Child Protection Mediation & Advocacy NACC 20101

The Texas Study of CPM Commission for Children, Youth & Families – Mediation effective, yet underutilized – Promote practices that are data-driven, evidence-based, outcome-focused UTLaw Mediation Clinic – Collaboration with UTLaw Children’s Rights Clinic & Commission – CJA projects: – surveys – Report to Commission April 2010 (on website) NACC 20102

Texas Context One-lawsuit approach – Removal and services provided under temporary court orders – Statutory time limit for legal resolution Significant local autonomy for judicial administration No statewide governmental mediation services NACC 20103

4 The Past: CJA counties (out of 254), rural & urban Training developed and delivered Independent evaluation The Bottom Line: CPM effective and efficient process for resolving child protection litigation NACC 2010

5 Key CJA Results Variety of disputes, including termination Most resulted in agreements – Full or partial agreements in 76% of cases Used at all stages in case lifecycle – Trend toward later mediation during CJA period – : 86% of mediations occurring later than 90 days after litigation began NACC 2010

6 Key CJA Results Process seen as fair and effective  very satisfied participants – Preferred mediation to adjudication – Opportunity to be heard Anecdotal reports of savings but data inconsistent Participants considered CPM more effective than resolution through court hearing NACC 2010

CJA Funding Provided a Kick-Start to Mediation Paid for mediation services Funded CPM-focused mediation training NACC 20107

CJA Funding Ended 2005 No $  Creativity (home-grown practices + new funding sources) NACC 20108

The Texas Experience: Present We wondered what was actually going on No consistent, comparable statewide quantitative data surveys – Judges – Mediators – CASAs – DFPS staff – Lawyers in child protection cases NACC 20109

Caveat NACC

11 What We Learned Judges strongly believe that CPM serves the best interest of children – 88% satisfied or very satisfied – NO judge dissatisfied or very dissatisfied Reports indicate mediation is widely used No consistent criteria for referring cases to mediation NACC 2010

12 What We Learned Courts refer at all stages – Most mediations occur later in case lifecycle Focus on settlement of litigated case – A minority occur early Focus on temporary custody, placement, services Coordination with FGDM? Most mediations result in settlement NACC 2010

13 Concerns of Judges Mediation confidentiality limits access of judges to facts related to best interests of children Quality of participation – Parties (other than AALs & GALs) not focused on best interests – Impact of multiple representatives of DFPS Even so, judges overwhelmingly see mediation as serving best interests of children NACC 2010

Children & Mediation Children’s representatives participate usually – AALs – GALs – CASAs Children rarely participate – 29% mediators reported children rarely attended – 64% mediators reported children NEVER attended – Some mediators imposed age limits on attendance NACC

Effective Advocacy A mediation is not a trial. Then, whom are you trying to persuade? NACC

Representing Children in Mediation Prepare – meet with child-client BEFORE the mediation – Pre-mediation submittal/brief – Plan strategies and options – Know the other participants “Be a zealous advocate, not a foolish advocate” – Strengths & weaknesses – theirs and YOURS – Don’t miss your own boat – Know your judge and jurisdiction – Know and use your mediator NACC

Representing Children in Mediation Does the child-client attend? – Do they want to? – Why attend? – Ethical considerations – Multiple clients in same case – Compare and contrast roles of others who speak for the child Unique role of child’s attorney NACC

Representing Children in Mediation Understand mediation confidentiality and its limits You don’t have to agree Post-mediation actions – Legal: disposing of the case – Client follow-up NACC

Representing Children in Real-World Mediations NACC

Future: National Guidelines Think Tanks annually since 2007 Workgroup of experts drafting guidelines for CPM – Key sponsors: AHA, AFCC, NCJFCJ – NACC participating Hope to have draft guidelines at AFCC meeting in Orlando in June 2011 NACC

Contact information Judge John Specia Plunkett & Gibson 201/ Cynthia Bryant University of Texas School of Law 512/ Tiffany Roper Texas Supreme Court Commission for Children, Youth & Families 512/ Leslie Strauch University of Texas School of Law 512/ NACC