The Future of Court Improvement in Child Protection Cases A Presentation by the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Legal and Judicial Issues ABA Center on Children and the Law May 2002 Copyright ©MMII By the American Bar Association

Some Impressive Reforms Comprehensive timetables governing the entire court process. Michigan. Judicial workloads allowing each hearing to be individualized and thorough. Delaware. Specialized judges in small rural counties. Texas “cluster courts.” Mandatory attorney standards, training, and mentoring. California. Parent mentors - from defense attorneys. Santa Clara. Systematic collaboration with multiple agencies. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Co-location of services at the courts. Child support and drug testing. Louisville, Kentucky. Judicial performance measurement. Cincinnati. Videos explaining the court process. Kentucky.

Some Formidable Barriers Excessive judicial workloads. Frequent judicial rotation. Open attorney appointment lists. Non specialized judges. Mixed or master calendars. Lack of performance evaluation -- of attorneys and courts. Judicial scheduling highly inconvenient for agency staff and expert witnesses. Hostility between court and agency. Disorganized service delivery. High turnover of caseworkers -- related to compensation and working conditions, including supervision. And?

Some Basic Types of Court Improvements in Child Maltreatment Cases Improved Timeliness of Hearings and Decisions. More Thorough Hearings. More Knowledgeable and Highly Skilled Judges. Higher Quality Legal Representation. Deepen Coordination with Agencies and Other Courts. Improved Technology, Effectively Used. Better Treatment of Persons Before the Courts.

Levels of Court Improvement Efforts Early Steps Challenging Steps Transforming Steps

Improve Timeliness of Judicial Decisions E arly StepsIntermediate Steps Transforming Steps

Hold More Thorough Hearings Early Steps Intermediate Steps Transforming Steps

Improve Knowledge and Skills of Judges Early Steps Intermediate Steps Transforming Steps

Improve Legal Representation Early Steps Challenging Steps Transforming Steps

Deepen Coordination with Other Agencies and Courts Early Steps Challenging Steps Transforming Steps

Improved Technology, Effectively Used Early Steps Challenging Steps Transforming Steps

Better Treatment of Persons Before the Court Early Steps Challenging Steps Transforming Steps

Grand Rapids, Michigan — the Future? Strict timelines for every stage of the court process. –Frequent reviews. –TPR not considered a new case. Stability of judges. –No rotation. –Twenty-five years to build this court. Training and mentoring of attorneys. –Mandatory before trying your first case. Caseloads of 200 new dependency petitions/children per year, per full time judge. Computerized performance measurement, in cooperation with agency. –Timeliness of judges. –Timeliness of private foster care and adoption agencies. Precise scheduling of each hearing. Regular, deep collaboration with community groups. –Projects with Grand Rapids Foundation, American Humane Association.

What about long range planning here? What would you like your court process to be like in 10 years if all goes well? Can you imagine major improvements? What are your long-range goals? What about middle and short range goals? What are some possible obstacles? Who will lead the reform efforts? What are the steps and benchmarks on the way to your top priority goals? Who will be carry out the reforms — who will be responsible for what?