T he ra pe utic Appro a c he s to Juve nile Co urt K a the - - PDF document

6/18/2018 1

T he ra pe utic Appro a c he s to Juve nile Co urt

K a the rine Ha ze n, MA, JD Me la nie F e ssing e r L a ure l Jo hnso n, JD & Ho n. E liza b e th Crnko vic h

Ove rvie w

 I ntro duc tio ns  Psyc ho lo g ic a l a nd so c ia l me c ha nisms o f the ra pe utic a ppro a c he s to c o urts  Brie f histo ry o f two the ra pe utic c o urts in Ne b ra ska  F a mily T re a tme nt Drug Co urt  F I RST Co urt  Suc c e sse s a nd b a rrie rs in the ra pe utic c o urts  Do the ra pe utic a ppro a c he s impa c t fa milie s a nd the pro c e ss?  Co nc lusio ns a nd future dire c tio ns

6/18/2018 2

I ntro duc tio ns

 K

a the rine Ha ze n, MA, JD

 Me la nie F

e ssing e r

 L

a ure l Jo hnso n, JD

 Ho n. E

liza b e th Crnko vic h

L ite ra ture re vie w:

Psyc ho lo g ic a l a nd so c ia l me c ha nisms o f the ra pe utic a ppro a c he s to juve nile c o urt

6/18/2018 3

T he ra pe utic Jurisprude nc e

 Jurisprude nc e :  T

he the o ry o r philo so phy o f la w

 T

he ra pe utic Jurisprude nc e :

 Unde rsta nd the c o nse q ue nc e s o f the la w

a nd inc re a se the the ra pe utic impa c t

 I

nte rdisc iplina ry

 I

de ntify a nd a ddre ss psyc ho lo g ic a l a nd so c ia l issue s

 Dive rse a ppro a c he s a nd to o ls

T he ra pe utic T

• o ls:

Pro c e dura l Justic e

 E

va lua tio ns o f fa irne ss

 F

a c to rs:

 Vo ic e  I

mpa rtia lity

 T

rust

 Re spe c t

6/18/2018 4

T he ra pe utic T

• o ls: Re fle c tive

Pra c tic e

 E

mo tio na l inte llig e nc e a nd inte rpe rso na l re la tio nships

 L

a w a s inte rpe rso na l c o nflic t re so lutio n

 Co lla b o ra tive e mo tio na l pro c e ssing a nd

inte g ra tio n o f e xpe rie nc e s

T he ra pe utic Outc o me s

 E

xpe rie nc e s o f fa irne ss

 Co o pe ra tio n  Co mplia nc e  I

nc re a se d e ng a g e me nt

 I

mpro ve d wo rking re la tio nships

6/18/2018 5

T wo the ra pe utic c o urts in Ne b ra ska :

L a nc a ste r Co unty F a mily T re a tme nt Drug Co urt Do ug la s Co unty F a mily I nvo lve d Re ha b ilita tio n a nd Se rvic e T ra c k (F I RST ) Co urt

L a nc a ste r Co unty F a mily T re a tme nt Drug Co urt

 E

sta b lishe d 2014

 Drug Co urt E

nha nc e me nt Gra nt OJJDP Oc t. 2016

 Co mpo ne nts

 Ma nda to ry  Mo nthly te a m me e ting s  90-da y re vie w he a ring s  Spe c ia lize d tra uma -info rme d sub sta nc e a b use a nd pa re nting se rvic e s  Co rre c tive me a sure s

6/18/2018 6

Do ug la s Co unty F I RST Co urt

 E

sta b lishe d Ja n. 2017

 Go a ls:

 I mpro ve pro fe ssio na l a nd pa rtic ipa nt re la tio nships  I nc re a se c o nta c t b e twe e n pa rtic ipa nts & c o urt

 De fining c ha ra c te ristic s

 F a mily F inding  CASA  Me dia tio n b e fo re c a se se ttle me nt  Co urt F a mily T e a m Me e ting s

 Re fle c tive Pra c tic e fo r pro fe ssio na ls

Suc c e sse s a nd b a rrie rs:

L a ure l Jo hnso n Ho n. E liza b e th Crnko vic h

6/18/2018 7

Atto rne y E xpe rie nc e s

• Adva nta g e s a nd disa dva nta g e s to wo rking

to g e the r a s a te a m

• Ba la nc e a dvo c a c y a nd pro b le m-so lving
• Oppo rtunity to wo rk mo re c lo se ly with c lie nts
• F

le xib ility

• Advo c a te & re ha b ilita te
• Re fining the pro c e ss
• K

e e p c lie nt se lf-re fle c tio n

• Wo rking with spe c ia lly-tra ine d pro fe ssio na ls
• Co nside r c lie nt c o nse nt

Judg e E xpe rie nc e s

• Wha t ha ve yo u o b se rve d a s mo st impa c tful fo r

the fa milie s a nd ho w ha ve the the ra pe utic a ppro a c he s impa c te d the m?

• Ho w ha ve the the ra pe utic a ppro a c he s

c ha ng e d ho w yo u a ppro a c h yo ur wo rk?

• Wha t a b o ut the the ra pe utic a ppro a c he s ha s

ma de yo ur jo b a s a judg e e a sie r o r mo re re wa rding ?

• Wha t wo uld yo u diffe re ntly in the future ? Wha t

wo uld yo u do the sa me ?

6/18/2018 8

Pro g ra m E va lua tio ns:

L a nc a ste r Co unty F a mily T re a tme nt Drug Co urt Do ug la s Co unty F I RST Co urt

L a nc a ste r Co unty F a mily T re a tme nt Drug Co urt

Sa mple :

• F

T DC fa milie s

• T

ra ditio na l de pe nde nc y c o urt fa milie s Me tho d:

 Pa re nt surve ys  Ca se file re vie ws

6/18/2018 9

F T DC: Pa re nt Surve ys

 11 ite ms  5-po int sc a le

 1 = stro ng ly disa g re e , 5 = stro ng ly a g re e

 139 uniq ue surve ys  104 F

T DC pa re nts

 35 tra ditio na l de pe nde nc y c o urt pa re nts

Vo ic e

1 2 3 4 5

T he p ro c e ss o f g e tting my c hild re n b a c k is fa ir. . My vo ic e is he a rd a t fa mily te a m me e ting s. I a m c o mfo rta b le sp e a king a t fa mily te a m me e ting s. I ha ve a sa y in the d e c isio ns tha t a ffe c t me a nd my c hild re n.

F T DC T ra ditio na l

4.06* 4.41* 3.56* 3.69* 4.11 3.80 * Sig nific a nt a t p < .05 4.34 3.98

6/18/2018 10

Pro c e ss

1 2 3 4 5

I c a n b e ho ne st in te a m me e ting s. T he ma in g o a l o f this p ro c e ss is to g e t my c hild re n re turne d to me . I ha ve a c c e ss to the se rvic e s tha t I ne e d to g e t my c hild re n re turne d to me . I kno w wha t ne e d s to b e d o ne to g e t my c hild re n re turne d to me .

F T DC T ra ditio na l

4.64 4.33 4.57 4.40 4.51 * Sig nific a nt a t p < .05 4.59 4.53 4.23

Re la tio nships

1 2 3 4 5

I c a n g o to my c a se ma na g e r with a ny c o nc e rns I ha ve a b o ut my a b ility to me e t my g o a ls. I re c e ive p ra ise fro m my c a se ma na g e r whe n I ma ke p ro g re ss to wa rd s my g o a ls. I re c e ive p ra ise fro m the jud g e whe n I ma ke p ro g re ss to wa rd s my g o a ls.

F T DC T ra ditio na l

4.15* 4.19* 4.50* 3.56* 3.66* 3.69* * Sig nific a nt a t p < .05

6/18/2018 11

F T DC: Ca se F ile Re vie ws

 Re c o rde d impo rta nt c a se da te s, pe titio n

a lle g a tio ns, c o urt o rde rs, pa re nts’ pa rtic ipa tio n in se rvic e s, a nd c a se

• utc o me s

 158 file s re vie we d  129 F

T DC pa re nts

 29 tra ditio na l de pe nde nc y c o urt pa re nts

Pa rtic ipa tio n in Sub sta nc e Ab use T re a tme nt

18% Suc c e ssfully Comple te d 27% Pa rtic ipa ting in T re a tme nt

6/18/2018 12

Pa rtic ipa tio n in Sub sta nc e Ab use T re a tme nt

6% Pa rtic ipa ting in T re a tme nt

Outc o me s fo r Clo se d Ca se s

F T DC: 59 c a se s T ra ditiona l: 11 c a se s

No n-sig nific a nt diffe re nc e , p > .05

Re unifie d Re linq uishe d T PR 34% Re unifie d Re linq uishe d T PR 9%

57%

9% 27%

64%

6/18/2018 13

Sta tus o f Ope n Ca se s

F T DC: 70 c a se s T ra ditiona l: 18 c a se s

No n-sig nific a nt diffe re nc e , p > .05

Re unifie d Re linq uishe d Out o f Ho me Re unifie d Re linq uishe d Out o f Ho me

7% 11%

82% 78%

17% 5%

Ave ra g e T ime fro m Pe titio n to Re unific a tio n

F T DC = 9.46 months T ra ditiona l = 12.42 months

No n-sig nific a nt diffe re nc e , p > .05

6/18/2018 14

T ime fro m Pe titio n to Ca se Clo sure

No n-sig nific a nt diffe re nc e , p > .05

F T DC = 16.77 months T ra ditiona l = 18.35 months

Do ug la s Co unty F I RST Co urt

Sa mple

 F

I RST Co urt

 T

ra ditio na l de pe nde nc y c o urt Me tho d

 Pro fe ssio na l inte rvie ws  Co urt o b se rva tio ns

6/18/2018 15

F I RST : Pro fe ssio na l I nte rvie ws

 Atto rne ys a nd c a se wo rke rs  E

ve ry six mo nths  Spring , Summe r, & Winte r 2017

 23 q ue stio ns a b o ut the c o urt

 100 po int sc a le (0 = no t a t a ll/ c o mple te ly disa g re e , 100 = e xtre me ly/ c o mple te ly a g re e )

Atto rne y I nte rvie ws

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Ho w muc h d o yo u fe e l like a me mb e r o f the te a m? Ho w truste d is jud g e in c o urt? Ho w re sp e c te d a re yo u in c o urt? Ho w re sp e c te d a re

• the r

a tto rne ys/ c a se wo rke rs in c o urt?

Spring 2017 Winte r 217

80 70 70 80 90 87 63 87

6/18/2018 16

Atto rne y I nte rvie ws

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Ho w muc h d o p a re nts p a rtic ip a te ? Ho w we ll d o e s the c o urt use time to a c hie ving p e rma ne nc y? T

• wha t e xte nt d o

yo u a g re e with jud g e 's d e c isio n ma king p ro c e ss? T

• wha t e xte nt d o

yo u a g re e with jud g e 's d e c isio ns?

Spring 2017 Winte r 2017

25 68 68 73 72 75 80 88

Ca se wo rke r I nte rvie ws

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Ho w muc h d o yo u fe e l like a me mb e r o f the te a m? Ho w truste d is jud g e in c o urt? Ho w re sp e c te d a re yo u in c o urt? Ho w re sp e c te d a re

• the r

a tto rne ys/ c a se wo rke rs in c o urt?

Spring 2017 Summe r 2017 Winte r 2017

78 82 60 80 67 50 78 60 50 75 81 73

6/18/2018 17

Ca se wo rke r I nte rvie ws

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Ho w muc h d o p a re nts p a rtic ip a te ? Ho w we ll d o e s the c o urt use time to a c hie ving p e rma ne nc y? T

• wha t e xte nt d o yo u

a g re e with jud g e 's d e c isio n ma king p ro c e ss? T

• wha t e xte nt d o yo u

a g re e with jud g e 's d e c isio ns?

Spring 2017 Summe r 2017 Winte r 2017

77 37 75 82 70 23 78 86 63 60 70 75

F I RST : Co urt Ob se rva tio ns

 Re c o rde d he a ring info rma tio n,

pa rtic ipa tio n, issue s ra ise d, a nd c o urt e nviro nme nt

 126 he a ring s o b se rve d  48 F

I RST Co urt

 77 tra ditio na l de pe nde nc y c o urt pa re nts

6/18/2018 18

Pa rtic ipa tio n in He a ring s

Sig nific a nt a t p < .05

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

F I RST Co urt T ra ditio na l

Disc ussio n T ype

Autho rita ria n Duo lo g ue I mplie d Co nse nsus F

• rma l

Co nse nsus

F IRST Court: 26%

F I RST Co urt: 11% F I RST Co urt: 32%

F IRST Court: 28% T ra ditiona l: 53%

T ra ditio na l: 8% T ra ditio na l: 22%

T ra ditiona l: 12%

6/18/2018 19

Co nc lusio ns:

Bring ing it a ll to g e the r & pla ns fo r the future

Co nc lusio ns

 T

he ra pe utic a ppro a c he s

 Pro c e dura l justic e  Re fle c tive Pra c tic e  I

nc re a se d pe rc e ptio ns o f fa irne ss

 I

nc re a se d e ng a g e me nt

 Pa rtic ipa tio n in se rvic e s  Pa rtic ipa tio n in c o urt  T

ime to c a se c lo sure

 Wo rking re la tio nships

6/18/2018 20

Pla ns fo r the future

 Ong o ing e va lua tio n  Sha re pro g ra ms a nd re sults  E

xpa nd re lia nc e o n the ra pe utic a ppro a c he s