlying the trial court performance standards: accessibility, timeliness, fairness, and accountability.4 In addition, the resources needed to make a family-focused court are outlined.

Families come to court for many reasons, and some families return to court frequently.5 For these families, a coordinated approach to the multiplicity of cases involving various family members and an integrated human service delivery system seems to hold the most promise of moving the family toward self- sufficiency. The basic premise is that an integrated approach not only will promote a better quality of court decision making by providing the judges and judicial hearing officers with accurate and complete information about the family, but also will make the best use of the limited resources the community has to strengthen families. Indeed, by working together, courts, human service agencies, and the community may be able to increase the total amount of treatment and other services available to families.

4 Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and National Center for State Courts (NCSC), Trial Court Performance Standards with Commentary (Washington: U.S. Department of Justice, 1997). 5 H. Ted Rubin and Victor Eugene Flango, Court Coordination of Family Cases (Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts, 1992).

Chapter 1

Coordinating Family-Related Cases

Which Cases Should Be Coordinated and Why? How much coordination is needed for handling family

cases? How can courts accomplish case coordination? And is it really worth the effort? The purpose of this study is to identify workable mechanisms by which courts and human service agencies coordinate cases and services for families.

Cases dealing with family issues, often called domestic relations cases, include child abuse and neglect, divorce, custody, child support, juvenile delinquency, domestic child support, juvenile delinquency, termination of parental rights, and domestic violence. These cases are often interrelated, complex, and require court monitoring after disposition. After a decision is rendered, children and families may need to return to court to review progress on supervision, for service and treatment programs, to adjust levels of child support payments, to review permanency plans, and to hear repeated violations of domestic violence protection orders. The existence of multiple cases filed in courts with overlapping jurisdictions often results in conflicting court orders and duplicative services, which ultimately can exacerbate existing problems as well as create new ones. Courts play a pivotal role at the crossroads of legal processes and social service interventions, and effective case coordination systems are essential to avoid fragmentation of services and misallocation of judicial resources.


With the increase in the volume and complexity of family law caseloads, the search for methods of coordination becomes critical. Domestic relations cases constitute the largest segment of state civil court workloads. Domestic relations filings increased 77 percent and juvenile filings increased 68 percent from 1985 to 1997.6 They represented over five million filings—one-third of all civil case filings during 1997. Juvenile court filings, which include child abuse and neglect cases, totaled another two million cases. Family-related criminal and probate cases, for which national numbers are not available, add even more to this total.

The Rubin and Flango research, which laid the groundwork for this effort, found that approximately 40 percent of families come to court for more than one case.7 These repeat users, or “frequent filers,” generated a disproportionate number of family law cases.8

Once the importance of knowing about current or previous case involvement is established, the question becomes, How do judges or hearing officers obtain information about related cases?9 Rubin and Flango found probation reports, social service agency reports, litigants themselves, intake officers, and lawyers to be the

6 Brian Ostrom and Neal Kauder, eds., Examining the Work of State Courts, 1997 (Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts, 1998). 7 Rubin and Flango, op. cit., p. 5. 8 “Frequent filers” from interview with Judge Marsha J. Pechman, Kent County Regional Justice System, King County, Washington, July 1998. 9 A survey by Rubin and Flango found that nearly all respondents agreed that knowing about related cases involving the family is important. Seventy-one percent of the respondents believed that it is very important that judges and court administrators are aware of current court actions involving a family; 27 percent said it was somewhat important; and only 2 percent felt it was not important. Sixty-two percent of the court officials said it was very important to know about previous court actions involving the family; 34 percent felt it was somewhat important; and 4 percent said it was not important.

COORDINATING FAMILY-RELATED CASES • 11

most frequent sources of information on related cases involving family members. Other informal methods cited were name recognition, prior acquaintance with the family, or “conversation over coffee.”

This study found related cases could be identified by active case screening at intake. Such screening involves checking databases, reviewing jail lists, and questioning the petitioner about other family law cases that are either pending or disposed. Database searches were also used to calendar a family member’s new case before the judge who had heard a prior case.

What Is a Related Case?

Do cases involving members of families arise with sufficient

frequency to justify a coordinated effort? If cases involving a family were a one-time event, settled by a single court visit there would be no benefit to consolidating all cases involving the family into one court or to designing record-keeping systems to monitor other cases in which a family might be involved. However, if some families repeatedly petition courts for relief in a number of different, but related cases, efforts to coordinate court procedures or even create family divisions or family courts, would be warranted.

To identify the frequency of related cases, Rubin and Flango used three different approaches.

• Surveys of parties to court proceedings, who were asked

to check off other family-related proceedings they had been engaged in during the past five years.


• Searches of court records for information on other family-related cases during the past five years.10

• A national survey that asked judges and court officials at 150 courts locations to estimate the frequency of family-related cases.

That study identified the other types of cases for which

family members—in court for abuse and neglect, juvenile delinquency, or divorce—had been to court previously. Table 1 shows the cases related to these.

Table 1

Types of Related Cases Involving the Family11

Related Cases as Identified by:

Stem Case Survey of Court Clients

Court Records National Survey

Abuse and Neglect

1. Delinquency 2. Custody/support/

visitation 3. Domestic assault

1. Child custody 2. Divorce 3. Abuse and

neglect 4. Delinquency

1. Divorce 2. Delinquency 3. Abuse and

neglect

Delinquency

1. Delinquency 2. Divorce

1. CHINS 2. Divorce 3. Related

delinquency 4. Abuse and

neglect

1. Divorce 2. Abuse and

neglect 3. Related

delinquency

Divorce

1. Child custody 2. Child support 3. Visitation

1. Domestic assault 1. Child custody 2. Abuse and

neglect 3. Domestic

violence

10 There were three research sites for this study: Hudson County, New Jersey; Fairfax County, Virginia; and Salt Lake County, Utah. 11 Case types are listed in descending order, with the most related case type as number 1.


Obviously, the type of case used as the “stem” to find related cases makes a difference. Child abuse and neglect cases yielded the most related cases, although a greater percentage of related cases were found in court records and in the national survey than in reports from clients. Divorce cases yielded the fewest number of related cases, especially since it was not possible to screen out those cases in which no children were involved. Divorces that involve children need to have related issues of child support and custody decided in the same court.

Issues in Identifying Related Cases

The proportion of case relatedness depends upon how one

defines a related case. Here family law cases are defined as cases involving the family in some manner, and include those involving:

(1) juveniles (e.g., delinquency, status offenses, dependency,

abuse, and neglect (2) marriage dissolution, custody, and visitation (3) paternity and child support (4) adoption (5) domestic violence protection orders, and (6) intrafamily offenses.12

12 H. Ted Rubin and Geoff Gallas, “Child and Family Legal Proceedings: Court Structure, Statutes, and Rules,” in Meredith Hofford, ed., Families in Court (Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1989). See also Page, op. cit., which includes management of minors’ funds, external review of children in placement, appeal of agency decisions affecting children, elder abuse, motor vehicle offenses of minors, and competency-commitment to mental health facilities.


Obviously, the number of related cases also depends upon the time period examined—there is more potential to find related cases over a five-year period than over a three-year period. The period of first court contact with the family also may be important. Some time must elapse before it can be determined whether a present contact is the first and only time this family will be in court or whether it is the first instance of what may be a series of repeated court contacts.

Many prominent groups have urged the creation of family courts or court divisions of general jurisdiction courts under the assumption that coordination would be automatic if only one court heard family-related cases.13 This perspective will be explored further in the section below, but establishing a family court does not resolve the issues of what type of jurisdiction it should have. Even ardent family court advocates debate whether intrafamily criminal cases, cases of elder abuse or neglect, and substance abuse issues are related enough to belong in family court.

Intrafamily Criminal Cases

Are criminal matters involving family members related

enough to be handled along with other family cases? Will family law judges, with their treatment orientation, be more lenient on offenders than a criminal court judge would be? Criminal cases require careful screening to reduce danger to participants, the

13 See, for example, American Bar Association Commission on Standards of Judicial Administration, Standards Relating to Court Organization, Standard 1.12 (1974); National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Report of the Task Force on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Standard 8.8 (1976); Institute of Judicial Administration-American Bar Association, Standards Relating to Court Organization and Administration, Standards 1.1 and 1.1B (1980).


availability of holding cells or additional guards, prompt bail hearings, and judicial officers knowledgeable about the criminal process. On the other hand, considering criminal cases as related cases promotes coordinated service delivery to the family. Moreover, imposition of some sentences—for example, incarceration—affects all family members and may affect resolution of family disputes or concerns, such as child support or child placement during periods of incarceration.

The special problems of domestic violence have proponents arguing whether the benefits of coordination of the delivery of services to the family and discouraging multiple interviewing of victims balances the difference in power between victim and victimizer.14 Concern over domestic violence jurisdiction may mask the conflict between the rehabilitation orientation of family courts and the punitive mission of criminal courts. Many family courts either do not have jurisdiction over intrafamily criminal cases at all or have jurisdiction only over misdemeanors. Hawaii’s family court division judges may waive criminal matters to the criminal division. Delaware’s family court authority includes misdemeanors but excludes intrafamily felonies.

Elder Abuse, Conservatorships, and Guardianships

Are cases involving elder abuse, conservatorships, and

guardianships related enough to other family issues to be included in the jurisdiction of courts serving families? The American Bar Association Commission on Legal Problems of the Elderly finds that adult guardianship, elder abuse, grandparent caregivers of

14 Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, Loretta Frederick, Barbara Hart, and Meredith Hofford, “Unified Family Courts: How Will They Serve Victims of Domestic Violence?” Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 32 (1998), pp. 138-40.


children, and end-of-life cases are appropriate for family courts.15 While mental health jurisdiction, a probate matter, is evident in several family court statutes, incorporation of the full probate workload is unusual in family courts. The merger in 1998 of Michigan’s independent probate court into its general jurisdiction trial court provides for a family court that incorporates an array of traditional probate features.

When the Multnomah County (Portland, Oregon) Circuit Court established its family division in 1989, the entire probate workload was absorbed. Probate matters are seen as the reverse side of child dependency and represent another form of protection case, which involves the elderly and those with significant disabilities rather than young children. Conservatorship cases, dealing with the money and property matters of one who is incapable of managing these assets, and guardianship cases, dealing with questions of type and place of care on behalf of aged parents or grandparents, are probate matters absorbed into that court. Further, the court’s mental health/illness cases sometimes interface with conservator and guardian matters. The presiding judge of the Portland family court finds advantages in including probate cases in the family docket. She notes, “Our judges have lots of scar tissue from their work with families and that enables us to do a really good job with these cases.”16

15 Erica F. Wood and Lori A. Stiegel, “Not Just for Kids: Including Elders in the Family Court Concept,” in ABA Summit on Unified Family Courts: Exploring Solutions for Families, Women and Children in Crisis (Chicago: American Bar Association, 1998). 16 Interview with the Honorable Elizabeth Welch, March 3, 1999.


Substance Abuse Other matters that do not traditionally fall into the category

of family cases nevertheless exert a strong impact over family cases. Substance abuse is one of these issues. The current chief justice of the New York Court of Appeals believes that crack cocaine cases have strained the resources of the court as well as child protective agencies.17 In New York, 75 percent of all new abuse and neglect petitions involve a substance-abusing parent. Are specialized Family Treatment Courts for drug-addicted parents and their children needed to meet the goals of early intervention, access to appropriate services, and consistent monitoring? Should family courts hear cases involving substance abuse, or would it be more appropriate for these cases to be heard in courts of general jurisdiction or specialized drug courts?

Will Court Structure Alone Promote Coordination?

Court structure affects a court’s ability to coordinate the

handling of cases involving the family. Cases involving families and children can be heard in courts of general jurisdiction, often called circuit, superior, or district courts. These courts have jurisdiction over all subject matter or persons except those assigned by law to limited or special jurisdiction courts. A special division of the general jurisdiction court may handle family cases.18 A family

17 Honorable Judith S. Kaye, “Changing Courts in Changing Times: The Need for a Fresh Look at How Courts Are Run,” Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 44 (1997), p. 851. 18 See Rubin and Gallas, op. cit.


court division parallels the court’s criminal, civil, and perhaps probate divisions. Judges are subject to assignment to another court division on a rotation schedule. Hawaii and New Jersey are two states that have family divisions of the general jurisdiction court statewide.

Some states assign particular types of cases to courts of limited jurisdiction. Domestic violence protection orders and intrafamily misdemeanors are examples of cases handled by courts of limited jurisdiction. In states where limited jurisdiction courts have jurisdiction over some family law cases, that responsibility is shared with courts of general jurisdiction. Conceivably, a limited jurisdiction court could join with a general jurisdiction court to create a form of a family court or at least to obtain prior case information from the other court. This has occurred in Jefferson County (Louisville), Kentucky, where court rules enable cross-certification of limited and general jurisdiction judges to form a family court division that cuts across both courts (though delinquency matters are excluded from this specialized handling approach).

North Carolina’s limited jurisdiction court provides another example of how jurisdiction can be divided. The family-related jurisdiction of the district courts are broad-based and include dissolution, delinquency/child abuse and neglect, paternity and child support, domestic violence protection orders, and intrafamily misdemeanors. The general jurisdiction court hears divorce and adoption cases. A family court was initiated in Mecklenburg County (Charlotte) in March 1998, with 9 of its 15 judges designated to hear family-related cases.

Other states have courts of special jurisdiction to handle cases involving families. Juvenile courts, family courts, probate courts, and chancery courts are examples of special jurisdiction


courts. The most common solution to the problem of coordination is to put all jurisdiction for family matters in a special, stand-alone family court. Judges in these courts may specialize for a lengthy term of office. Separate statewide family courts are found in Delaware, Rhode Island, and South Carolina.

Within the court community, the conventional method of achieving coordination has been the establishment of a unified family court. Unified family courts combine in one court traditional juvenile and domestic relations jurisdictions. They are a response to the intertwined legal, social welfare, health, and other needs of families.19 Advocates of family courts make the argument of organizational coherence. Matters relating to the welfare of a family should be heard in one court, not only to be convenient to the family but also to better ensure coordination of cases. A premise is that coordination will be automatic if a single family court or family court division handles all of the cases involving a single family.

Taking a holistic approach to the family will reduce the opportunities for inconsistent handling and errors based upon inaccurate or incomplete information. Moreover, the family will have to go to only one court for its proceedings, rather than going to different courts for different cases. Unified family courts are presumed to be in a better position to coordinate services needed by families.

19 Robert Page, “‘Family Courts’: A Model for an Effective Judicial Approach to the Resolution of Family Disputes,” Juvenile and Family Court Journal, Vol. 44 (1993), pp. 1, 3-5.


Promising Coordination Mechanisms Despite all of these advantages, a unified family court may

not in and of itself resolve all of the problems associated with case coordination. As Hunter Hurst has stated, “the simple act of placing all of the relevant family jurisdiction in a single division of the general trial court has done very little to improve coordination in some places.”20

Merely bringing various types of cases involving the family into one setting facilitates, but does not guarantee, coordination. Coordination among cases is something that must be planned and nurtured regardless of court structure. Because the family court is perceived to be the ultimate mechanism for case coordination, other solutions not requiring structural reorganization might have been overlooked.

This monograph is intended to help courts that are trying to improve ways to accomplish better coordination of family cases and services to families. Coordination mechanisms illustrated here are provided as working examples that may be useful to some courts, but no single coordination mechanism is likely to be appropriate for all courts. Indeed, the size of the court alone favors or disadvantages some of the alternative methods of coordination.

Coordination mechanisms with specific illustrations are discussed in more detail in the next five chapters. Through over 50 telephone interviews and site visits to Delaware’s family court in New Castle; three sites in Oregon (Jackson, Deschutes, and Multnomah Counties), and Seattle, Washington, project staff examined and documented a variety of case coordination initiatives. Appendix A contains a complete list of the courts and

20 Hunter Hurst, “Implications for Legislation in Court Coordination of Family Cases,” in Rubin and Flango, op. cit., p. 66.


their personnel that staff interviewed by telephone. Chapter 2 discusses the one-family/one-judge concept in sites with and without family courts while Chapter 3 considers other means of coordination, including automated information systems. Chapter 4 examines coordination between courts and human service agencies. Chapter 5 discusses court-centered performance measures that help courts document their services and effectiveness with families. The final chapter presents an overview of the ingredients all courts need to have more family-focused courts. Coordination mechanisms are listed on a matrix in Appendix B, complete with a contact for the reader who wants more detailed information. Appendix C contains an example of a family with a successful court experience.

Chapter 2

One Family/One Judge and Its Variations One Family/One Judge: The Concept

For one judge to hear a particular family law case from start

to finish, is advantageous because it concentrates all the information in one person, and reduces the chances of inconsistencies.

The question is whether judges should hear related cases involving family members. Obviously, it is preferable to have the same judge who hears the divorce hear the closely related custody, visitation, and child support matters, whether or not they are consolidated into one case. But where does the relatedness of cases stop? The process of bringing together an array of different family-related cases and scheduling these court matters exclusively and continuously before one judge is called one family/one judge.

The idea of one family/one judge is believed by some to be the embodiment of the family court.21 After all, repeated visits before the same judge are at the heart of coordination of cases involving the same family. This close association may make it difficult to perceive that the concept could be implemented differently, but it can be. It may be implemented partially. For example, a one-family/one-judge scheduling system in a juvenile court could mean that the same judge that hears a child’s dependency case could hear a delinquency complaint of a sibling.

21 See American Bar Association Commission on Standards of Judicial Administration, Court Organization (1974, 1990); Institute of Judicial Administration-American Bar Association, op. cit.; National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Courts (1973).


In another context, it could be possible for the judge who heard the domestic violence protection order to hear the later divorce proceeding that involves the same parties. Indeed, it is possible for places without family courts to embrace this concept.

Benefits and Disadvantages of One Family/One Judge

A major premise of the one-family/one-judge approach is that a judge who is acquainted with a family’s different legal concerns and social dynamics will make more informed and effective decisions than different judges hearing these matters simultaneously or seriatim. A corollary is that family members will feel better understood and more wisely handled by “their judge.” Further, since not only court systems but also social service systems often have many actors taking specialized but limited responsibilities with regard to family intervention, another premise is that a single judge can more readily facilitate improved case services coordination by several agencies. Family members are also more apt to obey court orders knowing they will return to the same judge. Because the parties are known to the judge, they are also less able to use the same arguments or excuses more than once. Also, when the system works, the family will experience fewer traumas and fewer court appearances because several matters may be consolidated into one hearing.

Of course, the one-family/one-judge model does not mean that judges must remain in one court for the rest of their careers. Even the most ardent advocates of this scheduling model realize that judges rotate off the family bench, and may be absent because of illness or other reasons. Although these types of events disturb the continuity of one family with one judge, shorter absences may be scheduled. One family/one judge appears relatively easy to schedule in a two- or three-judge court of any type, but difficulties

ONE FAMILY/ONE JUDGE AND ITS VARIATIONS • 25

in implementation mount with each additional judge. Court management and case flow management policies and practices need to examine the extent of the correlation and interactive significance between a court’s family cases.

When is one family/one judge unnecessary? Some proceedings are brief and establish no particular relationship between the judge and the family. An example is a noncontested dissolution that requires no more than five minutes and involves almost no interchange with the parties directly. Three years after the dissolution, the child of these parties is charged with a delinquent act. While the family may have preferred that the same judge hear the delinquency matter, continuity of judicial officers is not a compelling influence in this instance.

Another example is when judicial familiarity with the family over many cases threatens prejudgment. Judges in several Oregon family courts will not hear a petition to terminate parental rights if the judge had earlier heard and reviewed the abuse or neglect case that involved this child. And of course, a judge may “burn out” with a family and prefer to move this family to a different judge.

Some judges dismiss this concern, by noting the responsibility to avoid bias as they do in other cases not involving family relationships. A judge who “knows too much” may voluntarily recuse himself/herself from the next family matter or grant an attorney’s request for a different judge. The Freehold, New Jersey, Family Court Division takes painstaking care to separate all information from the court record about prior family cases until a youth has been adjudicated delinquent, and then provides this information to the judge at disposition.

Some judges may want to specialize in divorce or another family law area and would not be receptive to hearing other related cases. Conversely, even though some consider family law a


specialization in itself, judges hearing the full range of family court cases may feel uncomfortable in some areas of law. For example, judges trained in family law may be reluctant to hear criminal-type matters such as delinquency or intrafamily domestic violence, particularly if their prior law practice and recent judicial practice centered on divorce-related matters or other civil cases. Should these considerations play a role in case assignment?

Courts have long structured their calendars based primarily on what works best for the court and what is more efficient for court hearing officers and staff. What court clients prefer has not been examined particularly, but it should be. One Family/One Judge/One Hearing Officer

Courts sometimes employ judicial officers, who are not

judges, to preside over hearings. The decisions of these judicial officers, referred to variously as “magistrates,” “referees,” “special masters,” “hearing officers,” or “commissioners,” often are subject to review by a judge.22 They may hear preliminary matters and may have authorization to adjudicate and dispose of cases. While some courts authorize these officials to run the same dockets as judges do, more typically there are limits on their authority and role. Frequently one legal case involves proceedings before one or more of these officials and one or more judges.

A single point of contact seems desirable to make courts more family-friendly. One of the dilemmas facing state courts is the need to provide continuity to families requiring court services in a variety of cases while simultaneously permitting rotation among

22 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1995), p. 21.


judicial assignments to enhance professional experience and opportunities and to avoid judicial burnout. One creative response to this dilemma used by Wisconsin, as well as other states, is to use quasi-judicial officers as another point of contact for families coming to court. By disposing of uncontested cases and narrowing issues in contested cases, these judicial officers preserve judge time to conduct trials and perform other responsibilities that only judges can. Such a pragmatic approach to the allocation of judicial resources seems to run counter to the paradigm of one family/one judge. Yet, an influential American Bar Association (ABA) report, while urging a family court, encourages the use of nonjudicial hearing officers, mediators, court social workers, and other court personnel to handle numerous tasks currently performed by judges.

The duties of judges, who are the scarcest court resource, “should be limited to the resolution of issues that are best served by the adversarial process.” Expediting the court process and obtaining early resolution of disputes is the objective of this part of the ABA’s report.23 Indeed, by reducing the need for repeated judicial contact with the family, judicial officers preserve the objectivity of the judge for those cases that go to trial.

Some courts strive to have the same judge or judicial officer hear all stages of a single type of proceeding without expanding this responsibility to more than this single case type. For example, a judge will hear all aspects of a delinquency case from the detention hearing through adjudication and disposition. Subsequent delinquent offenses by the youth would go before the same judge, so long as this judge remains on the court. Similarly, one judge might conduct all marriage dissolution hearings:

23 American Bar Association, America’s Children at Risk: A National Agenda for Legal Action. A Report of the Presidential Working Group on the Unmet Legal Needs of Children and Their Families (1993), p. 54.


temporary orders, the dissolution hearing, determinations of child custody and support and visitation or property settlement, and subsequent hearings to rule on requests for modifications of prior orders.

Judicial officer continuity with all aspects of one case type in a multi-judge/judicial officer court is difficult enough. However, the accomplishment of this continuity in a court where this official is responsible for all cases at all stages that involve all members of a family poses immense challenges to the court’s organization and caseflow.

In general, the nature and extent of a court’s workload factor into the assignment of judicial officers. It is likely more efficient for one judicial officer to hear a consolidated juvenile detention hearing calendar each day, which may average 15 cases, than for each of five judges to intersperse three such hearings somewhere within their daily calendars. Strong arguments can be made that all subsequent court hearings need not be scheduled before the judicial officer who heard these brief five to ten-minute detention hearings. The counterargument emphasizes the value of one judge having case “ownership” from beginning to end. Complicating this scheduling issue in the teleconferencing world, as an example, is the fact that detention hearings also involve detention or intake probation staff, lawyers, parents, often transportation officers and guards, and holding cells. The issue of who shall be the judicial hearing officer needs to be orchestrated in conjunction with an effective coordination of the participation of these persons and related logistics.

While the one-family/one-judicial officer precept has advantages, full implementation may not be feasible in many settings. Courts can institute procedures to funnel record information about prior or concurrent cases to a new judicial


officer, without needing to return the individual family member back to the judicial officer leaving the earlier proceedings. Courts should consider which case types and hearings can most benefit from judicial hearing officer continuity. Preferably, the major hearings with any case type may require determination by a judge. For example, child abuse adjudication, disposition, review hearings, termination of parental rights, and adoption proceedings are integrally related and best heard by one judge or judge/judicial officer team.

Beyond this, legal and social case record information on other cases, furnished to the judicial officer at a time appropriate to preserve due-process, should result in improved decisions when court capabilities make one-family/one-judge scheduling difficult or impossible.

Probably any court system can improve its current calendaring approach to accomplish greater judicial hearing officer continuity. Court-related agencies, including prosecutors, public defenders and probation officers, may also consider offering continuity to families.

One Family/One Judge/One Treatment Team

One report suggests that “clients more strongly value

continuity in social service workers, probation officers, and other collateral court professionals than assignment to one judge.”24 Indeed, service continuity is a viable principle even for criminal

24 Linda Szymanski, Theresa Homisak, and E. Hunter Hurst, III, Policy Alternative and Current Court Practice in the Special Problems Areas of Jurisdiction over the Family (Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 1993), p. 13.


justice clients who are expected to return to the community.25 When it is not feasible to immediately pair a family with the same staff member each time it enters the justice system, there should be “a specific person who will be directly responsible for overseeing, coordinating, and guiding the development of each court’s comprehensive response to children and families in litigation, no matter what type of case has been filed.”26

Perhaps this variation of “one family, one treatment team”27 is a better statement of the possibilities than one family/one judge. Each court should have an intake team to coordinate cases. In the words of one prominent advocate for family courts, “Courts should have well-trained resource personnel at all levels, including magistrate hearing officers, special masters, mediators, court clerks, social workers and other service providers, who can perform triage.”28 Teams composed of professional court staff can proactively manage each case by providing intake, screening, assessment, calendar coordination, and case monitoring services to the parties and to the judges.29

Ideally, each case is evaluated at filing or intake to determine whether parties require immediate attention or referral

25 Kerry Murphy Healy, “Case Management in the Criminal Justice System,” Research in Action, National Institute of Justice (February 1999). 26 Report on the Family Court Pilot Project of the Judicial Council of Virginia (1992), p. 45. 27 Catherine J. Ross, “The Failure of Fragmentation: The Promise of a System of Unified Family Courts,” Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 32 (Spring 1998), p. 17. See also Jeffrey A. Kuhn, “A Seven-year Lesson on Unified Family Courts: What We Have Learned Since the 1990 National Family Court Symposium,” Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 32 (1998), pp. 67, 77-79. 28 Ross, op. cit., pp. 3, 18. 29 Jeffrey A. Kuhn, op. cit., p. 78.


for services. An ABA Presidential Working Group gives an example of how such a unit would operate:

[T]he case management unit would refer a family to parent education, to mediation, or to a judge for a protective order. The unit would consolidate and coordinate all pending cases involving one family and insure that services ordered by the court are provided. It would be a primary resource for informing families about available community resources that the family might wish to use. Finally, the unit could assist those who do not have legal counsel.30

The initial evaluation process may result in the scheduling

of an early status conference during which the judge can frame the issues, discuss settlement possibilities, and consider alternatives to trial.31 In Baltimore, the family division coordinator reviews all contested cases and screens those cases involving children for pending cases involving the same family and for cases suitable for mediation. The coordinator schedules the following events: scheduling conferences, settlement conferences, parenting seminars, mediation, and pendente lite hearings.32

30 American Bar Association (1993), op. cit., p. 55. 31 Barbara A. Babb, “Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law: A Blueprint to Construct a Unified Family Court,” Southern California Law Review, Vol. 71 (1998), p. 520. 32 Judge Albert J. Matricciani, Jr., “Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Family Division/Domestic Docket, Annual Report of the Family Division Coordinator 1997-1998,” in ABA Summit on Unified Family Courts: Exploring Solutions for Families, Women and Children in Crisis (Chicago: American Bar Association, 1998).


Some small courts have an ad hoc system in which clerks personally recognize family members or individuals. Other courts have created a specialized position to screen cases. Examples include the courthouse facilitator33 in Seattle, Washington, and the family advocate screening team34 in Bend and Medford, Oregon. A social worker, who assists in determining the social services needed and links families to the nonlegal and private assistance available, is on the court payroll in Jefferson County, Kentucky.35 Although the concepts explained above appear distinct, the implementation in practice has been diverse. Examples from research sites listed below illustrate the variety of ways in which the one-family/one-judge concept has been adopted. Delaware Family Court Delaware Family Court judges, appointed for 12-year terms to serve this court exclusively, rotate each year or two between the court’s two divisions—”at risk” and “domestic.” Only a very limited one-family/one-judge scheduling model is applied in this family court.

1. The judge who handles the adjudication of a child abuse

case will be scheduled to hear the disposition, termination of parental rights, and adoption or other

33 The courthouse facilitator is discussed in more detail in Chapter 3. 34 Family advocate screening teams are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. 35 Jefferson Family Court Development Project 1992-1993, “Interim Report to the Court: Jefferson Family Court Pilot Project,” Louisville, Ky., pp. 11-12, cited in ABA Summit on Unified Family Courts: Exploring Solutions for Families, Women and Children in Crisis (Chicago: American Bar Association, 1998).


permanency plan for the child. This case will follow the judge even after he or she is reassigned to the other court division. Although the particular child and family are the ongoing responsibility of this judge during the tenure of the case, it is only by chance that he or she would hear other types of cases that involve this family.

2. Ongoing divorce-related matters remain the province of the judge who entered the permanent orders. However, upon reassignment of this judge to the court’s other division, any additional hearings needed in this case are calendared before a different judge.

The Delaware Family Court for New Castle County

(Wilmington) employs nine commissioners to assist its six judges. Civil commissioners hear all domestic violence protection orders, all custody, support, visitation, and paternity matters, and uncontested dissolution-related matters. Commissioners in the “at-risk division” hear child abuse emergency removal and post-dispositional review hearings, bail hearings, and sometimes trials with delinquency and criminal domestic violence. One can readily comprehend, then, that a family is likely to encounter different judicial officers at different stages of the same or related proceedings. For example, a commissioner may hear a protection order, but marital dissolution must be done by a judge. Or, one commissioner will hear a protection order and a different commissioner or a judge may hear the criminal domestic violence case. Likewise, a judge will adjudicate a child abuse case, but a commissioner will conduct the subsequent reviews.


Deschutes County, Oregon

The Oregon courts come the closest to presenting a one-family/one-judge approach ideal in that one judge may handle all civil and criminal proceedings involving family members. All of Oregon’s general jurisdiction circuit court judges are designated as family court judges. They carry a general caseload, but also are responsible for coordinating a limited number of family law cases—up to 25 family-related cases, civil and criminal. The judges become responsible for family members’ domestic violence, dissolution, drug/alcohol, criminal, and children’s matters. The judges have handled dual proceedings such as a concurrent criminal child abuse jury trial and a nonjury trial as to whether this child was abused and in need of the court’s protective orders or not. The same judge and the same prosecutor handle the concurrent proceedings. Another dual hearing involved a change of a child’s custody from a prior dissolution proceeding and a determination of child abuse in a juvenile proceeding.

Criteria for designation as a family court case are not hard and fast. The family court clerk, upon receipt of a delinquency or abuse and neglect filing, searches local and statewide court databases for currently active family cases. There is particular interest in “bundling” criminal filings, active dissolution, and active or recent domestic violence protection and stalking orders with these filings. An alternate case finding method conducts a search upon an indication of concern, expressed by a justice system or school official, or even relatives or neighbors, about a family. The judge determines whether to accept the clerk-proposed family court case. A family may be accepted for coordinated judicial handling, but only families with children are eligible for the subsequent process of possible court-coordinated service delivery.


Motions to recuse a judge because of overfamiliarity with a family’s problems and possible biased prejudgment of a pending case have been rare so far. Judges are not concerned about the diverse nature of their caseload because as judges in general jurisdiction courts, they have been assigned these matters before the experiment with a family court began. Perhaps experienced judges accustomed to handling a diverse caseload may have an easier time adapting to the one-family/one-judge approach to case scheduling. King County, Washington

King County, Washington, uses a team composed of the

family court judge, commissioner, and case manager to oversee cases in which families have been involved in multiple court proceedings or have single cases with issues such as mental illness, substance abuse, or the physical or sexual abuse of children.36 The case manager develops a case profile from a review of active and inactive cases involving the family, including existing orders, reports, investigations, services, and pending hearing dates. The team then reviews the case to see if it qualifies for judicial commissioner case management.

Kent, a southern suburb of Seattle, is home to a new regional justice center where a unified family court has been carved out of the general jurisdiction superior court. It was piloted as a one-judge/one-commissioner (a law-trained para-judge who conducts certain hearings in lieu of a judge) approach for specialized handling of a discrete portion of the large number of family-related cases in that court. It became a two-judge unit

36 “King County Unified Family Court Project,” in ABA Summit on Unified Family Courts: Exploring Solutions for Families, Women and Children in Crisis (Chicago: American Bar Association, 1998).


during the summer of 1998, and judges are now assigned for two-year terms. There are four commissioners. Each family involved in the project is assigned to one judge and to whichever commissioner has the most prominent contact with the family.

A case manager is vital to this enterprise. Court officials, attorneys, agency representatives, and individuals who have interest in particular children make referrals to this court officer. Cases must be family law, dependency, truancy, or Child in Need of Services (CHINS) cases and must involve children. There is particular interest in accepting families that are or have been engaged in two or more case types such as dissolution and domestic violence protection orders. The several cases are linked and coordinated to better deal with the family’s particular issues and resolve matters in the best interests of children. However, a family with only one case may be accepted when there are special needs for coordinating intervention services and for careful case management and monitoring.

The case manager conducts a court database search of family members’ companion cases, civil and criminal, and searches out agency information and reports. She presents a three- to five-page legal profile summary of each family referred at weekly meetings of judges and commissioners. Referrals are either accepted for specialized handling, or rejected, in which case the case remains on the standard civil case track.

For families that are accepted for case management, the parties, their attorneys, and active agency representatives must appear for an initial planning conference. Here cases may be consolidated; alternative dispute resolution or domestic violence assessment ordered; other evaluations and treatment interventions reviewed or directed; timelines specified; provisions made for who will pay for what services or support; child guardians appointed;


discovery preparation coordinated; further case hearings scheduled; and other pertinent considerations made. After the planning conference, the case manager monitors the case regarding compliance with court-ordered services and evaluations.

Monmouth County, Freehold, New Jersey—A Regional Support Team

This family court division, which serves a population of

approximately 500,000 persons, created a special approach to linking its judiciary with its professional and clerical support staff and in turn with court families. Three regional teams of two judges each serve families in the circumscribed three regions of the county. In the absence of a regional team judge, the other regional team judge serves as the substitute judge. Regional team judges develop familiarity with human service agencies, which are based in their particular regions. One prosecutor is assigned to each judge. Three regional professional support and clerical teams also serve each of the three regions of the county.

Regional support professionals handle delinquency intake and predisposition report preparation functions, perform certain counseling roles, hold “consent conferences” with nondissolution cases, and monitor implementation of domestic violence protection orders. Other regional professionals specialize in assisting parties in resolving differences in dissolution case matters, mediating child custody disputes, performing custody evaluations, and preparing risk assessments in domestic violence.

Each regional support team has two court coordinators who facilitate in-court hearing preparations for their regional judges and provide relevant information to and from judges and regional professionals. Family members are attached, then, to particular professionals and judges. They are known to the professional staff and known to the judges during their three-year rotating tenures in


the family court division. The judges hear a variety of family-related case types, though several cases involving paternity, child support, and domestic violence protection orders are heard by court hearing officers.

This coordination approach requires family court division judges to have competencies with a range of family-related case types, but not as many as required in the Oregon projects. It has been reported that recent judicial changes have returned Monmouth County judges to more of a specialist role, i.e., hearing only delinquency, abuse, and neglect cases or domestic relations cases, thus diminishing the regional judge team concept.

Chapter 3

Court-Centered Coordination of Family Support Services

The previous chapter discussed the coordination of information through the assignment of a single judge/ commissioner/service team to each family. This is certainly an important mechanism for coordination, but it is not the only one. This chapter discusses methods of coordination among judges and court staff in situations in which one judge, commissioner, or service team may not be assigned to a family. It focuses on three types of coordination: court-based intake, representation, and information sharing.

Courts are beginning to recognize the tendency to provide pre-and post-adjudication services not directly tied to the daily functioning of the courtroom and that do not require the direct administrative oversight of a judge. For example, effective January 1, 1998, the Michigan Legislature mandated that the juvenile and circuit courts be merged into one circuit court composed of a trial and family division. The Ninth Judicial Circuit Court (Kalamazoo County) not only created these two divisions, but also added a third Administrative Services Division to address the need for court support services.37

37 Information provided by Robert A. Houtman, court administrator of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court in Kalamazoo, Michigan.


Intake Services The U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare recommended that “Courts should provide intake and referral services that are appropriate to the individual needs of separating, divorcing, and unmarried parents.”38 They also suggested that a single point of contact with the court be provided for family members.

Miami-Dade County Domestic Violence Court, Miami, Florida

Courts that handle family cases are broadening the scope of what is done at the initial filing stage in order to provide to petitioners information about community resources and court procedures and to obtain information on prior or presently active court cases for transmission to the judicial hearing officer. In Miami, case managers and other staff of the family court39 and the domestic violence court coordinate cases that affect both courts. Judges hearing cases in either court are informed of other cases involving the parties and actions taken in them at the time of hearings on their respective cases.

For example, in the Miami-Dade County Domestic Violence Court, information on related cases is obtained from the restraining order petition prepared by the intake counselor from a personal interview with the client and from searches of civil, family, and criminal court databases. Information on related cases is then furnished to the judicial officer for use, if appropriate, at the restraining order hearing. In addition, specialized court 38 U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare, Parenting our Children: In the Best Interest of the Nation, Recommendation 3 (Washington: 1996), p. 32. 39 The family court in Miami handles dissolution-related matters.

COURT-CENTERED COORDINATION OF FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES • 41

administration staff assist all clients in preparing the papers to petition for a restraining order, make direct referrals for domestic violence petitioners to access social services available in the community, and conduct safety planning.

This case management model facilitates coordination among courts to ensure that custody and visitation disputes that involve domestic violence are adjudicated appropriately and do not result in conflicting orders being entered. This coordination model may require organizational, staff, and data system changes, but it can be more effective in addressing domestic violence issues coming before the court through its civil, family, and criminal divisions. More efficient coordination of hearings and services may also reduce judicial workload.

Domestic Violence Assessments, King County Superior Court, Kent Regional Justice Center, Washington

Domestic violence protection orders often involve two early-stage hearings. One is the immediate ex parte request for a temporary protection order. The second full hearing to grant relief on a longer-term “permanent” basis is typically scheduled for 10 to 14 days after the temporary order is granted. Presumably, judges make better decisions when a neutral, professional assessment informs them of present and past family court events, family dynamics, and family welfare concerns. Also, the informed court can better determine the most appropriate and needed intervention services.

The King County Superior Court maintains a staff unit, Family Court Services (FCS), at both the Regional Justice Center and the downtown Seattle courthouse. FCS has three primary roles: to provide domestic violence assessments, to mediate parenting plans when there is parental disagreement, and to


perform parenting plan (child custody) evaluations. A court commissioner may order an FCS domestic violence assessment on entering the initial protection order when the well-being of minor children is a concern. FCS social workers then send domestic violence questionnaires to the parties and seek a consent form for a school’s release of information. They conduct office interviews with the parties, may interview the children, and will interview or speak with professionals who have knowledge of the family. FCS social workers review the family’s history of violence; review legal files, police reports, medical records; conduct criminal background checks; and examine related issues such as substance abuse, or mental health problems. They evaluate the level of violence as well as the impact of the violence on the children.

A written report is submitted to the court, parties, and attorneys, with recommendations regarding the “residential provisions” that offer adequate protection to child and adult victims and preserve the enforceability of the protection order. The report also includes recommendations regarding appropriate interventions on behalf of all family members.40 For safety reasons, the report is released to all parties on the day of the hearing, once the parties have checked in with the court.

Between 250 and 300 assessments are completed annually. An expedited crisis-related short-form assessment can be accomplished the same day or within a few days of the protection order hearing. More typically, the full assessment is accomplished within 30 days of this hearing. FCS social workers invest an average of ten hours in completing an assessment. A sheriff’s

40 Recommendations include domestic violence treatment, parenting classes, drug/alcohol evaluations, mental health evaluations, and other recommendations, such as removal of weapons and ways to improve safety.


officer is immediately accessible to a social worker if violence is threatened during an office interview. Staff rarely makes home visits in performing an assessment.

A professional domestic violence assessment provides the critical information that makes coordination possible. The assessment furnishes information on prior or current court proceedings, which previously was not always made available to the court. The assessment enhances the court’s ability to evaluate carefully the risk factors for child and family members, enter necessary restrictions and case governing directives, and invoke necessary community resources. Legal Representation of Families

How important is it to have continuity for others who come in contact with the family, including prosecutors, public defenders, and contract attorneys who represent parties in court? Should representation be consistent as well? For example, should the guardian ad litem who represents a child in the juvenile division also represent the same child in the criminal division of the court? In St. Paul, Minnesota, for example, one prosecutor has been responsible for all child abuse and neglect cases in the juvenile division and oversees attorneys who prosecute criminal charges that involve the same children as victims in the criminal division.

Because counsel are not involved in so many cases involving families, the next two examples illustrate how courts can establish programs to assist families.


Court Staff Assistance to Pro Se Dissolution Litigants, King County Superior Court, Kent Regional Justice Center, Washington

Courts that administer family law cases have had to

implement strategies for the large number of litigants not represented by attorneys. King County studies have found that 71 percent of domestic relations case filings involve at least one party who appears pro se. The highest percentage of nonlawyer representation occurs in marriage dissolution cases, followed by domestic violence proceedings, and then modifications of child support orders (see Figure 1). Sixty-seven percent of pro se litigants indicated that they were unable to afford an attorney. Other problems reported by pro se litigants included difficulty in knowing where and how to file, trouble understanding court procedures, difficulty in filling out forms, problems understanding forms, and knowing where to obtain forms, in that order (see Figure 2).

To help pro se litigants, King County Superior Court uses trained paralegals as “family law facilitators.” Facilitators offer information on how to initiate or respond to a marriage dissolution action, and they also provide information about which forms are needed and how to obtain them. They also provide information about court rules, procedures, hearing schedules, and ways to improve pertinent court or community-sponsored services and resources.

Facilitators encourage attorney representation and explain how to access free or low-cost legal services. They refer parties who seek information on nondissolution-related matters, such as a paternity suit, a child support determination, or a domestic violence protection order, to the proper source. They inform parties where mediation services can be obtained and where assistance will be provided for developing a parenting plan. Presentation of one-time


Figure 1

SAPU(C

Percentage of Family Law Cases with Pro Se Clients

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Juvenile Dependency

Juvenile Offender Matter

Establishing Non-ParentalCustody

Enforcing a Court Order

Establishing Paternity

Establishing Visitation

Contempt

Establishing Child Support

Changing Parenting Plan

Establishing Child Custody

Changing Child Custody

Getting a Court Order

Changing Child Support Order

Domestic Violence

Divorce

ource: Monica Singh, University of Washington Graduate School of Public ffairs, in conjunction with the King County Unified Family Court Project. The ro Se Resource Center Task Force Report, December 31, 1995, in ABA Summit on nified Family Courts: Exploring Solutions for Families, Women and Children in Crisis hicago: American Bar Association, 1998).


Figure 2

Source: Monica Singh, University of Washington Graduate School of Public Affairs, in conjunction with the King County Unified Family Court Project. The Pro Se Resource Center Task Force Report, December 31, 1995, in ABA Summit on Unified Family Courts: Exploring Solutions for Families, Women and Children in Crisis (Chicago: American Bar Association, 1998).

Problems Experienced by Pro Se Clients in Family Law Cases

1%

4%

6%

10%

14%

14%

14%

15%

19%

19%

20%

25%

26%

28%

31%

33%

37%

41%

67%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Difficulty in courthouse due todisability

English is not primary language

Safety concerns

Unable to find child care

Understanding case schedule

How to ask the court forsomething

Getting evidence to supportcase

Where to go for hearings, etc.

Unhappy with previous legalassistance

Speaking in court

Transportation/parking problems

Taking time off work

Making cases on paper

Hard to know where to get forms

Problems understanding forms

Diffculty filling out forms

Understanding court procedures

Trouble locating where and howto file

Unable to afford an attorney


seminars to instruct a group of parties on procedures, formats, and forms was tried, but not found to be effective.

Facilitators cannot offer legal advice. They also will not fill out forms for litigants, unless a person is blind or has another significant disability. Even in such circumstances, however, they cannot make decisions for a party and will have friends or relatives review and approve what the facilitator has recorded. They cannot assist in preparations for a hearing or trial, or predict for a client what the outcome of a case or a ruling might be.

To provide callers with basic information on domestic relations actions, court procedures, and pertinent services that may be useful, facilitators maintain a 24-hour automated telephone system. Facilitators are available each morning to walk-in clients for a five-minute consultation. They direct parties to the series of approved instructions and forms that have been prepared and are available for purchase (e.g., $36 for the full set of dissolution instructions and forms). The instructions detail the various forms that must be completed at specified stages of the proceeding and cover the different procedural contingencies that may occur. Instructions encourage consultations with a lawyer and provide phone numbers for obtaining no- or limited-cost legal services. They explain how many copies of each form are needed; where and when (at what stage of the process) to file completed forms; what the filing fee is; how to request waiver of the filing fee; and how to accomplish service of process.

Parties who have had this initial conference can then call a facilitator and schedule a follow-up 20-minute appointment to obtain a review of the completeness of the documentation and its organization and sequencing.

Facilitators may help in the completion of child support worksheets to be used by the court in calculating child support


orders. Facilitators also review pro se court files one week before scheduled hearings on the noncontested dissolution calendar. They contact parties when a document is missing or a file is incomplete. Documentation is checked again in court on the day of the hearing. If a document is still missing or incompletely filled out, the facilitator endeavors to have a party complete the documentation then and there so that a hearing, recessed briefly, may be heard soon thereafter.

The assistance of family law facilitators enables a court to be significantly more efficient with its work process and work products. Far fewer continuances of scheduled hearings should occur and more adequate self-representation also should result in higher-quality judgments. Further, better self-representation should provide more balance to proceedings when the other party is represented by an attorney.

Court-Appointed Special Advocates for Children in Domestic Relations Cases, King County Superior Court, Kent Regional Justice Center, Washington

Court-appointed special advocates (CASAs) for children

involved in dependency, abuse, and neglect proceedings assist children and judges in hundreds of juvenile and family courts across the country. The nation’s first CASA started in the King County Superior Court in 1977 to meet the need for effective representation for children. The judge who founded the program envisioned the use of trained volunteers to investigate and advocate for children in court.

The CASA concept was extended into King County family law proceedings in 1983. Approximately 250 volunteer CASAs represent children in domestic relations matters at the downtown King County courthouse and for the branch court at Kent. CASAs


are involved in contested custody and/or visitation disputes, contested allegations of sexual or physical abuse or substance abuse, and third-party custody cases that allege neither parent is fit. A CASA’s role is twofold:

1. As an investigator, to gather all relevant facts regarding

a child’s well-being, and 2. As a child advocate, to ensure that all relevant facts are

before the court through written reports and direct testimony presented at trials and hearings.

Child advocates review legal files, secure criminal

background checks, obtain reports from schools and service providers, interview the child, observe the child with parents and other family members, speak with persons who have information pertinent to the child, prepare a report with recommendations, and make presentations in court proceedings. They conduct home visits unless there are compelling reasons these should not be made. They may request that the court order a mental health, drug/alcohol, or psychological evaluation of a party or a child. They recommend that judicial officers enter orders for pertinent intervention services. They remain on the case during the pendency of the litigation and report to the court at ongoing review hearings.

The court, through this CASA program, obtains the information it requires to determine which services are needed by children and families and how these services may be coordinated. With ongoing CASA assistance, the court is apprised of the efficacy of its orders and of case supervision. If a subsequent petition in dependency is filed, the CASA continues to represent the child and may be appointed in that action as well. This continuity of representation is another aspect of case coordination.


Coordination of Information The second set of recommendations from the National

Symposium on Families in Court considers the need for adequate data for decision making.41 Automated information retrieval helps inform courts of relevant information involving the families that appear before them. When a family comes to court, the information system should be able to alert court personnel if and why the family has been to court previously and which judge heard the case. Courts need to be aware of pending and past actions that occur in other courts and outcomes, including those of courts in other states. All courts should explore the feasibility of linking family case information to related cases involving family members.

The precision that automation brings will surface ambiguities that can be overlooked in manual systems but must be addressed for computers. Definition of family is one such issue. The traditional definition of a nuclear family does not cover the plethora of arrangements in modern society. Automation requires clarity about who is included in the definition of a related case. This is not a problem for automation per se, but requires resolution before the code can be written. Certainly the traditional family would be included in any definition, as would stepparents and children, but what about foster children and parents, guardians and custodians, and cohabitants who are not married and perhaps are not even living in the same household as the children? What if the definition of families used to manage cases in court does not match

41 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, National Judicial College, American Bar Association, and National Center for State Courts, Families in Court: Recommendations from a National Symposium (May 1989), p. 4.


the definitions social service and treatment agencies use to track relationships?

Technology can be used to provide on-line inquiry access to legitimate users, including prosecutors, public defenders, child welfare agencies, probation departments, and various treatment agencies. New Jersey uses the Family Automated Court Tracking System (FACTS), a statewide family-based information system accessible to judges, court staff, and noncourt agencies.

Access is provided to the public for some purposes as well.42 For example, the current New York City Family Court database is being automatically linked to the Domestic Violence Registry to allow immediate on-line access to case information, as well as family offense order-of-protection information maintained in the registry.43 In Texas social service agencies post data on their Internet site. Data are secured by a password so that judges and other specified individuals can access it, but others cannot.

Two examples of information systems targeted to families were developed by national organizations, GALIS and COMET, one state’s adaptation of GALIS (MAJIC) and one court-based system (JOLTS). These are discussed below.

42 Sanford N. Katz and Jeffrey A. Kuhn, Recommendations for a Model Family Court: A Report from the National Family Court Symposium, Recommendation 2 (Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1991). 43 Honorable Judith S. Kaye and Honorable Jonathan Lippman, “New York State Unified Court System: Family Justice Program,” Family and Conciliation Courts Review, Vol. 36, No. 2 (April 1998), p. 159.


Guardian ad Litem Information System (GALIS)44

The Guardian ad Litem Information System (GALIS) is a statewide system under the North Carolina Administrative Office of Courts. Established in 1997, GALIS was designed as a child-centered database serving children brought into court via a petition of abuse or neglect. It was designed to assist field offices in collecting accurate statistical information for their state office and legislative reports, to help field offices manage the flow of information about children, and to ascertain how the guardian ad litem involvement helps courts assist children. It is a visual history of the child’s journey through the court system: it tracks information on hearing schedules, intervals between hearings, and custodial placements. It displays how cases are progressing from all counties and estimates resources needed. The key points of GALIS are the following:

• Serves as a visual description of a child’s journey

through the district courts system in all 100 North Carolina counties from the child’s advocate’s frame of reference.

• Tracks the progress of this journey for the child via the other systems involved with the child, such as social services, custodial placements, court, and GAL program. Reports in GALIS list some time-framed information, appointments of key participants such as guardians ad litem, attorneys for the parents and child, and social workers.

44 Guardian ad Litem Information System (GALIS), Project Design Overview, 1998. Available from the North Carolina Administrative Office of Courts.


• Identifies trends and obstacles to children’s journeys through the court system.

• Identifies gaps of advocacy services to the child client (number of continuances, number of placements, guardian litem outcomes of court hearings).

•

Provides information to the GAL program, courts and others for research and resources for the children or the courts.45

Maryland’s Automated Judicial Information for Children (MAJIC)46

Maryland adapted GALIS for use with Children in Need of Assistance cases. Its key points are as follows:

• It provides an automated “tickle” system that assists the court with its daily docket and scheduling.

• It allows judges to maintain and monitor their schedules and docket.

• It forwards reports electronically to the state court administrative office, which provides summary reports back to the local courts.

• It provides judges easy access to complete case information.

• It assists courts in ensuring compliance with the law, for example, by alerting courts to required hearings and by monitoring mandated timelines.

• It helps to identify “bottlenecks” within the court system; for example, judges can determine the causes for unnecessary and repeated continuances in cases.

45 For further information on GALIS, contact Cy Gurney, MSW at the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts. 46 Information is from Maryland’s Administrative Office of Courts.


• It helps judges and masters issue accurate court orders or recommendations immediately upon conclusion of a proceeding.

• It collects and maintains data to support budget requests.

Future plans for the development of MAJIC call for linkage

with executive branch agencies, such as the Department of Social Services and the Foster Care Review Board. CASA Outcomes, Management, and Evaluation Tool (COMET)47

The National CASA Association’s system is COMET—CASA Outcomes, Management, and Evaluation Tool. It is being designed on Microsoft Access 97, a relational database. As such, all data fields can be queried and customized reports prepared for any time period, group of children or volunteers, or scheduled activities, such as hearings or reviews.

COMET is designed around a set of outcome measures that are the National CASA Association’s recommended child outcome and process goals and volunteer and program activity goals. JOLTS: A Court-Based Information System48

The Juvenile On-Line Tracking System (JOLTS), developed by the Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts for the state’s

47 COMET, CASA Outcomes, Management, and Evaluation Tool: Fields and Values (April 20, 1998), and information for the May 5, 1998, joint meeting of the COSCA Court Statistics Project Advisory Committee and the Court Improvement Project. 48 For more information, contact the Arizona Administrative Office of Courts.


juvenile courts and juvenile justice system, is a court-based, statewide information system. Access to JOLTS is provided to child protective services, probate court and the attorney general’s office. The information system originated as a delinquency tracking system, but is being adapted to include dependency cases. The dependency module is currently operational only in Maricopa County, but upon completion of testing, it will be installed in all 15 of Arizona’s counties. JOLTS has the ability to track the time it takes to process cases, such as the number of days between removal from the home and adjudication. The JOLTS module was designed by a committee consisting of judges, staff from the administrative office of courts, staff from the Department of Economic Security (DES), Pima County (Tucson) model court personnel, adoption professionals, staff from the Office of the Attorney General, staff from rural county juvenile courts, Maricopa County (Phoenix), and technical court staff. Listed below are some of the dependency tracking features of the module used in the Maricopa Juvenile Court:

• It tracks multiple allegations and findings for each child

involved in petitions or court hearings. • It tracks the legal status of dependency and placement

for each child. • It provides information on dual wards, the status of

pending dependency matters, and the status of pending delinquency matters.

• It tracks court hearings for each child. • It tracks case planning and interested party information

at the child level. • It tracks goals and objectives for each case plan.


• It maintains electronic document files for minute entries, petitions, and other docket entries.

• It provides capacity to view and update information on all children on the petition, which means information is entered only once.

• It tracks the time necessary to accomplish dependency processing.

• It prepares summary and management reports. At the state level, JOLTS permits tracking and analysis of

“reasonable efforts” attempts. It allows the electronic filing of dependency petitions by the attorney general’s office. Plans for the future development of JOLTS include linkage with the Foster Care Review Board and CASA Dependent Children Automation Tracking System (DCATS) and the DES Children’s Information Library and Data Source (CHILDS).

Chapter 4

Coordination Between Courts and Human Service Agencies

Both the juvenile court and the social service agency have crucial roles in the child welfare system. Social services is the designated community agency for delivering preventive and supportive services to families in crisis. The juvenile court provides the legal framework for state intervention into family life.49

Effective processing of family law cases requires coordination with social service agencies—courts often must order, monitor, and enforce treatments recommended by human services professionals, sanctions sought by law enforcement agencies, and mandates imposed by federal and state legislation. In many instances, courts are service coordinators of last resort for dysfunctional families, matching the needs of individuals to the services available in the community. In the words of Judge Richard J. Fitzgerald, “courts are the portal to the service delivery system.”50

A discussion of the court’s role in the coordination of cases involving children and families presumes that such a role exists. The role of courts is expanding, not because courts are assuming

49 Judge Leonard P. Edwards, “Improving Implementation of the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980,” in National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (1995), p. 152. 50 Judge Richard J. Fitzgerald, “Jefferson Family Court,” in ABA Summit on Unified Family Courts: Exploring Solutions for Families, Women and Children in Crisis (Chicago: American Bar Association, 1998).


responsibilities once held by child welfare or social service agencies, but because the need for coordination across courts and agencies is now better recognized. State legislatures often impose a responsibility on courts to see that services are delivered. Indeed federal law calls on courts to monitor social service agencies.51 Courts are involved, as direct service providers in some proceedings, with custody evaluations, domestic violence assessments, probation services, juvenile detention administration, mediation, CASAs, and certain community corrections functions.

Considerations of due process require courts to play a different role than social service agencies. Most services required by children and families are the administrative responsibility of social service or child welfare agencies. In their relationship with social service and treatment agencies, courts can enforce agreements between families and social service agencies, monitor court-ordered services, and in some cases even order agencies to deliver services. Social service agencies can advocate treatment and side with one parent or the other, but courts must maintain impartiality. This neutral arbiter role is very congenial to courts. In child abuse and neglect cases they need to ensure that families are following the treatment plan and in other respects living up to the agreements, such as attending anger management classes, substance abuse counseling, etc. At times, the sanctioning power of courts can be used to ensure treatment. Juvenile delinquents may be ordered to attend counseling or therapy, perform community service, or attend residential treatment or training programs. By the same token, courts can hold social service agencies accountable to ensure that quality services are being provided in a timely

51 See, for example, The Adoption Assistance and Safe Families Act of 1997, Public Law 105-89; 111 Stat 2115 (1997).

COORDINATION BETWEEN COURTS AND HUMAN SERVICE AGENCIES • 59

manner and to determine whether written permanency plans are sound. Agencies may need to defend their actions in court.

Reviewing the delivery of social services is a new judicial role. Judges oversee services that are necessary adjuncts to courts that serve families: assessment and evaluation, counseling, availability of volunteers, community outreach, and family support services, as well as restitution, probation, diversion, and detention services for courts with juvenile delinquency jurisdiction.52 Judges are also central figures in coordination between courts and social service agencies. Access to social and mental health services can provide the judge with opportunities to craft more appropriate resolutions to family problems, thus making return trips to the courts less necessary. Both courts and human service agencies will make better decisions if information is shared. Indeed, providing an integrated program of services early in the life of a case may mitigate the number of problems, and court cases, that occur later.

This chapter contains several “models” of coordination between courts and social service agencies. One way to facilitate coordination is to have courts appoint a liaison to various human services agencies. Another way is to have representatives from human services agencies located in the court. Louisville, Kentucky’s courts have social workers serving as court staff, while social workers in Delaware have offices in court buildings. Yet another example is to have coordination at the community level, with both courts and human service agencies as active participants. The second part of this chapter deals with coordination through the sharing of information and holds up the Denver Juvenile Integrated Treatment Network as an example. The last part of the chapter

52 Barbara A. Babb, op. cit., p. 523.


considers how the relationship between state and local units of government sets parameters on possible coordination mechanisms.

Court Partnerships with Service Providers and the Community

Courts and Community Service Providers: Jackson County Community Family Court

Family courts have been mandated on a statewide basis by

statute in states such as Rhode Island, Hawaii, District of Columbia, Delaware, South Carolina, New Jersey (by constitution, as well), and Vermont. Nevada created family courts by statute in several counties, but made them optional in the remainder of the state. However, the Oregon legislature permitted the establishment of family courts, but did not mandate them. Instead, it authorized any judicial district to submit a proposal to the chief justice of the Oregon Supreme Court requesting approval of a family court plan. This approach permits the experimentation necessary to have courts adapt to local situations. Jackson County recognized the importance of creating a partnership with the community it serves. Like other Oregon circuits, it created a Family Law Advisory Committee (see discussion of FLACs below). After considering several alternative models of coordination, the Jackson County Court and FLAC chose to create a community family court, which incorporates a one-family/one-judge case assignment system.53 The term community family court was chosen to represent the commitment to partnerships between the court, community, and service providers.

53 The First Judicial District, Family Law Advisory Committee Findings and Recommendations (December 1998), p. 6.


The court not only recognizes that early identification of families in need of services requires both court and human services support, but also holds families accountable for compliance with court mandates and human services requirements. Jackson County has been noteworthy with its establishment of family resource centers that house as many as 17 agencies in one building. In 1997, the Oregon legislature funded a community family clerk and a coordinator to assist with the coordination of family law cases. The clerk screens and checks the automated systems for families that have an open case with children. The clerk also may receive referrals of families from judges, court staff, attorneys, schools, court mediators, CASAs, the Department of Human Services, Department of Corrections, Oregon Youth Authority, and other individuals and agencies dedicated to the best interests of the family. Families with multiple related cases in court are eligible for three levels of service. Level 1 is simply the compilation of related cases affecting the family.54 Related cases include all inactive and active cases involving the family, existing orders, reports, investigations, services, and pending hearing dates. After examining all of the related cases, the coordinator meets with the judge who has had the most involvement with the family to determine assignment. Families that can benefit from judicial coordination of current and potentially future cases are assigned to a specific judge. Once a family is assigned to a judge, the assignment is permanent and all prior and pending cases are “bundled” and referred to that judge. Future cases also will be referred to the designated judge. This is Level II service. The

54 Ibid., p. 8.


coordinator then screens all Level II families to select those that could benefit from a comprehensive family plan and integration of services. The coordinator meets with the family, interested parties, and service providers to create a plan that focuses on the family’s strengths. Services may be provided through a family resource center or by an interagency service team. Family plans are filed with the court and monitored for compliance. Participation in this Level III service is voluntary Jackson County is recognized as a statewide leader in the comprehensive integration of services. Working closely with the Department of Human Resources, partner agencies have made great strides in eliminating the fragmentation and lack of coordination among human service agencies working with common clients. The Jackson County Court strategy is built upon that foundation and has the courts connect with the human services integration effort.

Social Workers on Court Staff: Jefferson County Family Court, Louisville, Kentucky

The Jefferson County Family Court illustrates another

model of court and social service coordination. Each judge has a social worker on staff who is present in the courtroom and who assists in making determinations as well as linking the family to social services and other nonlegal public and private assistance.55

Many community organizations coordinate with this family court. Seven Counties, a human services agency treatment group, provides a court liaison to expedite services to appropriate Seven Counties service programs. Jefferson County Public Schools provide two liaison persons to inform the court about school- 55 Jefferson Family Court Development Project, op. cit., pp. 11-12.


related information (e.g., attendance). The Cabinet for Families and Children provides two paralegals and social worker liaisons for dependency and neglect cases. The Jefferson County Attorney’s Office has liaisons to facilitate paternity cases, and the Jefferson County Public Defender created the Contempt Defense Panel to work in conjunction with the paternity docket. Custody evaluators, appraisers of divorce cases, anger management counselors, and drug and alcohol treatment providers are available for referrals. The University of Louisville’s social work program sends social work interns to the court, and the University’s law school sends law students to the court for training. Foster Care Review Boards oversee foster care cases. CASAs, the Center for Women and Families which assists domestic violence survivors, and volunteers for the Kids’ Waiting Room (so children do not have to wait in the regular, more hectic waiting room with everyone else) are also included within the court. The Jefferson County Department for Human Services is involved with developing community-based services in Neighborhood Place locations.

The Jefferson County Family Court also exchanges information with other courts, other government agencies, victim services providers, corrections/probation departments, state youth agencies, gun registries, the prosecutor’s and public defender’s offices, law enforcement, the other executive and legislative branches, national agencies, and criminal history record keepers. All of these agencies communicate with each other by any means possible, whether it is via telephone, e-mail, or writing.

Several coordinating committees are involved with the family court advisory committee, a subcommittee on divorce matters, a subcommittee on emergency protection orders, and a subcommittee on status offenses (truancy, “beyond control,” and runaway cases). There are several other subcommittees for


paternity; dependency, neglect and abuse; adoption; and termination of parental rights.

Multiple Case Coordination by Executive Agency Liaison Staff: Delaware Family Court

The Delaware Department of Services to Children, Youth,

and Families consists of three divisions that provide (1) the child protection function; (2) the continuum of interventions with delinquent youth; and (3) out-patient and in-patient mental health services to children and youth. A family court case may involve a child, youth, or family known to more than one division of the department.

The department places social workers in the court building offices to coordinate their activities with those of family court. Because the department and the court do not yet share an integrated automated information system, a staff liaison checks each court-scheduled case with the department’s information system, connected to the department’s court office, to determine whether two or more divisions are active with this case. One function of this liaison is to preview court schedules to determine whether there is interdivisional activity. Judges can rely on the liaison to determine which division within the department is appropriate to provide services in each case.

When the family of a delinquent, for example, is also found to be involved in a child protection case, workers in the two divisions are contacted and encouraged to communicate with each other and present or file a unified case plan. A revision of this approach has been proposed that would rely on one liaison worker, rather than staff members of the two divisions, to present a jointly prepared, single unified plan. The court unit of the department provides other services that include:


• Filing a petition with the court on the next day, when a judge has furnished a nighttime telephone approval to a social worker’s emergency removal of a dependent/ neglected/abused child.

• Caring for children when a mother is sentenced to jail. This function cannot be performed by court staff. After sentencing, the liaison comes to the courtroom and takes physical custody of the children. The social work liaison will then contact other family members or arrange for a division staff member to come to the court and initiate a plan of temporary care.

• Meeting with walk-in clients of the court or people who come to the court and seek assistance or have some complaint. The liaison social worker will field these concerns or call an agency and arrange a referral.

• Responding and taking action following the complaint of a court case manager that a department staff member is not in court and should be or that a juvenile, scheduled into court from a detention or institutional facility, is not in court.

• Providing court-scheduled hearing dates to department staff, since the department cannot access this information other than through liaison.

• Serving as a court-based resource to “make things run smoothly between the court and the department.”

• Serving as an informational resource on community agency services to any official engaged in family court work.


Family Court Coordinator: Deschutes County Family Court

There are several levels of case coordination in the court. Family members and related cases are identified at intake if the judge determines the family is already appropriately served by current agency involvement or through their own resources, this “bundling” of linked cases is as far as coordination goes. The coordinator reviews case filings, connects with family members, and prepares for a review of the family’s suitability for family court assignment by a screening team. Those accepted for coordination as a family court case are assigned to a judge. The family, including children 14 years and older, must agree to waive confidentiality because the screening team wants access to all existing records on family members to freely discuss the services offered, both previously and potentially. An estimated 5 to 10 percent of families reject participation but remain “bundled” and assigned to one judge.

Participating families meet with a screening team, convened by the coordinator and comprising of an array of management/ supervisory (and several line-staff) employees of community agencies. The team’s charge is to determine whether or not a family’s service needs and current service delivery appear to be sufficient, effective, and adequately coordinated. Only about one-third to one-half of screenings result in the next step, enhanced coordination by a treatment team invoked by the coordinator. The multidisciplinary treatment team designs the comprehensive treatment plan for and with the family and the family’s attorneys. A lead agency is designated. The plan is filed with the court and monitored actively by the coordinator through ongoing contacts with family and team members and at subsequent family-team meetings. The coordinator files reports with the judge and participates in ongoing judicial hearings.


An example of how case coordination works in this court can be found in Appendix C.

Coordination of Information Between Courts and Agencies

Chapter 3 discussed the need for coordination of

information within courts. Data sharing can be done between courts and social service agencies as well. One way to share data and preserve privacy at the same time is to flag information that is available to other agencies. The new technology, especially with respect to Web-enabled exchange of information, is very promising. For example, New York seeks to make uncontested divorce packets available on the Web.56 Nevada has a nonstatutory consortium, called a Children’s Cabinet, whereby service providers are voluntary participants in a compact and donate funds for services.57 Collectively, then, participants decide on the allocation of the group’s resources to particular cases.

New Jersey uses a Family Crisis Intervention Unit as a noncoercive forum for resolving family conflicts and providing needed services.58 Good communication promotes the smooth coordination of court jurisdiction. If the court is to help families, it is necessary to maintain a free flow of information between courts and agencies that serve families. In New Jersey, a standing administrative order requiring all attorneys involved in a proceeding to inform the court of any other family cases could help provide a low-tech solution to the information-gathering concerns.

56 Kaye and Lippman, op. cit., p. 164. 57 Szymanski et al., op. cit., p. 26. 58 Ibid.


Denver Juvenile Justice Integrated Treatment Network The Denver Juvenile Justice Integrated Treatment Network

(DJJITN) is a comprehensive information systems plan to improve the sharing and transferring of data among the various agencies that provide treatment and services for juvenile offenders with alcohol or other substance abuse problems.59 DJJITN intends to build on existing efforts to provide a culturally competent, comprehensive continuum of care to meet the needs of substance abusing juveniles. An integrated management information system among the various agencies and organizations that work with juvenile offenders is needed to achieve these objectives. DJJITN members include a consortium of juvenile justice agencies, human service agencies, and providers of substance abuse treatment. The Denver Juvenile Court is the organization with primary responsibility for DJJITN.60

Figure 3 lists the agencies involved in the Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities (TASC). The system crosses agency computer systems and databases to track the status and progress of juvenile offenders. This eliminates redundant data collection, the lack of timeliness in client information, and the inability to know the status of juveniles without querying each court, social service agency, and treatment provider separately. Figure 4 shows TASC to be the information hub of DJJITN. TASC screens, assesses, and evaluates juvenile offenders in order to match treatment needs with the most appropriate treatment provider. It

59 For more information on DJJITN, see National Center for State Courts, Court Services Division, Denver Juvenile Justice Integrated Treatment Network: MIS Implementation Plan (December 27, 1996). 60 The Denver Municipal Court deals with misdemeanor offenses and is part of the network.


Figure 3 Denver Juvenile Justice Integrated Treatment Network Members

Juvenile Justice Agencies and Organizations

• Denver Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities(TASC)

• Denver Juvenile Court• Denver Juvenile Probation• Denver Police Department• Denver District Attorney--Juvenile Diversion Program• Division of Youth Corrections, State Department of

Human Services--Gilliam Youth Services Center (detention)--Lookout Mountain Youth Services Center (commitment)--Denver Regional Office of Youth Corrections

• Denver County (Municipal) Court• SafeNite Program• Youth Offender System/Department of Corrections

Human Services Agencies and Organizations

• Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division (ADAD)• Denver Public Schools• Denver Department of Social Services• Division of Mental Health, State Department of Human

Services

Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment andOther Service Providers

• Adolescent/Adult Treatment Specialists (AATS) • Catholic Charities• Adolescent Counseling Exchange (ACE) • Centro de las Familias• Arapahoe House • Mile High Council on Alcoholism and DrugAbuse• Community Alcohol & Drug Rehabilitation • Peregrine Corrections, Inc.

& Education Center (CADREC) • Project PAVE (Denver Domestic ViolenceShelter)• Colorado Inhalant Abuse Program (CIAP) • Savio House• Correctional Connections • Technical Education Center--East• Eagle Lodge • Technical Education Center--West• Fresh Start, Inc.• Synergy• Denver Mayor’s Office of Employment & Training• Mental Health Corporation of Denver

Source: Denver Juvenile Justice Integrated Treatment Network: Interim Plan Final, National Center for State Courts, Court Services Division, October 1996.


Figure 4 Denver Juvenile Justice Integrated Treatment Network

Detention

developprogressource. Statew

is impocritical.at the drespon

TASC

Denver Juvenile Court

Probation Investigations

Probation Supervision

Arrest

Intake

Release - Promise to Appear

SafeNite

County Court County Probation

DA Diversion

Denver Court

DOC YOS/Parole

DYC Commitment

DYC Parole

Drug/Alcohol Treatment Providers

Denver Public Schools

Denver Dept. of Social Services

Community Mental Health Providers and other

service providers

Source: Denver Juvenile Justice Integrated Treatment Network: Interim Plan Final, National Center for State Courts, Court Services Division, October 1996.

s individual treatment plans, monitors each juvenile’s s in treatment, and communicates regularly with the referral

ide Coordination

If coordination between courts and human service agencies rtant, the level at which coordination must take place is Courts can be centralized at the state level or decentralized istrict or county level. Similarly, social service agencies

sible for children and families can be administered at the


state level or state supervised, but county administered. In states where administration of both courts and social service agencies is primarily done at the state level, effective coordination can take place at the state level. In other states, coordination may be more effective at the local level. Table 2 defines state or local control based on how much state funding for courts are by state or county, and whether child welfare agencies are administered by the state or county. Each of the four situations depicted in Table 2 calls for a different coordination strategy. In cell A, both courts and child welfare agencies are administered at the state level. Consequently, it would make sense to initiate contacts between the state court administrative office and state child welfare agency at the state level. Conversely, in cell D coordination would be most profitable at the local or county level. Coordination strategies are more difficult in the other two cells where either the courts or the child welfare agency must establish relationships with agencies at a different level than where they are. This is not a natural phenomenon because organizations are much more familiar with the relationships at their own level. In cell B, coordination would require staff from the state court administrative office to interact individually with county-level child welfare agency personnel. Obviously, this type of coordination would not be as effective without the support of people in the state office of the child welfare agency; nevertheless, the more important relationship may need to occur between the unified state court and the county-level agency. Conversely, cell C represents the situation in which courts are primarily funded and perhaps administered at the county level, but the child welfare agencies are centralized at the state level. In this situation, the welfare agency has difficulty locating the appropriate court coordinating mechanism. State agency representatives must


Table 2 State and County Administration of Courts and

Child Welfare Agencies

Child Welfare Agencies

Court Systems State Administered

County Administered

A B

States that are primarily state

funded

Alabama Alaska Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Hawaii Iowa Kansas Kentucky Maine Maryland Massachusetts Missouri

Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Oklahoma Oregon Rhode Island South Dakota Utah Vermont West Virginia Wyoming

California Colorado New York North Carolina North Dakota Virginia

C Arizona Mississippi D Minnesota

States that are primarily county funded

Arkansas Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Louisiana Michigan

Montana Nevada South Carolina Tennessee Texas Washington

Ohio Pennsylvania Wisconsin

Note: California changed its funding source since the 1996 publication. Source: James Bell Associates, Report on Analysis of 1995 Five-Year Plans, 1996, and Robert W. Tobin, Funding the State Courts: Issues and Approaches (Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts, 1996), p. 39.


coordinate with county-level trial court administrators, although they should keep the state court administrative office informed.

Once it is determined that coordination needs to take place at the state or local level, another complicating factor is the number of entities involved in the coordination. In some places, family courts or family court divisions may deal with a variety of issues involving families, whereas in other places family cases are resolved in several different courts. There is as much variety in agencies providing services to children and families.61 Six key areas of services used by families are (1) service programs, which include child protective services and adoption and foster care, (2) assistance programs, including federally funded programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Food Stamps, (3) mental health programs; (4) developmental disabilities/mental retardation services, (5) health services, which include health services to women, children, and infants, and (6) youth services, which include services provided to at-risk and youths in detention and on parole (probation services not included). The question is, how many different agencies are involved in providing each of these services, and the answer ranges from one umbrella agency to several different agencies. States in which all services are consolidated under one umbrella agency, perhaps with several divisions within that agency, are labeled as consolidated in Table 3. The second category is operationally defined as two umbrella service agencies for all of the six services. The third category comprises those states in which the six service

61 Discussion is based on an unpublished paper, “Models of Effective Court Based Service Delivery to Children and Their Families,” September 15, 1995, prepared by the National Center for State Courts with support from a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (No. 94-MU-CX-0004).


Table 3 Degree of Service Consolidation

Human Services Systems

Consolidated (1 Agency)

Mostly Consolidated (2 Agencies)

Partially Consolidated (3 or More Agencies)

Statewide Family Court Division Department

District of Columbia Massachusetts Vermont Washington

Delaware Hawaii

Michigan New Jersey New York Rhode Island South Carolina

Family Court Division Department in Selected Area of State

Florida Nevada Oregon Texas Wisconsin

Pennsylvania Alabama Colorado Mississippi Missouri New Mexico Ohio Oklahoma

Cou

rt S

yste

ms

for F

amily

C

ases

Planned Pilot Family Court Department

Kentucky New Hampshire

California Georgia North Carolina West Virginia

Illinois Louisiana Maine Maryland Virginia

No Family Court

Alaska Idaho

Arkansas Iowa Kansas Utah Wyoming

Arizona Connecticut Indiana Minnesota Montana Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota Tennessee

Source: Barbara Babb, “Where We Stand on Analysis of America’s Family Law Adjudicatory Systems and the Mandate to Establish Unified Family Courts,” Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 32 (Spring 1998); and The National Directory of Children, Youth, Families Services, 1998-99, Colorado, 1999.


categories are provided by three or more separate state human service agencies.

Below is a discussion of two different coordination mechanisms used at the state level. One is a statewide council that is concerned with domestic violence. The second is a more general process of coordination between family law advisory committees at the state and local levels.

The Delaware Statewide Domestic Violence Coordinating Council

The Delaware General Assembly created a statewide

Domestic Violence Coordinating Council in 1993 to effectuate coordination between agencies, departments, and the courts for victims of domestic violence and abuse. Further, the council studied court services and procedures, law enforcement procedures and protocol, and criminal justice data collection and analysis to promote effective prevention, intervention, and treatment techniques; to recommend standards for treatment programs for perpetrators to pertinent state agencies; to review and comment on domestic violence legislation that has been introduced; and to improve the response to domestic violence and abuse in order to reduce their incidence.62

The council consists of the chief judge of the family court, the attorney general, the public defender, a state senator and state representative, a cabinet-level official, a law enforcement representative, the director of the Division of Family Services, the chairperson of the State Domestic Violence Task force, a family-practice physician, an advocacy community representative, and several at-large members.

62 13 Del. C. §§2101-04.


In Delaware, the council has had a vital role in the following accomplishments:

•

Passage of the Protection from Abuse Act.63 • Passage of the Child Protection Act from the Domestic

Violence Act. • Legislation to prohibit insurance companies from

denying life, health, home owners, or auto insurance to victims of abuse.

• Legislation that requires fatal incident review team investigation and review of all deaths that result from domestic violence.

• Legislation that protects the confidentiality of personal information, such as name and address, contained in motor vehicle and voter registration records.

• A statewide survey of the services available for parties in abusive relationships, both victims and perpetrators, and an assessment of existing gaps in services.

• Development of a protocol for batterers’ intervention programs that provides guidelines from intake through treatment to discharge; standards enable these programs to self-certify compliance with the protocol.

• An array of educational and training conferences for judges, law enforcement personnel, court system and social services system officials, attorneys, junior and senior high school groups, and the interested public.

• Development of a uniform domestic violence report form for statewide use by all law enforcement agencies.

63 10 Del. C. §§ 945-51.


• Collaboration with the state’s justice information system to get domestic violence protection orders on-line between the family court and law enforcement agencies.

• Development of approaches to facilitate registration and enforcement of out-of-state domestic violence protection orders and hosting a regional meeting to coordinate interstate compliance with the full faith and credit provisions of the Violence Against Women’s Act.

Family Law Advisory Committees in Oregon As part of the family law statute, the Oregon legislature mandated that each judicial district adopt a plan to “coordinate the provision of services to families involved in domestic relations or other family court proceedings.”64 Each district’s presiding judge was required to establish a local family law advisory committee (LFLAC) to address:

• Mandates for mediation of child custody or parenting time disputes.

• Methods for coordinating cases when the same child or family is involved in multiple cases.

• Provision of conciliation services, mediation services, child custody evaluations, parent education, and visitation services.

The local FLAC is required to reflect the diversity of the

district. Its members include the presiding judge or judicial designate, the court administrator, and business, social service,

64 ORS 3.434.


community, and government representatives. Two additional plan elements were made optional:

• The need for and provision of services relating to prevention and early intervention.

• The use of settlement options such as mediation, conciliation, arbitration, and settlement conferences.

A local FLAC was required to present its plan to the county

governing body and to the presiding judge for approval, with copies of the plan to be forwarded to the chief justice and those state legislators who represented areas within the judicial district.

The chief justice appointed a FLAC at the state level in January 1998 to advise the state court administrator on family law issues.65 It comprises 12 judges, court administrators, attorneys, and court-related professionals and is staffed by the state judicial department. The state FLAC prepared and disseminated “Developing the Local Plan: A Guide for Judges and Court Administrators” to aid the development of local assessments and improvement plans. It also provided additional assistance by conducting a survey of various court-connected services and community resources available in family law cases in the state’s 36 counties. Accordingly, all local FLACs obtained information on the counties that had expedited procedures to enforce parenting time orders, specialized assistance to pro se family law litigants, an arrangement to supervise a parent’s visitation with a child or the transfer of the child to and from a visitation, and various mediation practices. This state-level committee also produces a newsletter and develops

65 ORS 3.436.


conference programs on implementing Oregon’s family law reform legislation.

Other states have similar statewide councils, and there are numerous coordinating councils at the local level.66 Both state and local coordinating councils appear necessary and desirable as critical ingredients for addressing interagency coordination, improved service delivery, and information sharing.

66 See Leonard P. Edwards, “Reducing Family Violence: The Role of the Family Violence Council,” Juvenile and Family Court Journal, Vol. 43, No. 3 (1992), pp. 1-18.

Chapter 5

Which Coordination Mechanisms Work Most Effectively?

If there is a single theme that characterizes the public sector in the 1990’s, it is the demand for performance. 67

Osborne and Gaebler in Reinventing Government noted the

critical importance of measuring performance: • What gets measured gets done. • If you don’t measure results, you can’t tell success from

failure. • If you can’t see success, you can’t reward it. • If you can’t reward success, you’re probably rewarding

failure. • If you can’t see success, you can’t learn from it. • If you can’t recognize failure, you can’t correct it. • If you can demonstrate results, you can win public

support.68 How should the role of courts in coordinating service

delivery be assessed? Courts should be available to assist families

67 Beryl A. Radin, “Searching for Government Performance: The Government Performance and Results Act,” Political Science and Politics, Vol. 31 (September 1998), p. 553. 68 D. Osborne and T. Gaebler, Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1992), pp. 146-55.


in obtaining the social services and treatment they require. An assessment essentially would entail evaluating the quality of the process, timeliness of the decision making, accessibility, and satisfaction of those who use court services. For example, unified family courts are being created to coordinate multiple cases involving the family as well as the types of services provided to families. Rather than just assume that creating family courts automatically guarantees that service delivery is effective and efficient, evaluation is necessary to see where success is achieved and where it is not. It is possible that some jurisdictions do not have family courts are more successful at delivering services to children and families.

Absence of a family court does not relieve states of their responsibility to deliver services to families. The point here, however, is that all coordination mechanisms should be evaluated against stringent outcome criteria so that children and families benefit regardless of the court structure used by the various states.

Although the goal of coordination of services is not in dispute, there is no consensus on outcome measures that should be used to evaluate success. One expert notes:

One can measure the success of a court in a variety of ways. Objective factors, such as the court’s docket-clearing rate, or the number of litigants choosing the court rather than other tribunals with comparable adjudicatory authority form one standard. Subjective measures include the satisfaction that litigants express in the adjudication they received, the regard with which the court is held among lawyers, academics, and judges; and the degree to which citizens of the jurisdiction and those

WHICH COORDINATION MECHANISMS WORK MOST EFFECTIVELY? • 83

who consume the law the court administers accept the court’s output.69 Determining which coordination mechanisms work best

requires establishing criteria for evaluation. Five criteria are proposed here to measure the extent to which:

(1) Court decision making is of the highest professional

quality; (2) Courts and human service agencies collaborate to tailor

services to the strengths and needs of families and other participants;

(3) Disputes are resolved without undue hardship or cost; (4) Cases are resolved in a timely manner; and (5) Litigants are satisfied with the process, regardless of the

outcome.

In addition to having a direct impact on families themselves, courts serving families have other constituencies. One of the most important constituents is state legislators or local funding authorities that establish court budgets. The degree of satisfaction of legislators, as well as media providers, social service agencies, and treatment agencies, is also relevant.

Judges and court personnel who handle cases involving families must not be overlooked. Their satisfaction with the exercise of their responsibility undoubtedly affects the way families are treated and the quality of one dispute resolution process. Some examination is needed of the adequacy of the amount of time

69 Rochelle C. Dreyfuss, “Forums of the Future: The Role of Specialized Courts in Resolving Business Disputes,” Brooklyn Law Review, Vol. 61 (1995), p. 11.


devoted to family cases, the adequacy of the technology supporting court case coordination, the physical facilities and equipment, and the service alternatives available to meet their professional responsibilities.

The respective rationales for these performance criteria and illustrative measures are presented here. Quality Resolution of Disputes Courts exist to resolve disputes. A quality resolution means giving each case individual attention and treating similar cases alike. It also means not merely deciding cases, but resolving the underlying issues so that the families are not required to return to court frequently. Quality resolution includes taking responsibility for the enforcement of court orders. The integrity of the dispute resolution process is reflected in the degree to which parties adhere to settlements. Responsibility for enforcement is especially important in family cases in which many orders may result in actions required by other governmental agencies or by very young people.

Resolution of family disputes should be comprehensive and should have sufficient finality to permit families to reestablish stability for the children. Comprehensive resolution means consolidation of all present issues relating to the family into a single forum. It also means that judges are basing their decisions on current and accurate information about the family.

The probability of finality is enhanced if families play a role in determining a mutually acceptable settlement of the issues in dispute. The quality of the decisions is improved if all facts germane to the family situation are available to the court and are presented by the lawyers, witnesses, parties, and human services agencies without the necessity of duplicative proceedings. The


quality of the decisions is improved if judicial officers are sensitive to the psychological impact of the process of the experience on the family. Decisions are more likely to be accepted if courts are professionally administered and court officials treat litigants with respect and dignity. Measures:

• A reduction in the number of judicial officers hearing different cases involving the same family;

• An increase in the proportion of consistent court orders, enhanced by having orders involving the same families handled by the same judge;

• An increase in compliance with court orders, which can be measured by a reduction in the number of “show cause hearings,” an increase in collection of child support and restitution payments, and a reduction in visitation contempt orders;

• The ready availability of records that show prior involvement of family members in court and other actions pending; and

• A reduction in the number of appeals of trial court decisions involving families.

There has been some debate over whether a “reduction in the number of case filings involving the same families” was an indicator of the quality of decision making. On one hand, resolving family problems comprehensively would seem to suggest a reduction in the number of times the same family would be involved in court action. On the other hand, a court working closely with human service agencies and aggressively trying to


address the root problems and to help families become strong enough to become more independent may result in more cases in the short run. In that latter instance, an increase in the number of cases involving the same family is a positive development. This is an illustration of why multiple indicators of outcomes are important so that too much emphasis in not placed on any one indicator and the danger of drawing an inappropriate conclusion is reduced.

Note that the goal of quality justice as measured by the indicators listed above can be enhanced by providing courts, and therefore court clients, with:

•

• • • •

•

•

Complete and accurate records available to support judicial decision making; Timely reports to courts and parties; One-family/one-judge calendaring; Adequate time for participants to be heard; Court support staff adequate to serve the needs of family members who come to court; Adequate funding to support the special requirements of the court(s) that deal with family matters; and Cultural competence of court staff.

Services Tailored to the Strengths and Needs of Families or Participants

Family-focused courts are most successful in a supportive

environment where the community and all of its agencies are working together to strengthen families. In that respect, it is important to reach consensus of the larger community about the goals to be achieved. Desired outcomes need to be put in the context


of strengthening families and will be broader than those courts can achieve alone. Achievement of this goal requires courts to collaborate with agencies to effectively and efficiently deliver services to children and families. Services are broadly defined to include not only human services, but community, school, and enforcement services as well.

From this broader perspective, the question becomes how intervention by courts, social service agencies, and treatment agencies have affected the family. Consequently, a more comprehensive set of measures is needed. Progress could be identified in areas such as a reduction in substance or alcohol abuse, increased periods of employment, housing stability, improvements in health, reduction in child delinquency and dependency, and similar measures. The Family Self-Sufficiency Scale used in Jackson County, Oregon (see Figure 5), is a particularly good index to measure family progress.

The difficulty with these broader measures is that the contribution of the courts to the successful or unsuccessful outcomes is hard to distinguish. For example, it is a desirable outcome that foster children be placed in safe, permanent, and stable homes, but how much do courts contribute to successful placement? Because of this shared responsibility, the measures suggested below focus on ways courts can contribute to desired outcomes. For example, judges need to be aware of service providers and treatment alternatives in the community and need to follow up to ensure services are delivered to children and families.


Figure 5

Family Self-Sufficiency ScaleClient Name: Rating: Pre Progress Post Follow-up Date: Rater (Name/Role): ___________________________Circle most descriptive rating words in each area. Use N/R to indicate unable to rate.

Self-Sufficiency Continuum and RatingsSelf-SufficiencyArea

0 1 2 3 4

ProgramParticipation

Refusing/Resisting

Minimal/Passive

Some Involvement Moderate Involvement Regular/Active

Child Care None Friend/RelativeUnstable

Non-Certified Stable Certified Stable Stable with Backup

Housing Homeless Unstable/Unsafe Friend/FamilyResidential Program

Substandard Rental Adequate Rental/OwnHome

Employment No/Poor Work Historyor Job Search

EmploymentTraining/Job Search

Subsidized work/Jobs Plus

Part Time/SeasonalTemp*

Full Time*

PartnerRelationship

Current DomesticViolence/Stalking

Recent DVHarassment

Big Conflict/ IssuesRecent Sep/Divorce

Adjusting/Single Healthy Relationshipor Self-Sufficient

Single

Parent/ChildRelationship

Founded CaseAbuse/Neglect

Issues ofAbuse/Neglect

Poor Parent/ChildRelationship

Need Parent/ChildRelationshipImprovement

Adequate Parent/ChildInteraction

Healthy Parent/ChildRelationship

ParentEducation/Literacy

HS Drop Out/ Low Literacy

Educational/Literacy Assessment

Completed

ABE/GED/ESL Literacy Program-

Participating

Finished Basic EdFunctional Literacy

Career Training/College

YouthRisk/Resiliency

Severe Risk A&DDelinq/Drop Out

High Risk MultipleProblems

Moderate Risk SomeIssues

Low RiskFew Issues

Successful YouthDevelopment

SchoolAttendance

Dropped Out NotEnrolled

Frequent Absences(without good cause)

Sporadic Attendance/Chronic Tardiness

Moderate Absences/Tardiness

Regular Attendance

Family Health Emergent Care OnlySerious Medical Prob

Neglect of CareNo Health Provider

Identified MedicalProvider

Periodic Health Care Regular/PreventativeCare

Substance Abuse Suspected/DenialNo Treatment

Admitted/ConfirmedNo Treatment

Screened/Started TXLittle Progress

In TreatmentMaking Progress

Ongoing RecoveryFunctional

Mental Health Severe or Chronic inCrisis - No TX

Assessed Needed TXRefused

Assessed/Started TX In Treatment Making Progress

Ongoing RecoveryFunctional

CommunityInvolvement

None/UnhealthyCommunity Conflicts

Minimal SomePrevious

Occasional/UsesCommunity Resources

Involved in 1+Community Activities

Regular Volunteer

Level of PublicAssistance

Eligible butNot Participating

TANF/Cash Assistance

FS/OHP/ERDCWith Co-Pay Retention

Off PublicAssistance

Off Public Assistance6 Months

Family Income Unable to MeetBasic Needs

Meet Basic NeedsDebt/Unpaid Bills

Able to MeetBasic Needs/

Timely Debt Payment

Able to Meet BasicNeeds/ Some

Discretionary Income

Able to Pay Bills WithSome Discretionary

Income/Savings

Criminal Justice In Jail Supervised Probation Unsupervised Probation Finished Probation No Recividismfor 6 Months

Transportation No Vehicle andSuspended/No License

Either No VehicleOr No License

Unreliable CarNo Insurance

Vehicle OKHas License

License/InsuranceReliable Vehicle

Pre-Test Date: Put a #1 in scale boxes indicating pre-test score

Post-Test Date: Put a #2 in scale boxes indicating post-test score

Protocol: standard confidentiality procedure * Write hourly wage in corner of these boxes


Measures:

• •

•

•

•

−

−

−

− −

−

−

Services are specific to the needs of the family Judges are aware of the variety and types of services available in the community An increased use of treatment resources available in the community Referrals targeted to specific agencies (Are there increases in number of referrals?) Existing community resources are effectively used, as indicated by:

Reduction in proportion of duplicate services ordered Increase in referrals to a variety of different social service agencies as appropriate Reduction in number of years families require services (e.g., number of years family is in contact with agencies and courts) Services are provided in a timely manner Length of time before service plan is presented to court Length of time before first services are delivered to the family Court and human service agencies become partners in advocating for new community resources.


Some of the coordination mechanisms that would facilitate the achievement of this goal are:

•

• •

•

•

One service team (caseworker, other agencies, lawyer for each party, judge per family) for continuity One comprehensive service plan The means to share information between courts and community agencies Shared databases for information on family members/other family cases/court schedules Culturally competent service provision.

Effective Access to Justice

Courtesy and respect accorded citizens who seek to use the

courts also affect their willingness to pursue legal remedies for their disputes. Access to justice is broadly defined by the Trial Court Performance Standards70 to include not only physical access to courts, which includes access for physically challenged people, but also economic access to courts as well, as determined by money,

70 BJA and NCSC, op. cit. In August 1987, the National Center for State Courts and the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice initiated the Trial Court Performance Standards Project to develop measurable performance standards specifically for the nation’s general jurisdiction state trial courts. The Trial Court Performance Standards (TCPS) and the accompanying measurement system are the culmination of this eight-year initiative guided by the Commission on Trial Court Performance Standards. The TCPS defines a philosophy, and a valid and widely shared conception, of what optimum trial court performance entails. The TCPS is endorsed by the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court Administrators, and the National Association for Court Management and is incorporated into the standards of the National College of Probate Judges.


time and complexity of procedures. Courts need to provide families with the forum to resolve disputes without undue hardship, cost, or inconvenience.

Accessibility

Procedures of courts that adjudicate cases involving children and families need to be as simple as possible and readily accessible to the public, even persons not represented by counsel. Family issues, including marriage dissolution and disputes over children or property, place a strain on the financial assets of a family. Thus, processes that facilitate the handling of uncontested matters, uncomplicated procedures to resolve simple disputes, and the availability of alternative methods of dispute resolution are important. These include:

(1) Special procedures for uncontested cases. (2) Availability of alternative dispute resolution options. (3) Consolidation of all relevant issues requiring resolution. (4) A program of court-facilitated assistance with

procedural information and document preparation for pro se litigants.

(5) Provision of counsel for indigent litigants and guardians for children.

(6) Provision of advocates to assist litigants (e.g., when obtaining domestic violence restraining orders).

(7) Security protection for litigants and court and court-related officials.

(8) Provision for court interpreters, as necessary.


Measures:

• An increase in cases referred to and resolved by alternative dispute resolution;

• A reduction in the number of times a family must appear in courts, not counting visits to celebrate successes;

• An increase in the proportion of cases in which pro se assistance is given compared to the cases in which pro se assistance is requested;

• A reduction in the number of incidents in courtrooms requiring assistance of security personnel; and

• An increase in the proportion of cases in which court interpreters are used compared to the number of cases in which interpreters were requested.

Courts can help meet this accessibility goal by considering

the following services: • • • •

Child-friendly courts and visiting rooms; Existence of domestic violence advocates; Availability of videoconferencing; and Satellite court and agency offices.

Cost

The principle involved here is the prevention of economic barriers to the use of courts to solve disputes. In practice, this means the availability and provision of legal services to the economically disadvantaged. It also means that court fees and costs for participation in proceedings are reasonable as are fees for court-


mandated interventions, such as mediation and custody evaluation. Participation in court processes also can be limited if third-party expenses, such as deposition and expert witness costs, are high. Notice of the conditions under which court fees may be waived also should be provided.

To the extent that courts are well administered, proceedings are consolidated, and hearings begin close to the scheduled time, additional attorney fees and court-related professional costs will be reduced.

Measures:

• Affordable court filing fees; • Fees for court-mandated interventions; and • Court-approved attorney fees.

Expedition and Timeliness Responsibilities of the court are discharged in a timely and expeditious fashion. Timeliness is a consideration in the resolution of all disputes, but is particularly important when children are involved and forced to remain in an unstable, and perhaps violent, situation.71 The length of time required to resolve family issues is limited and reasonable given the due process requirements of the cases.

71 Freud, Goldstein, and Solnit, Beyond the Best Interest of the Child (New York Free Press, 1973), note how important it is for a child’s concept of time to either restore stability to a family or establish permanency by another means. “The child’s sense-of-time guideline would require decision-makers to act with ‘all deliberate speed’ to maximize each child’s opportunity to restore stability to an existing relationship or to facilitate the establishment of new relationships to ‘replace old ones.’”


Measures:

• An increase in percentage of hearings held within established time guidelines;

• A significant percentage of monetary payments mandated by the court are made fully and promptly,

• A reduction in number of continuances; and • The use of differentiated case management or other

techniques to expedite cases and reduce time to disposition.

Courts can be assisted in achieving the goals of timeliness

and expedition by establishing: •

• •

Case processing time frames established by state court rule, or reformed guidelines; Case management procedures; and Sensitivity to cultural variations in a time conscious framework.

Accountability Are resources distributed fairly? Are agencies and families held accountable? The premise that children and families are treated with objectivity, dignity, and respect can be measured by client assessment of the judge’s courtroom demeanor, the helpfulness of court staff, and the timeliness of court proceedings. But court clients also have responsibilities to complete service plans, comply with court orders, and, ultimately, achieve sufficient strength to be independent enough to exit the supervision of courts and human service agencies.


Measures:

• Increase in the percentage of successfully completed service plans;

• Increase in the percentage of compliance with court orders;

• Increase in the availability of treatment slots; • Reduction in the number of appeals; • Litigant’s assessment of judges’ courtroom demeanor; • Litigant’s assessment of helpfulness of court staff; • Litigant’s assessment of timeliness of court proceedings;

and • Client satisfaction with referrals for alternative dispute

resolution or treatment. Conclusions

Both qualitative and quantitative measures should be used together to support objective standards of performance that are reasonable given the local conditions. The measures themselves need to be reviewed to determine if they are:

• Valid—measure what they intend to measure and

measure what is important; • Timely—identify problems for a timely response; • Efficient—based on data already collected; • Comparable—understandable across agencies, between

courts and agencies, and across or between states; • Interpretable—easy to understand and use.


• Developmental—refined as more information is known about the attributes associated with a model process for the handling of cases involving children and families.

As courts and human service agencies begin to standardize

the measures used to evaluate their own performance, software developers will have the incentives necessary to provide these measures as a byproduct of operational programs.

Chapter 6

Creating a Family-Focused Court Courts have responded to the challenge of handling cases

involving children and families in a variety of creative and innovative ways. One of the primary benefits of the federal system of government is that states can experiment with procedures and structures that meet their individual needs and circumstances. Other states can then profit from the lessons learned in any one state. This monograph has tried to document the various responses to the challenge of family law and will now try to formulate the conclusions.

The Trial Court Performance Standards provide the general principles by which all courts can measure their effectiveness.72

• Access to justice. This principle broadly defined to

include not only physical access to courts, that is access for physically challenged people, but economic access to courts as well, as determined by cost and duration of litigation. Understandable proceedings, especially to families without lawyers, is also an access issue.

• Expedition and timeliness. The principle includes establishing and complying with guidelines for timely case processing as well as the prompt dispersal of funds. Limiting the time required to bring litigation to an end limits the exposure of families to emotionally charged issues that can have a detrimental impact on

72 BJA and NCSC, op. cit.


children and adults. Courts dealing with family issues must always be mindful of the child’s sense of time.

• Equality, fairness, and integrity. The heart of the judicial process, this principle encompasses adhering to trial court procedures, giving each case individual attention, deciding cases without undue disparity among like cases, and taking responsibility for the enforcement of court orders.

• Independence and accountability. This principle addresses relationships with other branches of government, including maintaining institutional integrity while observing comity in governmental relations and accountability for public resources.

• Public trust and confidence. This principle addresses the courts’ responsibility to take the steps necessary to ensure public acceptance through legitimacy of court decisions.

These five principles, which encompass 22 separate

standards and 68 separate measures, can be adapted to evaluate the effectiveness of courts serving families.

Despite the preliminary steps taken toward outcome measurement of family cases as noted in Chapter 5, work still needs to be done to field test these measures and to refine them for more general application to cases involving families. Yet the principles form an organizing context from which to view a family-focused court. In this chapter, the performance principles of access; expedition and timeliness; equality, fairness, and integrity; and independence and accountability will be used as a prism from which to view the family-focused court. The principle of public trust and confidence is not listed separately for these purposes

CREATING A FAMILY-FOCUSED COURT • 99

because a court which is available to the public, which offers timely, responsive and appropriate dispute resolution, and which functions fairly and independently will earn the trust of the public it serves. A brief description of the resource requirements necessary to support such a court will conclude the chapter.

Access

In addition to the issues of cost noted in Chapter 5, one feature of courts that make them family-focused is ease of use. The courthouse too can be made friendlier to families. Information technologies, from information kiosks to pre-prepared legal forms, will make courts user-friendly for the large proportion of litigants who are not represented by counsel.73 Holding court at hours convenient to the public is a step in the right direction. A national conference on the future of courts suggested that courts extend their hours of operation and stay open on weekends.74 The following are some innovations courts are using to increase access. Night Courts Night Court, which can be loosely defined as keeping the court open outside of the normal nine-to-five workday, is held in different forms around the country. Some night courts start at five or six in the evening and continue until everything on the docket is

73 Henry Goldblatt, “Family Law Today: Rife with Complexities and Varied Roles,” The Compleat Lawyer, Winter 1995, pp. 20, 22, on Legal Kiosk Program in Maricopa County, Arizona; see Stephen P. Johnson, Just Solutions: Seeking Innovation and Change in the American Justice System (1994), p. 29. 74 Dator and Rogers, The Future and the Courts Conference, Executive Summary (November 1990), p. 17.


heard. This may take anywhere from one to four hours. Others are arranged to begin and end at specific hours, such as five in the evening until one in the morning. New York City attempted to keep their courts open for 24 hours, but the judges reportedly disliked the night shift (1:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Courts that are open only for a limited time in the evening appear to be more popular.75

Pilot night courts in North Carolina were considered a positive development: they increased schedule flexibility for the parties in cases and for court employees, used facilities more efficiently, and assisted caseflow management. Most night courts limit the functions of the courts to certain activities, such as appointing counsel for parties considered indigent or for holding arraignments. The pilot court in North Carolina handles administrative matters so that the actual trials can be heard during the day. Regular judges working different hours staff some night courts, while others use retired or recalled judges to conduct the hearings.

Information Kiosks

Automated, user-friendly software programs can be made

available to the public on computer terminals within the public areas of the court facility. Commonly referred to as “kiosks” these computer stations can provide information on such matters as courthouse directions, daily judge calendars, how to complete and file family court documents on a pro se basis, how to secure court

75 National Center for State Courts, Information Services, “Memorandum on Night Courts Survey,” November 22, 1993.


interpreter services, how to access family-related services and answers to frequently asked “walk-in” questions.76 In the New York County Family Court and in the lobby of Bronx County Family Court, automated kiosks allow court users to determine which courthouse to go to, what case types are heard in the family court, and which forms and procedures must be completed and followed for specific proceedings. The New York experience indicates that kiosks reduce the confusion and delay associated with a litigant’s visit to court. The potential use of kiosks is virtually unlimited, as they can be programmed to instruct litigants on how to complete court documents and file court papers. The kiosks are programmed in English and Spanish and offer Braille for the visually impaired as well as a variable hearing level for the hearing impaired.77 In addition to these special needs, kiosks can assist all pro se litigants if court forms are in plain English rather than “legalese.” Child Care Centers Some courts, such as the Roxbury Massachusetts District Court, operate child care centers within the court.78 A child care center in the court was deemed necessary to respond to the increasing demand for care. With parents involved in court action

76 State of New Jersey, Administrative Office of the Courts, New Jersey Supreme Court Committee on Efficiency II, Subcommittee Report on Technology (1996). 77 Kaye and Lippman, op. cit., pp. 144-78. 78 Unpublished papers. “Massachusetts Trial Court Child Care Project,” Massachusetts Administrative Office of the Court, Planning and Development, Boston, Mass.


and relatives working, living far away, or otherwise unable to care for children, child care centers provide a place for children to wait that is away from the courtroom and courthouse hallways. The Roxbury District Child Care Center is staffed with teachers and has toys and art materials for the children to play with. It also serves as a first point of contact for social services, such as parenting classes. There are two types of care a court child center can offer: regular daycare for court employees and drop-in child care for people coming to court. Child care has been found to be effective both in terms of keeping children out of the courtroom during graphic testimony and in terms of making the courtroom quieter and run more efficiently. It is difficult for courts to find the funds to staff childcare centers.79 Yet, New York established the first statewide system of Children’s Centers in Court.80 Expedition and Timeliness The timely resolution of disputes, especially in cases involving children, should be considered by all courts handling family issues. From intake to case resolution, courts need to assign, schedule, and track a family’s progress through the court system. To assure timely case resolution, courts need to provide aggressive case management. Some characteristics of such a system are:

• Written procedures for case managers that will expedite the litigation process and improve user satisfaction;

79 Lucy Hudson, Court Care: Planning Child Care for the Courts, the Massachusetts Trial Court Child Care Project (Alexandria, Va: State Justice Institute, 1995). 80 Kaye and Lippman, op. cit., p. 177.


• The maximum use of non-adversarial methods of family dispute resolution;

• Careful screening of family cases at intake; • Early assessment of each case with diversion where

possible; • A single point of contact with the court for family

members at intake, with referral to appropriate court and/or community services, as necessary;

• Clearly established time goals for each type of case and monitored progress in meeting these goals;

• Hearing, settlement, and scheduling procedures that maximize the effectiveness of court staff and make the best use of attorneys, litigants, and all persons who use the court; and

• Consecutive trial dates so litigants can complete their hearing while feeling that they have had adequate time to present their case in court; respectfully.

Equality, Fairness, and Integrity

This set of principles is at the very core of the judicial process. It is very important to give each individual case the attention it deserves, and to give each family its day in court.

Also included in this basic responsibility is the necessity of making systemic changes that will provide judges with the information necessary to make wise decisions. As important as expedition and timeliness of decision making are, it is equally important that judges not base decisions on outdated information. In Chapter 1, the idea of a unified family court was generated as a means of coordinating all of the relevant information on a family before the judges making the decision. In the majority of areas in


the United States where two or more courts share jurisdiction over family cases, even more care is needed to ensure that judges have the relevant information necessary to make quality decisions. Inter-Court Coordination

Whether through structure or process, jurisdictions should move to consolidate legal issues when dealing with a single family.81 For example, Chapter 2 discussed the use of the one family/one judge/one team approach to case coordination. Other mechanisms discussed in the previous chapters include consolidation of multiple cases involving one family, coordinating the relationship between criminal court child abuse prosecutions and juvenile court abuse and neglect cases, and sharing information among different investigative and supervisory staff (probation, child welfare, domestic relations, child support, etc.).82 If a criminal court handling a domestic violence case suspects children may also be abused and neglected, information sharing is critical.83

Legislation may be needed to promote better coordination of family cases. Utah’s juvenile court, for example, has a series of laws that provide for coordination of family cases. One statute transfers contested custody, support, or visitation aspects of a divorce from the district court to the juvenile court when a child is already within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.84 A second

81 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, The Janiculum Project: Recommendations (Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1998), p. 3. 82 Leonard P. Edwards, “The Future of the Juvenile Court: Promising New Directions,” The Future of Children, Vol. 6 (1996), pp. 131-39. 83 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (1998), op. cit. 84 Utah Code Ann. S78-3a-17 (3).


statute provides for optional transfers of these cases when the child is not known to the juvenile court.85 Utah’s code of judicial administration sets forth that in abuse and neglect cases, the attorney is to file notices in both courts stating whether there is a related matter in the other court.86 If there is a related matter between the criminal division and the juvenile court, the county attorney coordinates the prosecution of both cases.87 Utah’s code further requires that private attorneys filing domestic matters where custody is at issue inform the court whether cases concerning these children are also active in the juvenile court.88

Automated information systems, programmed to inform a court system of a family’s prior cases, is a vital ingredient of case coordination efforts. Many courts lack such capability at present, though the technology is now available to achieve coordination among courts, even between courts of general and limited jurisdiction. The court information systems should provide accurate and timely information within and across courts on current and past court actions involving particular families or family members. The installation of a uniform shared record-keeping system that is family-based and easily accessible to judges and staff is essential for information coordination. This information management system should serve as a cornerstone to case flow management tracking and coordination of family cases.89

85 Utah Code Ann. S78-31-17 (4). 86 Utah Code of Judicial Administration Rules 41-901 and 41-902. 87 Utah Code Ann. S78-3a-64. 88 Utah Code of Judicial Administration Rule 41-901. 89 Timothy Fautsko, Planning the Development of Family Courts in Kentucky (Denver: National Center for State Courts, Court Services Division, 1998), p. 45.


Efforts to help courts coordinate family cases include: • Automated docketing and indexing of new cases; • Identification of parties involved in cases and their

relationship within each case for cross-referencing cases; • Immediate printing of complaints, petitions, protective

orders, and notices; • Automated scheduling and calendaring of court

appearances for each judge, and calendar management; • Recording of interim/final dispositions and other

adjudications; • Extensive on-line inquiry regarding cases and parties; • Statistical and case management reports.90

Independence and Accountability The Commission on Trial Court Performance Standards

wisely noted the interrelationship between judicial independence and the need for accountability in the use of public resources. Nowhere is this shared responsibility as obvious as the shared goals of courts, human service agencies and the community-at-large in promoting strong families.

Coordination Between Courts and Human Service Agencies

There is a developing consensus that family intervention

needs to be done early, and that these services need to be comprehensive enough to address problems in a timely manner before they become unmanageable. Modern social service practice

90 Ibid.


emphasizes not only these “wrap around” services but also a focus on prevention and consistent caseworker teams. Both courts and human service agencies need to ask: Are families receiving the services they need and are services delivered in a fashion needed to produce the desired results? Ongoing evaluation is necessary to determine how much progress toward strengthening families is made.

Courts are not social service agencies, even though they encourage people to make use of services available. Courts play a different, but complementary role. Courts must make decisions when families come into conflict with social service and treatment agencies. To make decisions, courts must be perceived as a neutral forum, independent of agencies, yet cooperative. Social service agencies can advocate treatment and in the process side with one parent or the other, but courts must maintain impartiality. In their relationship with social service and treatment agencies, courts primarily:

• Order agencies to deliver services; • Monitor court-ordered services; and • Enforce agreements between families and agencies. Courts need to coordinate with executive branch

departments, schools and community organizations to avoid duplication of service programs and to prevent issuance of orders that unknowingly are counterproductive to existing treatment and rehabilitative efforts. One successful approach is to have regular meetings between agency representatives and the judges hearing family cases for a periodic review of the status of available services and specific problems. Courts and human service agencies benefit when liaison is established and regular communication


encouraged.91 Another preliminary step may be to catalog services and the agencies that provide them, both public and private, to encourage their direct use.92

Information Sharing Through Automation

Modern court automation, which brings accurate

information to judges on the bench and streamlines case processing, is essential to increased efficiency in the processing of family cases and their coordination. The ability that automation offers to share important case information simultaneously among states’ different courts, human service providers, and law enforcement agencies helps ensure coordinated responses as they arise and promotes court systems’ ability to develop integrated and innovative approaches to the delivery of family justice.

Courts need to share information with many human service agencies and service providers. Chapter 4 provided some illustrations of high degrees of coordination, either by having representatives of service agencies right in the courthouse or by having court representatives reach out to agencies. A technology plan for family cases, where feasible, can assist this coordination by providing on-line inquiry access for family court matters to those agencies, including the prosecutor, public defender, child protection agency, probation agency, and the various agencies that provide direct service delivery to court-involved children and families. Among information needs to be accessed are current records and history of domestic violence including protective

91 Susan Keilitz et al., Domestic Violence and Child Custody Disputes: A Resource Handbook for Judges and Court Managers (Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts, 1997). 92 Page (1993), op. cit., p. 43.


orders, current family court and child custody status records, current child protective orders, child custody orders, paternity orders, and child support orders.93

Role of the Community

Families need access to those services directly related to

cases being brought before the court. These services include counseling, social services liaison to community agencies, help with getting jobs, guardianship and conservatorship services, restitution and probation, volunteer services, community outreach programs, and enforcement of family support. Many of these services are in one way or another interconnected and community based. Referrals need to be made within the court to the appropriate office, bureau, or program. The proper use of referrals thus eliminates duplication of efforts and an unnecessary commitment of resources.

To establish these goals as well as to establish strategies for achieving them requires community involvement. A community council with representation from courts, human service agencies, schools, law enforcement, and the public at large seems to be a precondition for this type of goal setting.

Resource Requirements

Use of volunteers is one way to improve services while

keeping costs down. Volunteers can provide direct services to persons who need them, and witness their impact first hand. This not only assists families but builds community support at the same time. Judge Page, Presiding Judge of the Family Part, Superior Court of New Jersey, lists several volunteer programs working with 93 Fautsko, op. cit., p. 44.


families. These include use of volunteers as custody mediators, visitation supervisors, court-appointed special advocates, guardian ad litems, foster care review boards, neighborhood dispute resolution committees, peer group juries, and divorce mediators.94

Achievement of all of these desirable goals requires resources. These are often not easy to obtain in the public sector, and, as the previous discussion noted, courts and human service agencies have an obligation to make the maximum use of existing resources, and to jointly advocate for services most needed to serve the community. 95 Ironically, as courts become more successful at cooperating with human services agencies to resolve family disputes, the more cases will be referred to them. It is difficult to put a price on improved quality of decision making. Moreover, the argument that resolving problems early, ultimately saves the community money and disruption is hard to make.

Judges and Court Support Staff

It goes without saying that staffing must be adequate to

support the tremendous need in this area of law. Workload assessment studies are just now beginning to document the complexity of cases involving children and families and to support the amount of administrative and diagnostic support needed to resolve these cases.96 Courts serving families are likely to require more staff than other courts, including coordinators and staff to

94 Page (1993), op. cit. p. 36. 95 See discussion of Jackson County Community Court and Deschutes County Family Court in Chapter 4. 96 Victor E. Flango and Brian J. Ostrom, Assessing the Need for Judges and Court Support Staff (Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts, 1997).


liaison with human service agencies, family violence coordinators, CASA’s, and guardians ad litem.

Judicial Leadership

A family-focused court has judicial leadership that is

specialized, committed, and in place long enough to master the subject matter and mobilize community support. Judicial leadership is needed to promote the growth of resources and processes that will realize society’s goals for the court and achieve coordinated jurisdiction over the family. This type of involvement in the community is different from the traditional role played by judges, but is absolutely critical to creating a family-focused court.

Judges must provide the leadership necessary to encourage consensus in the community for developing policy on how families will be treated. Judges are used to being in charge and getting things done, are separate from individual agencies, and are acquainted with a wide variety of community players.97 Simply stated, when judges call a meeting, community leaders and service agencies are likely to attend. Judges may also develop resources and services for at-risk children and families in their courts and encourage interagency cooperation and coordination.

Education and Training

Education of judges and court staff is another vital

component for a successful family-focused, community-based court. Education needs to include all judges; especially those

97 Sarah Kaplan, “Let Us Reason and Plan Together: Using Linkages to Enhance Relationships between Courts and Child Serving Agencies,” a State Justice Institute report, April 1998.


newly-assigned to family cases. It is important to point out the differences in handling cases involving families and to acquaint judges with the various services available in the community as well as the agencies to contact for assistance in providing services.

Judges, court support staff, and attorneys need to have the opportunity to learn basic concepts in family and child development. All court staff, as well as CASAs, guardians ad litem, and attorneys representing families, need information on drug and alcohol abuse as well. If education is made the responsibility of a person or standing committee, it is more likely to become an on-going activity rather than a one-time event. Facilities and Equipment The need for family-friendly courthouse was discussed above. Facilities need to be reviewed when new courthouses are built or current courthouses remodeled.98

A court must carefully consider what information is needed, the caseflow, and security issues when planning an automated information system. The information systems should be able to accommodate increases in the number of cases and expedite decisions that affect children and families. It should have the ability to protect confidentiality of information that should not go beyond the judge or other appropriate court personnel, especially

98 See National Center for Juvenile Justice, Shaping a New Order in the Court: A Sourcebook for Juvenile and Family Court Design (1992) for specifics and requirements for a family court, waiting areas, and interview rooms’ best designs.


when the disclosure of such information would compromise the safety of individual family members.99

99 Report of the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare, Parenting Our Children in the Best Interest of the Nation (September 1996).

Epilogue What additional research would be helpful on coordination of family cases? • Research is needed on the prerequirements necessary for

communities to tackle the very difficult political, economic, and social problems affecting families. Certain reservoirs of trust developed by years of working together on community problems are necessary preconditions for some of these changes. As the Oregon example demonstrated, cooperation between state level and county level of governments can ease the burden. Nevertheless, each community must work together to create the vision of what their communities should be.

• As this monograph has demonstrated, courts are experimenting with various forms of coordination. Chapter 5 suggested outcome criteria that could be used to measure success. They include the quality of judicial decision making, court-human services agencies collaboration, access to a court without undue hardship or cost, timeliness of case resolution, and litigant satisfaction with the court process. The final dimension, how court clients respond to the court experience, should provide very useful information as a court assesses its judicial continuity and its provision of information, and court case and service intervention coordination. These criteria need to be refined and field-tested to ensure that they indeed measure successful intervention by courts and human service agencies into family life. Once validated, these outcome measures can be used to evaluate the benefits of the various coordination mechanisms so that courts are more comfortable in choosing those that provide the most advantages for the least cost.


• A survey of the extent to which the coordination mechanisms identified here are in use nationally and how effective they are.

• An evaluation is needed of the impact of different ways courts coordinate with human resource agencies. The assessment instruments need to be broad enough to measure family self-sufficiency, as well as the separate contribution of courts and agencies to successful outcomes.

• Courts could benefit from additional studies of the types of cases involving families that occur in combination, so that coordination mechanisms could be tailored to these particular needs. Should courts serving families have jurisdiction over elder abuse, substance abuse, probate, and intra-family criminal cases?

• A comparison of a sample of courts is needed to identify those in which families have made the most progress. Can courts make progress on all of the performance indicators at once or should innovations be introduced one at a time? A list of resources for courts that perform well, including judges, court support staff, automation and facilities, should then be identified to determine what is necessary to produce a family-focused court.

• A diffusion of innovation study showing how coordination mechanisms are adopted in various courts would increase understanding of how successes are transplanted from one court to another.

REFERENCES Adoption Assistance and Safe Families Act of 1997, Public Law 105-

89; 111 Stat 2115. American Bar Association. 1993. America’s Children at Risk: A

National Agenda for Legal Action. A Report of the Presidential Working Group on the Unmet Legal Needs of Children and Their Families. Chicago: American Bar Association.

American Bar Association Commission on Standards of Judicial

Administration. 1974. Standard 1.12 in Standards Relating to Court Organization. Chicago: American Bar Association.

Babb, Barbara A. 1998. “Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework

of Court Reform in Family Law: A Blueprint to Construct a United Family Court.” Southern California Law Review, Vol. 71.

_____________. 1998. “Where We Stand on Analysis of America’s

Family Law Adjudicatory Systems and the Mandate to Establish Family Courts,” Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 32.

Bell Associates. Report on Analysis of 1995, Five-Year State Plans. Bureau of Justice Assistance and National Center for State Courts,

1997. Trial Court Performance Standards with Commentary. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice.

Burhans, Glen Jr., Michelle Blackman, Jocelyn Diaz, and Joan-

Patricia Knight. 1998. “Profiles of Selected Unified Family Courts.” Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Vol. 24.


Commission on Trial Court Performance. 1990. Trial Court Performance Standards. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts.

Dator and Rogers. 1990. “The Futures and the Courts Conference.”

Executive Summary. Dreyfuss, Rochelle C. 1995. “Forums of the Future: The Role of

Specialized Courts in Resolving Business Disputes.” Brook Law Review, Vol. 61.

Dunford-Jackson, Billie Lee, Loretta Frederick, Barbara Hart, and

Meredith Hofford. 1998. “Unified Family Courts: How Will They Serve Victims of Domestic Violence?” Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp. 138-40.

Edwards, Leonard P. 1996. “The Future of the Juvenile Court:

Promising New Directions.” The Future of Children, Vol. 6, pp. 131-39.

_________________. 1995. “Improving Implementation of the

Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980.” In Resource Guidelines: Improving Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

_________________. 1992. “Reducing Family Violence: The Role of

the Family Violence Council.” Juvenile and Family Court Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 1-18.

REFERENCES • 119

_________________. 1987. The Juvenile Court and the Role of the Juvenile Court Judge. Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Family Court Pilot Project Advisory Committee. 1992. Report on the

Family Court Pilot Project of the Judicial Council of Virginia. Fautsko, Timothy. 1998. Planning the Development of Family Courts in

Kentucky. Denver: National Center for State Courts, Court Services Division.

Fitzgerald, Richard J. 1998. “Jefferson Family Court.” ABA Summit

on Unified Family Courts: Exploring Solutions for Families, Women and Children in Crisis. Chicago: American Bar Association.

Flango, Victor E., and Brian Ostrom. 1997. Assessing the Need for

Judges and Court Support Staff. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts.

Freud, Anna et al. 1973. In the Best Interests of the Child. New York:

Free Press. Goldblatt, Henry. 1995. “Family Law Today: Rife with Complexities

and Varied Roles.” The Compleat Lawyer. Chicago: American Bar Association.

Hudson, Lucy. 1995. Court Care: Planning Child Care for the Courts.

Massachusetts Trial Court Child Care Project. Alexandria, Va.: State Justice Institute.


Institute of Judicial Administration-American Bar Association. 1980. Standards 1.1 and 1.1B in Standards Relating to Court Organization and Administration. Cambridge: Ballinger.

The Janiculum Project. 1998. Recommendations. Reno: National

Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Jefferson Family Court Development Project. 1992-1993. Interim

Report to the Court: Jefferson Family Court Pilot Project. Louisville, Ky.

Kaplan, Sarah. 1998. Let Us Reason and Plan Together: Using Linkages

to Enhance Relationships between Courts and Child Supervising Agencies. Alexandria, Va.: State Justice Institute.

Katz, Sanford N., and Jeffery A. Kuhn. 1991. Recommendations for a

Model Family Court: A Report from the National Family Court Symposium, Recommendation 2. Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Kaye, Judith S. 1997. “Changing Courts in Changing Times: The

Need for a Fresh Look at How Courts Are Run.” Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 48.

Kaye, Judith S., and Jonathan Lippman. 1998. “New York State

Unified Court System: Family Justice Program.” Family and Conciliation Courts Review, Vol. 36.

Keilitz, Susan, Courtenay V. Davis, Carol Flango, Venessa Garcia,

Ann M. Jones, Meredith Peterson, and Dawn Marie Spinozza. 1997. Domestic Violence and Child Custody Disputes:

REFERENCES • 121

A Resource Handbook for Judges and Court Managers. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts.

King County Unified Family Courts Project. 1998. ABA Summit on

Unified Family Courts: Exploring Solutions for Families, Women and Children in Crisis. Chicago: American Bar Association.

Kuhn, Jeffery A. 1998. “A Seven-year Lesson on Unified Family

Courts: What We Have Learned since the 1990 National Family Court Symposium.” Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 32.

Massachusetts Administrative Office of the Court, Planning and

Development. Massachusetts Trial Court Child Care Project. Unpublished papers.

Matricciani, Albert J. 1998. “Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Family

Division/Domestic Docket, Annual Report of the Family Division Coordinator 1997-1998.” ABA Summit on Unified Family Courts: Exploring Solutions for Families, Women and Children in Crisis. Chicago: American Bar Association.

Murphy Healy, Kerry. 1999. “Case Management in the Criminal

Justice System.” Research in Action, National Institute of Justice.

National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and

Goals. 1976. Standard 8.8 in Report of the Task Force on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Washington: Government Printing Office.

_________________.1973. Courts. Washington: Government

Printing Office.


National Center for Juvenile Justice. 1991. Shaping a New Order in the Court: A Sourcebook for Juvenile and Family Court Design. Reno: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

National Center for State Courts. 1995. Models of Effective Court

Based Service Delivery to Children and Their Families, Briefing Paper Number One. Unpublished paper by NCSC prepared by NCSC staff, funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.

National Center for State Courts, Court Services Division, 1996.

Denver Juvenile Justice Integrated Treatment Network: Interim Plan Final.

_________________. 1996. Denver Juvenile Justice Integrated Treatment

Network: MIS Implementation Plan. National Center for State Courts, Information Services,

“Memorandum on Night Courts Survey.” November 22, 1993.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. 1998. The

Janiculum Project: Recommendations. Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. 1995.

Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, National

Judicial College, American Bar Association, and National

REFERENCES • 123

Center for State Courts. 1989. Families in Court: Recommendations from a National Symposium.

The National Directory of Child, Youth, Family Services, 1998-1999.

1999. Colorado. New Jersey Supreme Court Committee on Efficiency II. 1996.

Subcommittee Report on Technology. State of New Jersey, Administrative Office of the Courts.

“New York State Unified Court System: Family Justice Program.”

1998. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, Vol. 36, pp. 144-78.

Osborne D., and T. Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the

Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Ostrom, Brian, and Neal Kauder, eds., 1998. Examining the Work of

State Courts, 1997. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts.

Page, Robert. 1993. “Family Courts: A Model for an Effective

Judicial Approach to the Resolution of Family Disputes.” Juvenile and Family Court Journal, Vol. 44.

Radin, Beryl A. 1998. “Searching for Government Performance: The

Government Performance and Results Act.” Political Science and Politics, Vol. 31, p. 553.

Report on the Family Court Pilot Project of the Judicial Council of

Virginia. 1992.


Ross, Catherine J. 1998. “The Failure of Fragmentation: The Promise of a System of Unified Family Courts.” Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 32.

Rubin, H. Ted, and Geoff Gallas. 1989. “Child and Family Legal

Proceedings: Court Structure, Statutes, and Rules.” In Meredith Hofford, ed., Families in Court. Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, pp. 25-62.

Rubin, H. Ted, and Victor Eugene Flango. 1992. Court Coordination

of Family Cases. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts.

Szymanski, Linda, Theresa Homisak, and E. Hunter Hurst III. 1993.

Policy Alternative and Current Court Practice in the Special Problems Areas of Jurisdiction over the Family. Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice, pp. 13, 26.

U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare. 1996. Parenting Our

Children in the Best Interest of the Nation. Washington: U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare.

Utah Code Annotated S78-3a-17 (3), (4); S78-31-17, and S78-3a-64. Utah Code of Judicial Administration. Rules 41-901 and 41-902. Wood, Erica F., and Lori A. Stiegel. 1998. “Not Just for Kids:

Including Elders in the Family Court Concept.” ABA Summit on Unified Family Courts: Exploring Solutions for Families, Women and Children in Crisis. Chicago: American Bar Association.

Appendix A

List of Courts and Interviewees

Court Interviewee(s)

Albuquerque, NM The Honorable Ann Kass Alexandria, VA The Honorable Stephen Rideout Atlanta, GA The Honorable Thelma Cummings Moore Barre, VT Maxine Weed Bend, OR Ernest Mazorol Boston, MA Mary Ferriter Buffalo, NY The Honorable Sharon Townsend Burlington, VT Christine Brock Camden, SC The Honorable William Byars Cincinnati, OH James Cissell Clayton, MO Gene Overall Concord, NH Craig Briggs Danbury, CT Antoinette Beal Durham, NC Kathy Shuart Everett, WA Pam Daniels Freehold, NJ Carol Lesniowski Grand Rapids, MI Mary Beth Hollinrake Hillsboro, OR Sandra Officer Honolulu, HI Maureen Kiehm Kansas City, MO David Kierst Kent, WA Mary Coleman Las Vegas, NV Christine Chandler Louisville, KY Jim Birmingham Markham, IL The Honorable Sheila Murphy Medford, OR Jim Adams Miami, FL Laura Lazarus/Selina Ross/Paul Indelicato New York, NY Janet Fink Olympia, WA Betty Gould Phoenix, AZ Phil Knox Pittsburgh, PA James Rieland


Court Interviewee(s)

Port Orchard, WA Alison Sontag Portland, ME Linda Jowett Portland, OR The Honorable Stephen Herrell Providence, RI The Honorable Jeremiah Jeremiah Racine, WI Kevin Van Kampen Richmond, VA Lori Mercer Rock Hill, SC Jane Ivey San Jose, CA Jean Pennypacker Salt Lake City, UT Brenda Crockett Santa Fe, NM The Honorable Art Encinas Seattle, WA The Honorable Marsha Pechman/Jan Michaels South Bend, IN Linda Scopelitis St. Paul, MN Michael Moriarity Toledo, OH Harry Barlos Topeka, KS Kay Fallen Towson, MD Pete Lally Ventura, CA Jeanne Caughell Wailuku, HI Ernest Delima Washington, D.C. Ed Ricks/Paul Roddy Wethersfield, CT Robert Tompkins Wichita, KS Louis Hensen Wilmington, DE Michael Arrington Wilmington, NC Brenda Tucker

Appendix B

Coordination Mechanisms in Courts

Court Type of Has Has UsesCourt One Family/ Hearing Intake

One Judge Officers OfficersArizonaDomestic Relations Court Family Court No Commissioners Case101 West Jefferson ManagementPhoenix, AZ 85003 StaffAustralia Family Court One Family/ RegistersFamily Court of Australia One SupportGPO Box 991 TeamSydney, NSW 2001 AustraliaCalifornia Family resource CommissionersSanta Clara division includes Goal Special Masters170 Park Center Plaza Family, JuvenileSan Jose, CA 95113 Probate Court

Delaware Family Court CommissionersFamily Court of Delaware Yes Yes704 North King StreetWilmington, DE 19801D.C. Superior Court Unified Court Domestic Violence Domestic violence500 Indiana Ave., NW Criminal, Family support cases by outsideRoom 2500 and Domestic agenciesWashington, DC 20001 Violence

Florida Family Division A goal General Family Operations Division Masters175 NW 1st Ave, Suite 2700 and HearingMiami, FL 33128-1715 OfficersDomestic Violence Division Domestic Coordinates availability Florida law Filing of ordersCourthouse Center Violence Divison of case information prohibits of protection175 NW 1st Ave to the court whenMiami, FL 33128-1715 multiple cases exist

Georgia Family One team Judicial Superior Court of Fulton County Pilot Officers Yes185 Central Ave, Suite T4905Atlanta, GA 30303Hawaii Family CourtFamily Court 1st Circuit (Unified) Yes YesP.O. Box 3498Honolulu, HI 96811-3498



Court Pro Se Coordinated Family UsesHelp Case Management Treatment Measurement

Available Systems Conferences StandardsArizonaDomestic Relations Court No Volunteer Law Mgmt. Team101 West Jefferson Self-service center does handlePhoenix, AZ 85003 FamilyAustraliaFamily Court of Australia YesGPO Box 991Sydney, NSW 2001 AustraliaCalifornia Self-Helping Improving DependencySanta Clara Center only170 Park Center PlazaSan Jose, CA 95113

Delaware FAMIS For Scheduling Family Court of Delaware For Processing704 North King Street TCPSWilmington, DE 19801D.C. Superior Court Education Under Study Controlled500 Indiana Ave., NW program OPAL softare scheduling dateRoom 2500 StandardsWashington, DC 20001

Florida Forms on Substantial Creating StandardsFamily Operations Division Internet for Family175 NW 1st Ave, Suite 2700 Family Court CourtMiami, FL 33128-1715 Self Help CenterDomestic Violence Division Performed by Substantial case Offenders areCourthouse Center intake and management system ordered; Yes175 NW 1st Ave case manager Victims andMiami, FL 33128-1715 staff Children

offeredcounseling

Georgia Yes Criminal recordsSuperior Court of Fulton County Attorney- are computerized; Yes Developing185 Central Ave, Suite T4905 Appointed DevelopingAtlanta, GA 30303Hawaii JUSTISFamily Court 1st Circuit YesP.O. Box 3498Honolulu, HI 96811-3498

APPENDIX B • 129


Court Uses Uses Differentiated Social RepresentationMediation/ Case Management Services of

ADR Delivery ChildrenArizonaDomestic Relations Court No Yes-classify Domestic GAL101 West Jefferson RelationsPhoenix, AZ 85003 StaffAustraliaFamily Court of Australia Yes Time Standards Yes YesGPO Box 991Sydney, NSW 2001 AustraliaCalifornia Divorce, Dependency Only Family appointed for Santa Clara Dependency Yes children; every case170 Park Center Plaza represented by DASan Jose, CA 95113

Delaware Divorce, Time StandardsFamily Court of Delaware Custody/Support, Yes Yes704 North King Street Status,Wilmington, DE 19801 OffenseD.C. Superior Court Divorce, Yes-civil, criminal and GAL500 Indiana Ave., NW Custody, family support cases YesRoom 2500 CPO negotiationWashington, DC 20001

Florida In the process of Attorneys ad litemFamily Operations Division Yes creation Yes by referral of 175 NW 1st Ave, Suite 2700 judgeMiami, FL 33128-1715Domestic Violence Division Inappropriate Comprehensive AttorneysCourthouse Center in Domestic Not available Social Service GALs175 NW 1st Ave Violence delivery systemMiami, FL 33128-1715 Cases

GeorgiaSuperior Court of Fulton County Yes Yes Yes GAL185 Central Ave, Suite T4905Atlanta, GA 30303Hawaii ADR in Time Standards GALFamily Court 1st Circuit divorce, Yes VGALP.O. Box 3498 dependencyHonolulu, HI 96811-3498



Court Other (Noteworthy Characteristics)

Arizona CASA programDomestic Relations Court Parent education for pre-divorce101 West Jefferson Model court (juvenile)Phoenix, AZ 85003Australia Parent educationFamily Court of Australia Training in family law for all judgesGPO Box 991Sydney, NSW 2001 AustraliaCalifornia Juvenile treatment centerSanta Clara Dependency & deliquency - domestic violence court in deliquency170 Park Center Plaza Court liaisons to social servicesSan Jose, CA 95113 Family law facilitators

Parent education for pre-divorceDelaware Juvenile drug courtFamily Court of Delaware Pre-divorce parent education704 North King Street Children's dept. has court office (DFS)Wilmington, DE 19801D.C. Superior Court Child-friendly waiting rooms for juvenile court500 Indiana Ave., NW ABA pilot siteRoom 2500 Pre-divorce education programsWashington, DC 20001 Teen drug courts

Supervised visitation centerFlorida Teen courtsFamily Operations Division Delinquency mediation175 NW 1st Ave, Suite 2700 Pre-divorce education programsMiami, FL 33128-1715 Family court trust funds - surcharge on marriage licensesDomestic Violence Division Haitian, Latino, Jewish, & gay & lesbian domestic violence task forceCourthouse Center Teen dating violence programs175 NW 1st Ave Domestic violence fatality review teamMiami, FL 33128-1715 Violence in the workplace policy

"Save A Life" media campaignPro bono legal assistance to battered women, including immigrant battered women

Georgia ABA site for unified family courtsSuperior Court of Fulton County Court provides counseling185 Central Ave, Suite T4905Atlanta, GA 30303Hawaii "Kids First"-a pre-divorce education programFamily Court 1st Circuit Special training for judges & staffP.O. Box 3498 Judicial pretrial assistanceHonolulu, HI 96811-3498 VGAL (CASA program)

APPENDIX B • 131



One Judge Officers OfficersIllinoisCircuit Court of Cook County Family Yes Case5th Municipal District (Unified) Management10220 S. 76 Ave TeamBridgenow, IL 60455-2425Indiana Juvenile/ Individual Magistrates YesSt. Joseph Probate Probate Court Calendar Probation OfficerJuvenile Justice Center (Family1000 S. Michigan Street Separate)South Bend, IN 46601-3426Kentucky Family Court Cases heard Commissioners CaseJefferson County Judicial Center by dockets ManagerSuite 200 with 700 W. Jefferson Street differentLouisville, KY 40202 judgesMaryland Family DivisionCircuit Court for Baiitmore City (Pilot) Yes Masters No111 N. Calvert Street, Courthouse East 462Baltimore, MD 21202Minnesota Family Court RefereesRamsey County Courthouse (Pilot) Yes50 W. Kellogg Boulevard, Rm 6560St. Paul, Minnesota 55102Missouri Family Division Arranged as CommissionersJackson County Family Court needed2729 Gillham RoadKansas City, MO 64108Nevada Family Division Yes MastersLas Vegas Family Division601 North Pecos Las Vegas, NV 89101New Hampshire Family Division 90% Masters NoGrafton/Rockingham County complianceTwo Noble DriveConcord, NH 03301-6179New Jersey Family Division Child SupportMonmouth County71 Monument ParkFreehold, NJ 07728




Available Systems Conferences StandardsIllinoisCircuit Court of Cook County Yes Yes Yes5th Municipal District10220 S. 76 AveBridgenow, IL 60455-2425Indiana N/A Yes,St. Joseph Probate for most courtJuvenile Justice Center functions1000 S. Michigan StreetSouth Bend, IN 46601-3426Kentucky Limited "Courtnet" statewide LitigantJefferson County Judicial Center system evaluationsSuite 200700 W. Jefferson StreetLouisville, KY 40202MarylandCircuit Court for Baiitmore City Yes Developing None111 N. Calvert Street, Courthouse East 462Baltimore, MD 21202Minnesota Trial court DevelopingRamsey County Courthouse information50 W. Kellogg Boulevard, Rm 6560 systemSt. Paul, Minnesota 55102Missouri Developing DevelopingJackson County Family Court2729 Gillham RoadKansas City, MO 64108Nevada Developing AdoptedLas Vegas Family Division ABA601 North Pecos Las Vegas, NV 89101New Hampshire Case Managers Can cross No ABA (modified)Grafton/Rockingham County Pro Se reference casesTwo Noble Drive Handbook Identify same partiesConcord, NH 03301-6179New Jersey FACTS YesMonmouth County71 Monument ParkFreehold, NJ 07728

APPENDIX B • 133


Court Uses Uses Differentiated Social RepresentationMediation/ Case Management Services of

ADR Delivery ChildrenIllinoisCircuit Court of Cook County ADR in Time Standards Agencies5th Municipal District divorce have branches10220 S. 76 Ave in courthouseBridgenow, IL 60455-2425Indiana By referral Domestic GALSt. Joseph Probate No relations staff; Public defendersJuvenile Justice Center Probation OFC;1000 S. Michigan Street Mental Health &South Bend, IN 46601-3426 Social ServiceKentucky Divorce, Yes Recoginzed as YesJefferson County Judicial Center custody supervisionSuite 200 relationship700 W. Jefferson StreetLouisville, KY 40202MarylandCircuit Court for Baiitmore City Yes Time Standards111 N. Calvert Street,Courthouse East 462Baltimore, MD 21202Minnesota YesRamsey County Courthouse50 W. Kellogg Boulevard, Rm 6560St. Paul, Minnesota 55102Missouri Yes GALJackson County Family Court2729 Gillham RoadKansas City, MO 64108Nevada Yes Yes GALLas Vegas Family Division601 North PecosLas Vegas, NV 89101New Hampshire Yes Yes Yes GALGrafton/Rockingham CountyTwo Noble DriveConcord, NH 03301-6179New Jersey Yes Time Standards Yes CASAMonmouth County71 Monument ParkFreehold, NJ 07728

Yes




Illinois ABA site for unified family courtCircuit Court of Cook County Child care center5th Municipal District Child-friendly court10220 S. 76 AveBridgenow, IL 60455-2425Indiana CASA programSt. Joseph Probate Paternity parenting programJuvenile Justice Center Day reporting1000 S. Michigan Street Electronic monitoringSouth Bend, IN 46601-3426 Child careKentucky Superior agency/court relationshipsJefferson County Judicial Center Pre-divorce programSuite 200 Night court700 W. Jefferson Street Judges recommend counselingLouisville, KY 40202Maryland Divorce educationCircuit Court for Baiitmore City Child friendly waiting rooms111 N. Calvert Street, Child careCourthouse East 462 Parenting seminarsBaltimore, MD 21202Minnesota Child careRamsey County Courthouse Social service advisory committee50 W. Kellogg Boulevard, Rm 6560St. Paul, Minnesota 55102Missouri Divorce education for parents and childrenJackson County Family Court2729 Gillham RoadKansas City, MO 64108Nevada Family drug courtsLas Vegas Family Division Juvenile drug courts601 North Pecos Divorce education programLas Vegas, NV 89101New Hampshire Divorce education programGrafton/Rockingham County Child impact programTwo Noble DriveConcord, NH 03301-6179New Jersey Parent educationMonmouth County71 Monument ParkFreehold, NJ 07728

APPENDIX B • 135



One Judge Officers OfficersNew Mexico Domestic Domestic Relations Court Relations Court Individual Commissioners NoDistrict Court, 2nd Judicial District (Separate Calendar HearingP.O. Box 488 Children's Court)Albuquerque, NM 87103New York Family Court One Judge/ Child SupportErie County Family Court One Family 25 Delaware AveBuffalo, NY 14202Oregon Family One Judge/ Referees YesDeschutes County Court Community One Case PlanDeschutes County Courthouse1164 NW BondBend, OR 97701Jackson County Court Family One Judge/ YesJackson County Justice Building Community One Case Plan100 S. OakdaleMedford, OR 97501Puerto Rico Family Yes Child SupportGeneral Court of Justice (Unified) DevelopingOffice of Court Administrator DevelopingCalle Vela Parada 35Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919Rhode Island Family Yes Magistrate Youth Garrahy Judicial Complex Unified Child protection cases Diversionary/1 Dorrance Plaza Truancy WorkersProvidence, RI 02903South Carolina Family5th Circuit CourtKershaw County CourthouseCamden, SC 29020Utah Juvenile Yes Commissioners3rd District Juvenile Court3522 South 700 WestSalt Lake City, UT 84119Vermont Family Goal and MagistrateFamily Court de facto32 Cherry Street, Suite 200 realityBurlington, VT 05401Washington Family Court For cases Commissioners YesKing County (Unified Project) accepted into401 4th Ave North UFC projectKent, WA 98032




Available Systems Conferences StandardsNew MexicoDomestic Relations Court Pro se No No NoneDistrict Court, 2nd Judicial District paralegalP.O. Box 488Albuquerque, NM 87103New York Yes Developing Filing to DispositionErie County Family Court computerized orders Establishing Goals25 Delaware AveBuffalo, NY 14202Oregon Yes Developing Yes DevelopingDeschutes County CourtDeschutes County Courthouse1164 NW BondBend, OR 97701Jackson County Court Yes Developing Yes DevelopingJackson County Justice Building100 S. OakdaleMedford, OR 97501Puerto Rico DevelopingGeneral Court of JusticeOffice of Court AdministratorCalle Vela Parada 35Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919Rhode Island Yes Computerized Yes Yes, domesticGarrahy Judicial Complex records; case management,1 Dorrance Plaza Can be cross- child protectionProvidence, RI 02903 referenced case managementSouth Carolina For domestic 80% of cases5th Circuit Court violence victims in 270 daysKershaw County CourthouseCamden, SC 29020Utah CORIS3rd District Juvenile Court3522 South 700 WestSalt Lake City, UT 84119Vermont Yes DevelopingFamily Court32 Cherry Street, Suite 200Burlington, VT 05401Washington Yes Developing, UndergoingKing County Exploring an401 4th Ave North differentiated case independentKent, WA 98032 management evaluation

APPENDIX B • 137

Coordination Mechanisms in Courts Court Uses Uses Differentiated Social Representation

Mediation/ Case Management Services of

ADR Delivery ChildrenNew MexicoDomestic Relations Court Custody No GAL paid byDistrict Court, 2nd Judicial District partiesP.O. Box 488Albuquerque, NM 87103New York Yes CASAErie County Family Court Legal Aid25 Delaware Ave Law GuidanceBuffalo, NY 14202Oregon Yes Yes YesDeschutes County CourtDeschutes County Courthouse1164 NW BondBend, OR 97701Jackson County Court Yes Yes YesJackson County Justice Building100 S. OakdaleMedford, OR 97501Puerto Rico Yes YesGeneral Court of JusticeOffice of Court AdministratorCalle Vela Parada 35Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919Rhode Island Divorce, Time Standards CASA programsGarrahy Judicial Complex custody within court1 Dorrance Plaza systemProvidence, RI 02903South Carolina Yes Yes GALs5th Circuit CourtKershaw County CourthouseCamden, SC 29020Utah Yes Yes 1 GAL/family3rd District Juvenile Court3522 South 700 WestSalt Lake City, UT 84119Vermont Yes YesFamily Court32 Cherry Street, Suite 200Burlington, VT 05401Washington Yes YesKing County401 4th Ave NorthKent, WA 98032




New Mexico Extension of social services staff within courtDomestic Relations CourtDistrict Court, 2nd Judicial DistrictP.O. Box 488Albuquerque, NM 87103New York Crisis counselingErie County Family Court Liaisons to social services25 Delaware Ave Resource coordinator for juvenile casesBuffalo, NY 14202Oregon Child-friendly waiting roomsDeschutes County Court Parental education programsDeschutes County Courthouse Strong community involvement1164 NW BondBend, OR 97701Jackson County Court Child-friendly waiting roomsJackson County Justice Building Parental education programs100 S. Oakdale Strong community involvementMedford, OR 97501Puerto Rico ABA siteGeneral Court of Justice Parental education programOffice of Court AdministratorCalle Vela Parada 35Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919Rhode Island Parent educationGarrahy Judicial Complex Juvenile justice task force1 Dorrance Plaza Child protection case management/mediation programProvidence, RI 02903South Carolina Parent education5th Circuit CourtKershaw County CourthouseCamden, SC 29020Utah Social services liaison3rd District Juvenile Court Mediators for delinquency3522 South 700 WestSalt Lake City, UT 84119Vermont Child-friendly courtroomsFamily Court Child care facilities32 Cherry Street, Suite 200 Night courtBurlington, VT 05401Washington Staffed child care centerKing County Continuing education for judges/staff401 4th Ave North Courthouse facilitatorKent, WA 98032

Appendix C

An Example: Case Coordination at Work: Deschutes County (Oregon) Family Court

The case illustrates a multiple-case, multiple-problem family that, through the assistance and support of treatment team resources, one judge, and their own regenerated capabilities, has made substantial progress in their day-to-day adjustments. The case plan was an evolving one, which added or subtracted features as the family appeared to stabilize. Family Court Graduates Share Their Experience A husband and wife team, graduates of family court proceedings, described the extensive nature of their problems and the improvements they have made during project staff’s site visit to this court: Husband: I was first brought to a court in 1991. Wife: I have been in court since 1993. Husband and wife: We now like having one judge. Husband: I’ve been getting services, not just punishment. Wife: I’ve had drug and probation violations. Husband: I’ve had drug and probation violations and an assault on my wife charge. Wife: I was violent to him, too. Husband: I’ve taken a 20-week course for batterers. Wife: We’ve both been sober for 11 months, and we have few arguments now.


Wife: I’ve had weekly counseling at mental health and have been part of a women’s group. We’ve had a family therapist. Wife: We have my seven-year-old son in our home. He was not from this marriage. My son has attention deficit disorder (ADD) and is getting into a special day treatment school. At regular school he was kicking the teacher and the kids, was stealing, and took a knife to school. He is taking medications, has taken an anger management class, but he needs more. Wife: The first time we met with the treatment team we thought we’d be told we were bad parents, and we expected they would take my son away from us. But it was O.K., and then we began looking forward to the meetings. Wife: My husband has ADD too. And we had some domestic violence in front of my son. Husband: We were ready for help. We love each other, but we couldn’t live with each other. Driving under the influence and drug possession got me into family court. My wife had been off probation a year when I asked her to join me in family court. If she hadn’t, our marriage would have ended. Facilitator: They’re graduates, now, but we’re still assisting their son. Wife: I have dyslexia, too. We don’t have many friends. Our old friends had all been drug users, and we no longer see them. We only have our parents, so it’s good to be able to call agency staff and talk. Wife: My seventeen-year-old son is before our judge tomorrow as a dependent child, but for some violent stuff. I hope he throws the book at him. Husband: I work nights and my wife works days. Wife: But for family court and the treatment team, we wouldn’t be here today telling you we’re doing quite well.

APPENDIX C • 141

Husband: It doesn’t work with everyone, but it sure helped us.

Court records detail seven treatment team meetings over a ten-month period. Both parties had earned promotions at work. The son had been placed, essentially, on house arrest, and an adult is always home to provide supervision.

How Are Courts Coordinating - CiteSeerX

Documents

Transcript of How Are Courts Coordinating - CiteSeerX