Helping Babies from the Bench Judg e Do ug la s F . Jo hnso n T - - PDF document

Na tio na l Co unc il o f Juve nile a nd F a mily Co urt Judg e s

Helping Babies from the Bench

Judg e Do ug la s F . Jo hnso n

T he Se pa ra te Juve nile Co urt o f Do ug la s Co unty, NE 2nd NYCI K e a rne y, NE June 2018

Why Birth To Five?

1 in 5 fo ste r c a re pla c e me nts a re infa nts. Onc e in c a re , the y re ma in twic e a s lo ng a s

• lde r c hildre n.

Ba b ie s unde r a g e 1 ma ke up 25% o f the

c hildre n in the c hild we lfa re syste m.

76% o f c hild a b use fa ta litie s o c c ur to c hildre n

unde r a g e 4.

Multiple fo ste r pla c e me nts. De ve lo pme nta l De la ys &/ o r Da ma g e . WHY NOT

he lp the yo ung e st o f the yo ung ?

Solution Seeking Courts

The judge models civility, respect, dignity and requires others to do the same. Emergency Room Response: Act with a sense of urgency for the child & parent --as if this family is your own! Front load services: Pra g ma tic , time ly,

e ffe c tive re spo nse to a b use & ne g le c t.

Affirmation with accountability mo tiva te s

pa re nta l impro ve me nt/ re so lutio n o f pe rma ne nc y.

Alternative Dispute Resolution: Pre -He a ring

Co nfe re nc e , F a mily Gro up Co nfe re nc e , Me dia tio n.

Full parental participation from day one.

“Parents and children help each

• ther to grow. In raising their

children, parents are also raising

• themselves. Child rearing gives

parents the chance to redo their

• wn childhood and to improve on

it.”

Alic ia F . L ie b e rma n, E mo tio na l L ife o f the T

• ddle r.

Traumatic Relationships CAN Be Repaired!

Yo ung c hildre n me nta l he a lth

a sse ssme nts a nd tre a tme nt:

Child Pa re nt Psyc ho the ra py Circ le o f Se c urity Pa re nt Child I

nte ra c tive T he ra py

Child Abuse Prevention & Treatment Act (CAPTA)

Se c tio n 106(b )(2)(B)(xxi) re q uire s tha t

Sta te s ha ve pro visio ns a nd pro c e dure s fo r the re fe rra l o f c hildre n unde r the a g e

• f thre e who a re invo lve d in

sub sta ntia te d c a se s o f c hild a b use o r ne g le c t to e a rly inte rve ntio n se rvic e s funds b y Pa rt C o f the I ndividua l with Disa b ilitie s Ac t (I DE A).

IDEA 2004

Pa rt C, Se c tio n 637(a )(6)(A & B)(Sta te

Applic a tio n a nd Assura nc e s) re q uire s sta te s pa rtic ipa ting in Pa rt C to re fe r fo r e a rly inte rve ntio n se rvic e s a n c hild unde r the a g e o f 3 who is invo lve d in a sub sta ntia te d c a se o f c hild a b use o r ne g le c t; o r is ide ntifie d a s a ffe c te d b y ille g a l sub sta nc e a b use , o r withdra wa l sympto ms re sulting fro m pre na ta l drug e xpo sure .

Nebraska

E

a rly De ve lo pme nt Ne two rk.

I

ndividua lize d F a mily Se rvic e Pla n.

Key Elements of a Solution Seeking Court

Intense Judicial Oversight. Front-Load Reasonable Efforts Services. Intense Case Management.

Goals for Children

All e a rly de ve lo pme nt ne e ds a re me t. Sto p fo ste r c a re drift: Pe rma ne nc y fro m Da y One . Ac hie ve a time ly, sa fe , se c ure , pe rma ne nt ho me

c o nsiste nt with ASF A: 12 Month PPH or sooner.

Best interests and safety: nurturing caregiver to meet this child’s needs.

Goals for Parents

90% abuse/neglect cases: Substance abuse and mental health.

Ac tive pa rtic ipa tio n & re spo nsib ility. Ade q ua te pa re nting skills, de mo nstra te the a b ility to pro vide a sa fe , he a lthy fa mily e nviro nme nt fo r the ir c hildre n = re unific a tio n. Due pro c e ss & fa ir he a ring s.

Key Elements

F

• c us o n ho listic c hild/ pa re nt we ll-b e ing .

F

re q ue nt & me a ning ful fa mily time with sa fe ty pla n.

Pa re nts a nd c hildre n re side to g e the r a s so o n

a s sa fe ly po ssib le .

I na b ility to Co mply I s DI F F E RE NT tha n “No n-Co mplia nc e ”

Go o d I nitia l & Ong o ing Asse ssme nt I s E sse ntia l to Disting uishing the Diffe re nc e

Enhanced Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases

Enhanced Resource Guidelines

THE PROTECTIVE CUSTODY HEARING

T

he mo st impo rta nt he a ring is the first he a ring .

Se ts the fo unda tio n fo r a ll sub se q ue nt he a ring . I

f yo u g e t it rig ht a t the first he a ring , yo u wo n’ t ha ve to a ddre ss pro b le ms do wn the ro a d tha t c a use unne c e ssa ry de la ys in pe rma ne nc y.

The Pre-Hearing Conference:

F

• unda tio n fo r a

Go o d Pro te c tive Custo dy He a ring

NCJF CJ’ s E nha nc e d Re so urc e Guide line s:

T

he PHC sho uld b e tho ro ug h a nd me a ning ful.

T

he PHC sho uld mo ve litig a tio n fo rwa rd q uic kly a nd re duc e its fre q ue nc y. .

T

he PHC sho uld se t the to ne fo r a so lutio n- se e king a tmo sphe re !

Rationale

A good Pre-Hearing Conference does all of this…

…a nd is a fo rm o f

Alte rna tive Dispute Re so lutio n

The PHC Mediator

ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS: Me dia te s Pre -He a ring Co nfe re nc e to le a d

to mutua l unde rsta nding & a g re e me nt o n issue s.

Applie s g o o d judg me nt a nd a na lytic a l

skills.

Mo de ls re spe c t, c ivility, dig nity. Is neutral and takes pressure off others by leading the problem solving conversation.

Knowledge

Co urt o rg a niza tio n, pro c e dure ,

• pe ra tio ns, rule s.

Child ne g le c t & a b use issue s. T

ime ma na g e me nt.

Skills

Me dia tio n, fa c ilita tio n, hig h c o nflic t

re so lutio n, ne utra lity.

E

ffe c tive c o mmunic a tio n.

Professional interaction with the stakeholders in high-pressure situations. Go o d judg me nt a nd pro b le m so lving

skills.

Preparation

Re a d pe titio n, a ffida vit, a nd CPS

info rma tio n.

Pre pa re fo rm to b e g ive n to the judg e .

PHC Agenda

I

ntro duc tio n--ide a lly b y the Judge:

Your family is important. Set the Problem Solving Tone. State Goals of the PHC. State Ground Rules.

Agenda

Disc uss pro c e dura l q ue stio ns (ta king

c a re o f b usine ss):

Problem solving process. Off the record. I

ntro duc tio ns a nd re la tio nship to c hild(re n)/ sig n-in she e t.

No admission against interest via statements, agreements, or participation in services—confidential (NRS 43-247.01 2016).

Address 5 Issues 1) I de ntify Pa re nts—b irth c e rt./ pa te rnity. 2) I ndia n Child We lfa re Ac t. 3) Pla c e me nt o f Childre n: “Ca n the c hild sa fe ly re turn ho me ? I f no t, why no t? ” “Re la tive pla c e me nt? ” 4) F a mily time . 5) Re a so na b le e ffo rts se rvic e s-c hild & pa re nt.

It’s the Law!

Roadblocks!

Se tting the to ne . “We do n’ t kno w e no ug h . . .” Ma na g ing stra ine d re la tio nships. “T

his wo n’ t wo rk. T he pa re nts a re upse t!”

De fe nse Atto rne ys who ha ve n’ t me t

the ir c lie nt . . .

“But, the re ’ s a T

PR file d!!”

Check list compliance vs. meaningful best practice.

Always Ask:

Ho w a re the c hildre n do ing ? Ho w a re the pa re nts do ing ? Wha t c a n we / yo u do to ma ke it b e tte r? Wha t spe c ia l thing s do yo ur c hildre n ne e d?

• -Stuffe d a nima l? --PJs? --Spe c ia l b la nke t?
• -Be dtime sto ry? --F

a vo rite so ng ?

Take time to explore relative placements! Roadblocks & “hot-button” issues

Sho rt time fra me . T

e nde nc y fo r na ysa ye rs to unde rmine , re luc ta ntly pa rtic ipa te , o r pre fe r to ha ve a n info rma l disc ussio n witho ut pa re nts.

Ove rwhe lming pa re nts with uninte llig ib le

c a se pla n ta sks—so k.i.s.s.!

Roadblocks & “hot-button” issues

Me dia to r re c o rds a g re e me nts a nd

c o nfirms a ll a g re e me nts with pa rtic ipa nts.

A c risis is the b e st o ppo rtunity fo r

pa re nta l “b uy in” tha t la sts a nd wo rks b e tte r tha n a ny c o urt o rde r.

Closing

Ask fo r o the r q ue stio ns &

issue s—tie do wn lo o se e nds

Ask pa rtie s to sig n c a se pla n T

ha nk pa rtic ipa nts a nd te ll b a iliff PHC ha s b e e n c o mple te d

No w g o do the Pro te c tive

Custo dy He a ring

Protective Custody Hearing

An info rme d judic ia l de c isio n c o nc e rning

whe the r o r no t a c hild c a n b e sa fe ly re turne d ho me pe nding a djudic a tio n

Da y o ne pa re nta l pa rtic ipa tio n—a vo id

ha llwa y “pro fe ssio na l” c hitc ha ts

E

a rly ide ntific a tio n o f pa re nta l stre ng ths, re la tive suppo rt, a nd time ly re a so na b le e ffo rts se rvic e s

Protective Custody Hearing

Re q uire d Judic ia l F inding s: 1. Re a so na b le e ffo rts to (a ) pre ve nt re mo va l (b ) re unify: spe c ific fa c ts b a se d

• n the e vide nc e .

2. Co ntra ry to the we lfa re , sa fe ty, a nd b e st inte re sts: spe c ific fa c ts b a se d o n the e vide nc e .

Protective Custody Hearing - Key Decisions

Sho uld c hild b e re turne d ho me o r ke pt in

fo ste r c a re prio r to a djudic a tio n?

Wha t se rvic e s will a llo w the c hild to re ma in

a t ho me sa fe ly? Sa fe ty pla n?

Ha s HHS ma de re a so na b le e ffo rts to a vo id

• ut-o f-ho me pla c e me nt? Re unify?

Pa re nts? Ste ppa re nts?

Protective Custody Hearing - Key Decisions

Will pa re nts vo lunta rily (NAAI

) pa rtic ipa te in se rvic e s? E xc e ptio n: ma nda to ry c hild a b use re po rting . NRS 43-247.01 (Re issue 2016)

Are re spo nsib le re la tive s a va ila b le if

ne e de d? F

• s-a do pt?

Protective Custody Hearing - Key Decisions

I

s pla c e me nt pro po se d b y HHS the le a st disruptive a nd mo st fa mily-like se tting ?

Do e s I

CWA a pply? Who will se nd no tic e ? Whe n?

Will imple me nta tio n o f the se rvic e pla n b e

mo nito re d? By who m?

Protective Custody Hearing - Key Decisions

Re stra ining o rde rs? E

xa mina tio ns, e va lua tio ns, fa mily suppo rt,

• r o the r se rvic e s? Whe n? Pa yme nt

so urc e ?

T

e rms/ c o nditio ns fo r pa re nting time a nd sib ling time ?

Child suppo rt re fe rra l/ he a ring ? Ab se nt pa rtie s/ future he a ring s? Se t the ne xt he a ring in c o urt.

Judges/ Others

Do no t de le g a te pa re nting time to HHS,

the the ra pist, the GAL , a nd CASA “whe n the y a re in a g re e me nt” o r E VE R!

Pa re nting time de c isio ns a re b a se d o n the

e vide nc e a nd ma de o nly b y the judg e . Se e : I n re I nte re st o f C.A, 235 Ne b . 893, 457 N.W.2nd 822 (1990), I n re I nte re st o f T e e la H., 3 Ne b . 604, 529 N.W.2nd 134 (1995)

Presume reasonable rights of parent-child family time.

Re q uire e vide nc e o f a sa fe ty c o nc e rn to a lte r the pre sumptio n. NE Supre me Co urt Pa re nting T ime Guide line s (2009).

Reasonable Efforts?

Do no t a c c e pt a re c o mme nda tio n fo r a

“pa re nting c la ss”. Ce rtific a te b a se d o n a tte nda nc e o r c o mpe te nc y?

Do no t a c c e pt “supe rvise d visita tio n”. Do no t a c c e pt “visita tio n o nc e (o r

twic e ) a we e k fo r a n ho ur o r two ”.

Do no t a c c e pt fa mily time a t

Mc Do na ld’ s, the HHS o ffic e , the ma ll, e tc ., e tc . . . .

If you want to kill a relationship

I

nfre q ue nt c o nta c t.

Brie f c o nta c t. Artific ia l/ c o unte rpro duc tive e nviro nme nt. Supe rvise the fa mily time b y a pe rso n with

no e xpe rtise a nd who c a nno t mo de l the pa re nta l ro le .

Require Reasonable Efforts

Me a ning ful a nd a mple fa mily time in a

c o nte xt ric h e nviro nme nt.

Pro vide fo r fa mily time in a na tura l se tting ,

do ing no rma l fa mily thing s: c o o k a me a l, pla y, b a the , c ha ng e dia pe r, ho ld/ ro c k b a b y, flo o r time , re a d/ sing to b a b y.

Require Reasonable Efforts

Pa re nt mo de ling b y a q ua lifie d pe rso n if

• ve rsig ht, mo de ling o r tra ining is ne e de d.

NB: E

a c h fa mily time o ve r 1x pe r we e k triple s the c ha nc e s o f a c hie ving pe rma ne nc y (Bre nda Jo ne s Ha rde n, Ph.D.).

Do your homework! Read & Lead!

NCJF

CJ’ s E nha nc e d Re so urc e Guide line s: I mpro ving Co urt Pra c tic e in Ab use & Ne g le c t Ca se s.

F

a mily Vio le nc e , Juve nile & F a mily L a w De pts: www.nc jfc j.o rg .

T

hro ug h the E ye s o f a Child I nitia tive we b site : www.thro ug hthe e ye s.o rg

CASA Judg e ’ s Pa g e Ne wsle tte r F

a mily Visita tio n I ssue (June 2006) & o the r vo lume s: www.c a sa fo rc hildre n.o rg

Evidentiary Findings

Judg e s ha ve a n inde pe nde nt duty to

c o nside r the e vide nc e a nd ma ke a judic ia l de c isio n.

RE

ME MBE R: Just b e c a use NDHHS, DCA, GAL , o r De fe nse Atto rne y re c o mme nds a pa rtic ula r finding a nd o rde r DOE S NOT MAK E I T SO.

Ado ptio n & Sa fe F

a milie s Ac t [P.L . 96-272 (1980)], ASF A [P.L . 105-89 (1997)]

“It’s about the evidence!”

Judg e s do no t (ho pe fully) wo rk in a

va c uum.

T

he q ua lity o f a judg e ’ s de c isio n a b o ut c hildre n a nd the ir fa milie s is dire c tly re la te d to the q ua lity o f info rma tio n the judg e re c e ive s.

Outcomes

Go o d info rma tio n = g o o d judic ia l

de c isio ns.

T

ime ly se rvic e s = fro nt lo a ding .

E

a rly Admissio ns; Co nt. in Antic ipa tio n o f Dismissa l b e c a use pa re nts a re c o rre c ting issue s.

Outcomes

Dispo sitio n He a ring with Adjudic a tio n—

pa re nts a lre a dy do ing the re ha b ilita tive c a se pla n.

Childre n & pa re nts’ ne e ds me t: re unific a tio n

• r a do ptio n thro ug h due pro c e ss/ me a ning ful

he a ring s & ADR.

T

ime ly Pe rma ne nc y--sto p pro lo ng e d fo ste r c a re .

Training, training, training . . .

Co lla b o ra tio n, c o lla b o ra tio n, c o lla b o ra tio n...

Thank you!

do ug la s.Jo hnso n@ do ug la sc o unty-ne .g o v 402-444-7881 Yo u a re invite d to do c o urt o b se rva tio n—

ple a se sto p b y fo r c o ffe e !