Abstract
Expanding the use of problem-solving techniques into other courts and making their use more widespread is considered to hold great promise for improving the judicial branch’s ability to respond positively to the needs of its constituents. But can the core principles of stand-alone specialized drug courts, for example, be productively applied throughout court systems? Which problem-solving principles and practices are more easily applied in traditional court processes and which are less easily applied? Dependency courts or child welfare courts provide a unique opportunity to examine these questions. In this chapter, we provide an orientation to the widely recognized theory of “best practice” framework for dependency case processing as it requires a collaborative problem-solving approach to the resolution of child abuse and neglect cases. We compare and contrast this foundational “best practice” dependency court model with family drug courts (FDCs), which are the most prevalent specialized problem-solving court in the child abuse and neglect case context. We also present research exploring the different procedures and outcomes associated with the implementation of three problem-solving court models in one state. This research provides insight into the operation of problem-solving court features in the dependency court context and sheds light on how best to coordinate between cases handled by a traditional dependency court process and those assigned to specialized models such as FDCs in order to maximize the use of specialized models for those individuals who need them most.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The national council of juvenile and family court judges was founded in the United States in 1937 (www.ncjfcj.org).
- 2.
The original Guidelines document was supplemented by the Adoption and Permanency Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases, which was published by the National Council in 2000 to more fully cover best practices as they relate to the latter stages of the dependency case process (i.e., termination of parental rights and adoption).
References
Berman, G. (2000). What is a traditional judge, anyways? Judicature, 84(2), 78–85.
Berman, G., & Feinblatt, J. (2005). Good courts. New York: The New Press.
Burford, G., & Hudson, J. (Eds.). (2009). Family group conferencing: New directions in community-centered child and family practice. New Brunswick: Transaction Publications.
California Judicial Council. (2005). Standard of judicial administration 24. Washington: West Publishing.
Casey, T. (2004). When good intentions are not enough: Problem-solving courts and the impending crisis of legitimacy. SMU Law Review, 57, 1459–1483.
Dobbin, S., Gatowski, S., Litchfield, M., Maxwell, D., & Oetjen, J. (2003). An evaluation of Utah court improvement project reforms and best practices: Results and recommendations. Technical Assistance Bulletin, VII(1). U.S. Department Of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. www.ncjfcj.org.
Dobbin, S., Gatowski, S., Litchfield, M., & Padilla, J. (2006). Evaluating front-loading strategies in child abuse and neglect cases: Are we improving outcomes for children and families. Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. www.ncjfcj.org.
Edwards, L. (1992). The juvenile court and the role of the juvenile court judge. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 43(2), 25–32.
Farole, D. J., Puffet, N. K., Rempel, M., & Byrne, F. (2005). Applying problem-solving court principles in mainstream courts: Lessons for state courts. Justice System Journal, 26(1), 57–75.
Gatowski, S., Dobbin, S., & Litchfield, M. (2002a). The Portland model court expanded second shelter hearing process: evaluating best practice components of front-loading. Technical Assistance Bulletin, VI(3), U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. www.ncjfcj.org.
Gatowski, S., Dobbin, S., Litchfield, M., Halemba, G., Siegel, G., & Gunn, R. (2002b). The El Paso, Texas 65th Judicial district children’s court: Evaluation of model court activities (1999–2001). Technical Assistance Bulletin, VI(4), U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. www.ncjfcj.org.
Gatowski, S., Dobbin, S., Litchfield, M., & Oetjen, J. (2005). Mediation in child protection cases: An evaluation of the Washington, D.C. family court child protection mediation program. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. www.ncjfcj.org.
Lecklitner, G. L., Malik, N. M, Aaron, S. M., & Lederman, C. S. (1999). Promoting safety for abused children and battered mothers: Miami-Dade County’s model dependency court intervention program. Child Maltreatment, 4, 175–182.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice: Critical issues in social justice. New York: Plenum.
Litchfield, M., Gatowski, S., & Dobbin, S. (2003). Improving outcomes for families: Results from an evaluation of Miami’s family decision-making program. Protecting Children, 19(1–2), 48–52.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ). (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 (NCJFCJ). (2000). Adoption and permanency 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 (NCJFCJ). (2005). Washington State CIP re-assessment final report. Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ). (2009). The resource guidelines: Supporting best practices and building foundations for innovation in child abuse and neglect cases. Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
Ogletree, C. (1993). Beyond justifications: Seeking motivations to sustain public defenders. Harvard Law Review, 106, 1239.
Portune, L., Gatowski, S., & Dobbin, S. (2009). The resource guidelines: Supporting best practices and building foundations for innovation in child abuse and neglect cases. Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
Quinn, M. C. (2001). Whose team am I on anyway? Musings of a public defender about drug treatment court practice. N Y U Journal of Law and Social Change, 26, 37–56.
Roush, D. W. (1996). Part I: Historical perspective—Advent of the juvenile justice system. In D. W. Roush (Ed.), Desktop guide to good juvenile detention practice—Research report. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Simon, W. H. (2003). Criminal defenders and community justice: The drug court example. American Criminal Law Review, 40, 1595–1599.
Summers, A., Dobbin, S., & Gatowski, S. (2008). The state of juvenile dependency court research: Implications for practice and policy. Administrative Office of the California Courts and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. www.ncjfcj.org.
Thoennes, N. (1997). An evaluation of child protection mediation in five California counties. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 35(2), 184–195.
Thoennes, N. (2008). What we know now: Findings from dependency mediation research. Family Court Review, 47(1), 21.
U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance. (2004). Family dependency treatment courts: Addressing child abuse and neglect cases using the drug court model. U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, December.
U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance. (2005). Drug court activity. U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse and American University, January.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2005).Child maltreatment 2003. Washington: DHHS.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1998). Juvenile and family drug courts: An overview. Office of justice programs drug court clearinghouse and technical assistance project.
Winnick, B. J., & Wexler, D. B. (2003). Judging in a therapeutic key: Therapeutic jurisprudence and the courts. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
Young, N. K., & Otero, C. (2005). Current substance abuse issues impacting child abuse and neglect. Fifteenth National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, Washington, D.C. (April).
Young, N. K., Wong, M., Adkins, T., & Simpson, S. (2003). Family drug treatment courts: Process documentation and retrospective outcome evaluation. Irvine: Children and Family Futures.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gatowski, S., Dobbin, S., Summers, A. (2013). Exploring the Value-Added of Specialized Problem-Solving Courts for Dependency Cases. In: Wiener, R., Brank, E. (eds) Problem Solving Courts. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7403-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7403-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7402-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7403-6
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)