Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 447–461 | Cite as

Family Drug Courts in Child Welfare

  • Sam Choi


Parental substance abuse is increasingly recognized as a significant factor in cases of child maltreatment (Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse 1999). In response to the burgeoning number of drug cases that flooded the child welfare system, policy makers created a “treatment-focused” family drug courts in the late 1990s as reported by Lu (Children’s Legal Rights Journal 21:32–42, 2001). The purpose of this paper is (1) to review the policy and theory behind family drug courts, (2) to review empirical evidence of family drug courts, and (3) develop policy and intervention implication based on this review.


Family drug courts Child welfare Substance abusing parents 


  1. Alemi, F., Haack, M., & Nemes, S. (2004). Statistical definition of relapse: Case of family drug court. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 685–698.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azzi-Lessing, L., & Olsen, L. J. (1996). Substance abuse-affected families in the child welfare systems: New challenges, new alliances. Social Work, 41, 15–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, S. (2003). The scope of family court intervention. Journal of the Center for Families, Children and the Courts, 4, 115–131.Google Scholar
  4. Belenko, S. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review, 2001 update. National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.Google Scholar
  5. Boldt, R. (2002). The adversary system and the attorney role in the drug court. In J. Nolan (Ed.), Drug courts in theory and in practice. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  6. Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (1999). No safe heaven: Children of substance-abusing parents. Columbia University.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, C. (2003). Drug Courts—Just the beginning: Getting other areas of public policy in sync. Prepared for the Middle Eastern-Mediterranean Summer Institute on Drug Use: 2003–2004. Retrieved from
  8. DiClemente, C. C. (1999). Motivation for change: Implications for substance abuse treatment. Psychological Science, 10, 209–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drug Court Program Office (DCPO) (1999). Fact sheet. US. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.Google Scholar
  10. Famularo, R., Kincherff, R., & Fenton, T. (1992). Parental substance abuse and the nature of child maltreatment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16(4), 475–483.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feig, L. (1998). Understanding the problem: The gap between substance abuse programs and child welfare services. In R. L. Hampton, V. Senatore, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Substance abuse, family violence, and child welfare: Bridging perspectives (pp. 62–95). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Garmston, R. J., & Wellman, B. M. (1999). The adoptive school: A sourcebook for developing collaborative groups. Norwood: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Geraghty, A. H., & Mlyniec, W. J. (2005). Unified family courts: Tempering enthusiasm with caution. Family Court Review, 40, 435–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Girvin, H. (2004). Beyond ‘stages of changes’: Using readiness for change and caregiver-reported problems to identify meaningful subgroups in a child welfare sample. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 897–917.Google Scholar
  15. Harrell, A., & Goodman, A. (1999). Review of specialized family drug courts: Key issues in handling child abuse and neglect cases. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  16. Hennessy, J. J., & Pallone, N. J. (Eds.). (2001). Drug courts in operation: Current research. New York: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hohman, M. (1998). Motivational interviewing: An intervention tool for child welfare case worker working with substance-abusing parents. Child Welfare, 77, 275–289.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Irvin, J. E., Bowers, C. A., Dunn, M. E., & Wang, M. C. (1999). Efficacy of relapse prevention: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 563–570.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jaudes, P., Ekwo, E., & Van Voorhis, J. (1995). Association of drug abuse and child neglect. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19(9), 1065–1075.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kopels, S., Carter-Black, J., & Poetner, J. (2002). Reducing conflict between child welfare communities. Journal of Health and Social Policy, 15, 117–129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Littell, J. H., & Girvin, H. (2004). Ready or not: Uses of the stages of change model in child welfare. Child Welfare, 83, 341–367.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lu, C. (2001). Family drug court: An alternative answer. Children’s Legal Rights Journal, 21, 32–42.Google Scholar
  23. Marlowe, D. B., Elwork, A., Festinger, D. S., & McLellan, A. T. (2003a). Drug policy by popular referendum: This, too, shall pass. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 25, 213–221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Lee, P. A., Schepise, M. M., Hazzard, J. R., Merrill, J. C., et al. (2003b). Are judicial status hearings a key component of drug court? Criminal Justice & Behavior, 30(2), 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marlowe, D. B., & Kirby, K. C. (1999). Effective use of sanctions in drug courts: Lessons from behavioral research. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2, 1–31.Google Scholar
  26. McColl, W. (2002). Theory and practice in the Baltimore city drug court. In J. Nolan (Ed.), Drug courts in theory and in practice. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  27. McMahon, T. J., & Giannini, F. D. (2003). Moving from popular stereotypes to therapeutic jurisprudence. Family Court Review, 41, 337–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller, W. R. (1985). Motivation for treatment: A review of the special emphasis on alcoholism. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 84–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP). (1997). Defining drug courts: The key components. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, US. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  30. Nolan, J. L. (2002). Drug treatment courts and the disease paradigm. Substance Use and Misuse, 37(12–13), 1723–1750.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pagliaro, A. N., & Pagliaro, L. A. (1999). Substance use among women. Lillington: Edwards Brothers.Google Scholar
  32. Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1982). Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory. Research and Practice, 19, 276–288.Google Scholar
  33. Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1997). In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. In G. A. Marlatt & G. R. VanderBos (Eds.), Addictive behaviors: Readings on etiology, prevention, and treatment (pp. 671–696). Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., Velicer, W. F., & Rossi, J. S. (1992). Criticisms and concerns of the transtheoretical model in light of recent research. British Journal of Addiction, 87, 825–828.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sackett, D. L., & Straus, S. E. (1998). Finding and applying evidence during clinical rounds: The “evidence cart”. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 1136–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saunders, B., Wilkinson, C., & Towers, T. (1996). Motivation and addictive behaviors: Theoretical perspectives. In F. Rotgers, D. S. Keller, & J. Morgenstern (Eds.), Treating substance abuse: Theory and technique (pp. 241–265). NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  37. Schwartz, B., & Lacey, H. (1982). Behaviorism, science, and human nature. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  38. Senjo, S., & Leip, L. A. (2001). Testing therapeutic jurisprudence theory: An empirical assessment of the drug court process. Western Criminology Review, 3, 1–21.Google Scholar
  39. Slobogin, C. (1995). Therapeutic jurisprudence: Five dilemmas to ponder. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 1(1), 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steib, S. D., & Blome, W. W. (2003). Fatal error: The missing ingredient in child welfare reform: Part 1. Child Welfare, 82, 747–751.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Sutton, S. (2001). Back to the drawing board? A review of applications of the transtheoretical model to substance use. Addition, 96, 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Waldfogel, J. (2000). New perspectives on child protection: Protecting children in the 21st century. Family Law Quarterly, 34, 311–322.Google Scholar
  43. Wexler, D. B. (1991). Essays in therapeutic jurisprudence. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  44. Wexler, D. B. (1995). Reflections on the scope of therapeutic jurisprudence. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 1(1), 220–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Winick, B. J. (1991). Harnessing the power of the bet: Wagering with the government as a mechanism for social and individual change. In D. B. Wexler (Ed.), Essays in therapeutic jurisprudence (pp. 219–290). Durham: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  46. Wolf, R. V. (2000). The story of the Manhattan family treatment court. Journal of the Center for Families, Children and the Courts, 2, 5–19.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Social WorkUniversity of Tennessee-KnoxvilleNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations