Hon. Robin Sage Tara Garlinghouse

 Continuation of study of legal system to assess the quality of our child protection hearings  Project Goals: ▪ Establish a baseline about the quality of court hearings including timeliness and length of hearing, docketing practices, depth of issues discussed, compliance with Texas Family Code, parent due process, engagement of parties at hearings, children in court, and legal representation within the system ▪ Examine differences in due process and well-being issues addressed in court hearings and plans for children based on geographic location, child welfare / legal system culture, and presence of the parties ▪ Make recommendations for the improvement of court hearings and Identify judicial and attorney training and education needs

 Children’s Commission developed project goals, observation tool and surveys in partnership with Children’s Bureau and American Bar Association National Resource Center for Legal and Judicial Issues  Observed 17 judges; 164 hearings; 12 locations  Interviewed 68 attorneys and 42 parents, but in- depth analysis not conducted for this report

 Study included the many types of child welfare courts  Half-day hearing observations followed by file reviews  Hearing Quality Indicators  Procedural, Well-Being, Relevancy  Analyzed the data based on many different factors  Hearing type, court type, geography, parties present, engagement, advocacy, hearing length, docket case load

Factors measured:  Number of Judges Handling each Case  Language Assistance  Whether a Record was Made  Whether Witnesses were Sworn  Docket and Caseload  Hearing Length  Geographical Factors (Rural vs. Urban)  Court Types ( CPC vs. Non-CPC)

 Number of judges per case: only 1 judge in 2/3 cases; 2 judges in 1/3 cases  Records made in 85% of cases, ¼ of records were by recording software  Translation/language assistance in 9% of cases  Witnesses were sworn in 54% of cases  Wait-times: average 56 minutes; maximum 4.25 hours

Excessive Wait time for families, attorneys, and caseworkers costs time and money and discourages professionals from taking child welfare cases. Where possible, cases should be set for specific times. For example, one case each 15 minutes or in small clusters of 3-4 per hour would significantly cut waiting time.

Courts followed several different models of docketing. Some courts set one docket for the entire day and worked until the docket was concluded; others set dockets per half day. One court set cases every 20 minutes while other set all of the cases for the morning or afternoon.

15 cases per half-day or 4 hour period seems to be the maximum number of cases where there is enough time and resources to cover the necessary issues in each hearing

 Child Protection Courts covered more relevant indicators  Possibly because:  Specialized Judges -- more training and experience in Child Welfare cases  Smaller dockets and longer hearings than many district courts  Child Protection Case Management System

 Hearings ranged from 1-81 minutes  Overall average15 minutes  Adversary15.9 minutes  Status15.1 minutes  Initial Permanency15.9 minutes  Subseq. Permanency16.6 minutes  Final21.3 minutes*  Service Review/Other10.9 minutes  Placement Review 12 minutes

 Hearings that lasted twenty-five minutes or more covered the most issues in depth and breadth, had higher engagement of parties, and addressed plans for the children and parents.  Dramatic difference in hearings that lasted less than 10 minutes and hearings that lasted more than 10  Hearings should last a bare minimum of 10 minutes, but judges should aspire to spend twenty-five minutes on a hearing when possible

 Courts are required to examine whether DFPS has made reasonable efforts at three points in the case: (1) To avoid removal, (2) To reunify the child safely, and (3) To achieve permanency for the child.  Only 10% of the courts mentioned reasonable efforts in the hearings. Most court orders (62%) included only boilerplate language on reasonable efforts..

 The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requires the court to make a finding whether a child under jurisdiction of the court is a member or is eligible to be a member of a Native American Indian tribe. ICWA affects the court’s jurisdiction as well as placement issues.  Only 4% of the Judges observed addressed ICWA in the hearing. Judges appear to be completely unaware of ICWA or may rely on case files (39%) to provide information.  40% of Attorneys surveyed recently had lack of knowledge of ICWA.  The judge must ask about ICWA even if the agency does not bring it up or the case file has an indicator that it does not apply, preferably at the adversary hearing.

Compliance with Federally Required Findings: a. Courts should make reasonable efforts findings from the bench 1. More in-depth discussion of reasonable efforts 2. Specific finding of reasonable efforts in court 3. Include specific findings in court orders b. Judges should inquire early in the case about ICWA applicability and persist until there is compliance

Factors measured:  Identification of Parties Present/Inquiry about Absent Parties  Service on Parties  Right to Court Appointed Attorneys  Hearing Delays  Court Reports  Entry of Court Orders  Extensions Granted  Setting Next Hearings

 Courts routinely identified parties except at Placement Review Hearings  Courts inquired about service on parents and advised present parents of their right to have an attorney early in the case but did not continue to pursue throughout the case  Courts seldom delayed  Extensions were granted in 1/5 of cases  Courts set the next hearing from the bench 60% of the time  Court orders were timely signed and entered

 Frontload procedural issues into adversary hearings  Continue to address service on parties  Admonish parents of right to an attorney at every hearing  Review permanency plans and concurrent plans *This may go in next section*  Use bench cards to ensure all indicators are addressed

 In 77% of Temporary Managing Conservatorship cases, the mother had a court appointed attorney; 63% of cases one or more fathers had an attorney  Attorneys were appointed early in the cases (70% prior to the show cause hearing)  Attorneys appeared regularly and advocated for their clients formally and informally for visitation, services, and reunification

Factors measured:  Child Placement  Visitation with Parents and Siblings  Education Plans and Needs  Medical Care and Psychotropic Medication  Length of Time in Care  Engagement of Youth and Parties  Family Service Plan Review  Permanency and Concurrent Plans  Transition Living Plan Review

 More emphasis on well-being in PMC hearings  Address sibling visitation when siblings not placed together  Discuss psychotropic medications in greater depth  Consider alternative placements more often  More frequent review of permanency and concurrent plans

 Children must be in court It’s the law! Most children want to be there Courts conducted better hearings when children were present  Court should engage parents and children in court  Court should engage caregivers and foster parents  Foster parents should also be encouraged to come to court

 Share findings with child welfare community  Target training for all who work in child welfare system  Repeat this study every 2-3 years to monitor improvement