The Failure of Fragmentation: The Promise of a System of Unified Family Courts

Family Law Quarterly

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 3-30

  Ross, Catherine J ^a  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032360729     PISSN: 0014729X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (107)

1. See Naomi Cahn, Family Law, Federalism and the Federal Courts, 79 IOWA L. REV. 1073, 1091 (1994), on the traditionally low status accorded family courts in the state judicial systems.
2. Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, A Public Role in the Private Family: the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act and the Politics of Child Protection and Education, 57 OHIO ST. L.J. 393, 407 (1996) (citing AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION PRESIDENTIAL WORKING GROUP ON THE UNMET LEGAL NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES, AMERICA'S CHILDREN AT RISK: A NATIONAL AGENDA FOR LEGAL ACTION, 53-54 (1993) [hereinafter AMERICA'S CHILDREN AT RISK]).
3. Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, A Public Role in the Private Family: the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act and the Politics of Child Protection and Education, 57 OHIO ST. L.J. 393, 407 (1996) (citing AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION PRESIDENTIAL WORKING GROUP ON THE UNMET LEGAL NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES, AMERICA'S CHILDREN AT RISK: A NATIONAL AGENDA FOR LEGAL ACTION, 53-54 (1993) [hereinafter AMERICA'S CHILDREN AT RISK]).
4. Catherine J. Ross, From Vulnerability to Voice: Appointing Counsel for Children in Civil Litigation, 64 FORDHAM L. REV. 1571, 1619, 1619 n.280-81 (1996).
5. Jan Hoffman, Judge Hayden 's Family Values, N. Y. TIMES MAG., Oct. 15, 1995, §§ 6, 44, 46.
6. Jana B. Singer, The Privatization of Family Law, 1992 WIS. L. REV. 1443, 1507 (citing Martha L. Fineman, Dominant Discourse, Professional Language, and Legal Change in Child Custody Decisionmaking, 101 HARV. L. REV. 727 (1988)).
7. Jana B. Singer, The Privatization of Family Law, 1992 WIS. L. REV. 1443, 1507 (citing Martha L. Fineman, Dominant Discourse, Professional Language, and Legal Change in Child Custody Decisionmaking, 101 HARV. L. REV. 727 (1988)).
8. AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, AN AGENDA FOR JUSTICE: ABA PERSPECTIVES ON CRIMINAL AND CIVIL JUSTICE ISSUES 3-4 (1996) [hereinafter AGENDA FOR JUSTICE] (with the exception of traffic offenses, that make up approximately 60% of the matters before the nation's courts). See also Rex D. Throckmorton, Message from the Outgoing President: The State Bar's Response to the Public Opinion Poll, address before New Mexico State Bar (Sept. 26, 1997), in BAR J., Sept.-Oct. 1997 ("Other than traffic court, the most likely involvement a person has with the court system is through family court. I suspect family court is the source of much of the discontent about the legal profession.").
9. AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, AN AGENDA FOR JUSTICE: ABA PERSPECTIVES ON CRIMINAL AND CIVIL JUSTICE ISSUES 3-4 (1996) [hereinafter AGENDA FOR JUSTICE] (with the exception of traffic offenses, that make up approximately 60% of the matters before the nation's courts). See also Rex D. Throckmorton, Message from the Outgoing President: The State Bar's Response to the Public Opinion Poll, address before New Mexico State Bar (Sept. 26, 1997), in BAR J., Sept.-Oct. 1997 ("Other than traffic court, the most likely involvement a person has with the court system is through family court. I suspect family court is the source of much of the discontent about the legal profession.").
10. AGENDA FOR JUSTICE, supra note 6, at 112; BRIAN OSTROM & NEAL B. KAUDER, EXAMINING THE WORK. OF STATE COURTS, 1995: A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE FROM THE COURT STATISTICS PROJECT 39 (1996).
11. AGENDA FOR JUSTICE, supra note 6, at 112; BRIAN OSTROM & NEAL B. KAUDER, EXAMINING THE WORK. OF STATE COURTS, 1995: A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE FROM THE COURT STATISTICS PROJECT 39 (1996).
12. AGENDA FOR JUSTICE, supra note 6, at 3-4. Some authorities argue that "over half of all civil actions filed in the nation's trial courts are divorce cases. . . ." Singer, supra note 5, at 1562 n.554.
13. OSTROM & KAUDER, supra note 7, at 39.
14. Id.
15. On the emergence of the juvenile justice system, see, e.g., In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967); ELLEN RYERSON, THE BEST LAID PLANS: AMERICA'S JUVENILE COURT EXPERIMENT (1978).
16. Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 704 (1992); but see id. at 713 (Blackmun, J., concurring)(there is no doctrinal basis for the so-called domestic relations exception to the federal statute creating diversity jurisdiction), and Cahn, supra note 1, to the same effect.
17. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE NEWS No.7, 1, Apr. 13, 1994. See also, Barbara A. Babb, An Interdisciplinary Approach to Family Law Jurisprudence: Application of an Ecological and Therapeutic Perspective, 72 IND. L.J. 775, 798 (1997) (citing Michael A. Town, The Unified Family Court: Therapeutic Justice for Families and Children 1 (Mar. 11, 1994) (transcript available in the Chicago Bar Association Building)).
18. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE NEWS No.7, 1, Apr. 13, 1994. See also, Barbara A. Babb, An Interdisciplinary Approach to Family Law Jurisprudence: Application of an Ecological and Therapeutic Perspective, 72 IND. L.J. 775, 798 (1997) (citing Michael A. Town, The Unified Family Court: Therapeutic Justice for Families and Children 1 (Mar. 11, 1994) (transcript available in the Chicago Bar Association Building)).
19. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE NEWS No.7, 1, Apr. 13, 1994. See also, Barbara A. Babb, An Interdisciplinary Approach to Family Law Jurisprudence: Application of an Ecological and Therapeutic Perspective, 72 IND. L.J. 775, 798 (1997) (citing Michael A. Town, The Unified Family Court: Therapeutic Justice for Families and Children 1 (Mar. 11, 1994) (transcript available in the Chicago Bar Association Building)).
20. Roscoe Pound, The Place of the Family Court in the Judicial System, 5 NAT'L PROBATION & PAROLE ASS'N J. 161, 164 (1959). In other areas of the law, it is reversible error for a decision-maker to render judgment based on "a confused, distorted picture." Straub v. Reading Co., 220 F.2d 177, 182 (3d Cir. 1955) (reversing and remanding in a civil case where a "warped version" of events resulted from attorney misconduct).
21. Pennsylvania Commission on Women in the Profession, Chart (1996), courtesy of Elizabeth Bennett.
22. AMERICA'S CHILDREN AT RISK, supra note 2, at 53.
23. AGENDA FOR JUSTICE, supra note 6, at 3.
24. Catherine J. Ross, Disposition in a Discretionary Regime: Punishment and Rehabilitation in the Juvenile Justice System, 36 B.C. L. REV. 1037, 1042-44, 1043 n.31 (1995).
25. Fox Butterfield, With Juvenile Courts in Chaos, Some Propose Scrapping Them, N.Y. TIMES, July 21, 1997, at Al.
26. Id.
27. EDWARD HUMES, No MATTER How LOUD I SHOUT: A YEAR IN THE LIFE OF JUVENILE COURT 106-19, 367-69 (1996).
28. Symposium, The Future of State Supreme Courts as Institutions in the Law: Roundtable Supreme Courts as Sources of Legal Change, 72 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1193, 1199 (1997).
29. See, e.g., Art Barnum, Judge to Try "Better Way" to Family Justice; Dupage to Debut New Domestic Court, CHI. TRIB. Dec. 30, 1997, 1 (discussing a pilot project receiving technical support from the ABA Project on Communities, Families and the Justice System).
30. See, e.g., JANET FINK, NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE FROM THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, FAMILY AND JUVENILE LAW ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Oct. 6, 1997) (on file with author).
31. See e.g., AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, JUST SOLUTIONS: SEEKING INNOVATION AND CHANGE IN THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM 45 (1994) (unified family courts received the "resounding endorsement" of conferees from around the country); FRANKLIN COUNTY [Massachusetts] FUTURES LAB TASK FORCE, MOVING TO A PREFERRED FUTURE: A REINVENTING JUSTICE ACTION PLAN, 30, 49 (1995).
32. See e.g., AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, JUST SOLUTIONS: SEEKING INNOVATION AND CHANGE IN THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM 45 (1994) (unified family courts received the "resounding endorsement" of conferees from around the country); FRANKLIN COUNTY [Massachusetts] FUTURES LAB TASK FORCE, MOVING TO A PREFERRED FUTURE: A REINVENTING JUSTICE ACTION PLAN, 30, 49 (1995).
33. The first unified family court was created in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1914. Nearly half a century later statewide systems were established, first in Rhode Island (1961), then in Hawaii (1964), South Carolina (1968), the District of Columbia (1970), and Delaware (1971). These "pioneer" efforts were followed by expansion into the state courts for Louisiana, New Jersey, Florida, Vermont, Virginia, Kentucky, and parts of other states. See Barbara A. Babb, Where We Stand: An Analysis of America s Family Law Adjudicatory Systems and the Mandate to Establish Unified Family Courts, 32 FAM. L.Q. 31 (1998), for a summary of jurisdictions that have all or some of the attributes of a unified family court.
34. Babb, supra note 26, at 38.
35. Jeffrey Tauber, Community Policing and Drug Courts: Working Together Within a Unified Drug Court System (forthcoming, draft on file with author). See also Gordon Bazemore & Dennis Maloney, Rehabilitating Community Service: Toward Restorative Justice Sanctions in a Balanced Justice System, 58 FED. PROBATION 24 (1994); GORDON BAZEMORE, BALANCED AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE FOR JUVENILES: A NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE IN THE 21ST CENTURY (The Balanced and Restorative Justice Project, Florida Atlantic University, Sept. 1995).
36. Jeffrey Tauber, Community Policing and Drug Courts: Working Together Within a Unified Drug Court System (forthcoming, draft on file with author). See also Gordon Bazemore & Dennis Maloney, Rehabilitating Community Service: Toward Restorative Justice Sanctions in a Balanced Justice System, 58 FED. PROBATION 24 (1994); GORDON BAZEMORE, BALANCED AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE FOR JUVENILES: A NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE IN THE 21ST CENTURY (The Balanced and Restorative Justice Project, Florida Atlantic University, Sept. 1995).
37. Jeffrey Tauber, Community Policing and Drug Courts: Working Together Within a Unified Drug Court System (forthcoming, draft on file with author). See also Gordon Bazemore & Dennis Maloney, Rehabilitating Community Service: Toward Restorative Justice Sanctions in a Balanced Justice System, 58 FED. PROBATION 24 (1994); GORDON BAZEMORE, BALANCED AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE FOR JUVENILES: A NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE IN THE 21ST CENTURY (The Balanced and Restorative Justice Project, Florida Atlantic University, Sept. 1995).
38. Since the creation of the first drug court in 1989, 171 drug courts have been established around the country, with another 100 being planned. In addition, 25 drug courts are dedicated to juvenile offenders, and at least 40 more juvenile drug courts are in development. Drug Strategies, Stopping the Cycle in Drug Court, in KEEPING SCORE 23 (1997).
39. CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE OF AMERICA, CHILD WELFARE FACT SHEET (on file with author), citing, M.M. Dore et al., Identifying Substance Abuse in Maltreating Families: A Child Welfare Challenge, in CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT, at 531-43 (1995).
40. Drug Strategies, supra note 29.
41. Tauber, supra note 28.
42. See Babb, supra note 26.
43. See ABA Policy, 32 FAM L.Q. 1; Jeffery A. Kuhn, A Seven-Year Lesson on Unified Family Courts: What We Have Learned Since the 1990 National Family Court Symposium, 32 FAM. L.Q. 67 (1998).
44. See ABA Policy, 32 FAM L.Q. 1; Jeffery A. Kuhn, A Seven-Year Lesson on Unified Family Courts: What We Have Learned Since the 1990 National Family Court Symposium, 32 FAM. L.Q. 67 (1998).
45. See Robert W. Page, Family Courts: An Effective Judicial Approach to the Resolution of Family Disputes, 44 Juv. & FAM. CT. J. 1, 8 (1993).
46. AMERICA'S CHILDREN AT RISK, supra note 2, at 53-54 (describing the current patchwork approach that applies in many jurisdictions), cited in, inter alia, Woodhouse, supra note 2, at 406-07 (explaining how one incident may lead to simultaneous proceedings before a domestic relations court, a dependency court, a special court dealing with domestic violence, and a criminal court, each of which may issue overlapping and conflicting orders);
47. and Paul A. Williams, A Unified Family Court for Missouri, 63 UMKC L. REV. 383, 387 (1995).
48. INSTITUTE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION/AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, JUVENILE JUSTICE STANDARDS RELATING TO COURT ORGANIZATION, Standard 1.1 Part 1, 5 (1980) (approved by the ABA House of Delegates in 1980).
49. SANFORD N. KATZ & JEFFREY A. KUHN, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A MODEL FAMILY COURT: A REPORT FROM THE NATIONAL FAMILY COURT SYMPOSIUM, Recommendations 13-17 (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, May 1991).
50. The Social Security Act, Pub. L. No.103-66, § 13712, 107 Stat. 649 (as codified in 42 U.S.C. § 670). Delaware and Rhode Island, for example, have incorporated child support enforcement courts (known as "IV-D courts") into their long established unified family court systems.
51. See Babb, supra note 26, at 42.
52. See, e.g., Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson et al., Unified Family Courts: How Will They Serve Victims of Domestic Violence?, 32 FAM L.Q. 131 (1998) (enumerating such concerns and explaining how unified family courts can respond to them).
53. See Ross, supra note 18, at 1040-41, 1044-51.
54. RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE, supra note 24.
55. See Kuhn, supra note 34, at 67, 77-79 (for an explanation of how this concept has evolved during the last seven years).
56. The organizations that endorse the concept of unified family courts include the American Bar Association, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Conference of State Court Administrators, National Association of Counsel for Children, National Association of Women Judges, and National Judicial College. While the ABA Policy, for example, does not expressly call for "one judge, one family," the accompanying report emphasizes the importance of "one judge, one family" as a goal for most jurisdictions. See American Bar Association Steering Committee on the Unmet Legal Needs of Children, One Judge, One Family: One Staff, One Family, in REPORTS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES: 1994 ANNUAL MEETING, § 10C, 5 (1994).
57. Symposium, supra note 22, at 1199.
58. THE FUND FOR MODERN COURTS, THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY OF THE NEW YORK CITY FAMILY COURT: A CITIZEN'S COURT MONITORS ASSESSMENT OF THE COURT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 6, 9 (Sept. 1997).
59. New York Colloquium of the Second World Congress on Family Law and the Rights of Children, Comments of Jeffrey A. Kuhn, in CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN COURT - A UNIFIED SYSTEM (Transcript), at 23 (UNICEF, N.Y., Sept. 12, 1996).
60. AMERICA'S CHILDREN AT RISK, supra note 2, at 54.
61. Bruce Lambert, A Court Aims at Roots of Child Neglect: On Long Island, New Program Takes on Parents'Substance Abuse, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 12, 1997, at B17.
62. AMERICA'S CHILDREN AT RISK , supra note 2, at 53-54; Woodhouse, supra note 2, at 407.
63. Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 § 103, Pub. L. 105-89, 111 Stat. 211, Nov. 19, 1997 (requiring concurrent planning for adoption of children who have been in foster care for 15 out of 22 consecutive months).
64. Id. at § 305(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 629(b). For a discussion of the complexities of child welfare cases, see Mark Hardin, Child Protection Cases in a Unified Family Court, 32 FAM. L.Q. 147 (1998).
65. See Dunford- Jackson et al., supra note 41; Lisa G. Lerman, Mediation of Wife Abuse Cases: The Adverse Impact of Informal Dispute Resolution on Women, 7 HARV. WOMEN'S L.J. 57 (1984); Trina Grillo, The Mediation Alternative: Process Dangers for Women, 100 YALE L.J. 1545 (1991).
66. See Dunford- Jackson et al., supra note 41; Lisa G. Lerman, Mediation of Wife Abuse Cases: The Adverse Impact of Informal Dispute Resolution on Women, 7 HARV. WOMEN'S L.J. 57 (1984); Trina Grillo, The Mediation Alternative: Process Dangers for Women, 100 YALE L.J. 1545 (1991).
67. The vast majority of domestic relations matters are resolved by the parties before trial and merely require a judicial decree to become effective. See Ross, supra note 3, at 1583 (citing Sanford N. Katz, The Judge and Child-Custody Decision-Making in the United States, in FRONTIERS OF FAMILY LAW, 187, 188 (David Pearl & Ros Pickford, eds., 1995)). Before such orders are issued, however, intake workers and case managers should inquire carefully to insure that uncontested private matters really are uncontested rather than resulting from an uneven distribution of power among the parties.
68. See AMERICA'S CHILDREN AT RISK, supra note 2, at 54 . See also AGENDA FOR JUSTICE, supra note 8.
69. See AMERICA'S CHILDREN AT RISK, supra note 2, at 54 . See also AGENDA FOR JUSTICE, supra note 8.
70. New York Colloquium, supra note 48, at 38.
71. One promising trend is the development of inter-professional training programs at the graduate level. Such programs may involve students and professors from law, education, social work, psychology, and the medical sciences. Two good examples are the Boston College Center for Child, Family, and Community Partnerships (Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts), and the Civitas programs at Loyola and other universities. Graduates of such programs should be able to work well together as professionals, in part because they will understand the capabilities and limitations of the other professions. For example, based on my own experiences in inter-professional settings, nonlawyers do not immediately understand that the lawyer's code requires him or her to focus on the identified client's rights and interests rather than on the interests of the family group, whereas a social worker, for example, might consider the needs of all of the family members collectively. For additional programs at law schools, see Bruce A. Green & Bernardine Dohrn, Foreword: Children and the Ethical Practice of Law, 64 FORDHAM L. REV. 1281, 1287 n.12 (1996).
72. Hoffman, supra note 4, at 48.
73. AMERICA'S CHILDREN AT RISK, supra note 2 at 55.
74. MARY ANN GLENDON, THE TRANSFORMATION OF FAMILY LAW: STATE, LAW, AND FAMILY IN THE UNITED STATES AND WESTERN EUROPE 308 (1989).
75. See infra at 22, 28; and Hardin, supra note 53.
76. Bill Hewitt, A Day in the Life, PEOPLE WEEKLY MAG., Dec. 15, 1997, 48, 50 (cover story reporting on 24-hours observing the child protection system around the country).
77. Hoffman, supra note 4. Judge Hayden has since been appointed a U.S. district judge.
78. John Gibeaut, Nobody's Child, A.B.A.J., 44, 50 (Dec. 1997) (quoting one formerly frustrated dependency court judge regarding changes in an improved system in Florida).
79. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 28 (1967).
80. Id.; Hardin, supra note 53.
81. Kuhn, supra note 34, at 67, 69.
82. Andrew Schepard, Parental Conflict Prevention Programs and the Unified Family Court: A Public Health Perspective, 32 FAM. L.Q. 95 (1998).
83. AMERICA'S CHILDREN AT RISK, supra note 2, at 47.
84. See ABA Policy, supra note 34.
85. See Kuhn, supra note 34.
86. New York Colloquium, Comments of Jeffrey A. Kuhn, supra note 48, at 29.
87. For a broad survey of examples, see CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF SOCIAL POLICY, CHILDREN IN THE HALLS OF JUSTICE: A REPORT ON CHILD CARE IN THE COURTS (June 1995).
88. See Family and Children's Service, Helping Children Cope with Divorce Program Receives National Award (press release) (Oct. 8, 1997); interview with Millie Otey, Member of the ABA Steering Committee on the Unmet Legal Needs of Children (Oct. 10, 1997) (document on file with author). For an in-depth discussion of parent education programs, see Schepard, supra note 69, at 106-29.
89. This explains the language in the ABA Policy on Unified Family Courts specifying that a "unified children and family court [sic] must have all authority which is supported by its constitutional, statutory and equitable powers to order other government agencies, e.g. housing authorities, mental health agencies, etc., to provide services to families." ABA Policy, supra note 34, ¶ 2.
90. Tilden v. Hayward, CIV A. No. 11297, 1990 WL 131162 (Del. Ch., Sept. 10, 1990). The court noted that, absent violation of clear statutory requirements, [c]ourts are not empowered to redress every social and economic malady. Courts are not legislatures.... [T]he economic wisdom of [spending many times more on foster care for children than it would cost to provide housing for the family] is an issue for the elected representatives of the people, not for those fortunately placed members of the legal profession who are not democratically accountable. Id. at 1990 WL 131162, *17.
91. S.G. v. Prince William Co. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 488 S.E.2d 653 (Va. Ct. App. 1997) (a juvenile court may order the state to provide and pay for specific residential treatment for a child adjudicated as dependent).
92. In re Nicole G., 577 A.2d 248, 250-51 (R.I. 1990) (expressly rejecting the state's contention that the unified family court lacks authority to order a state agency to provide housing subsidies or to adopt other individualized plans that would "divert" resources from its "primary mission").
93. In re J.H. v. S.H., 880 P.2d 1030, 1034 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994) (upholding an order to provide housing for a homeless family, but reversing the lower court's use of contempt powers invoked by implication rather than expressly).
94. In re S.M., FJ-1125-98-N (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. Sept. 24, 1997), transcript of Hearing before the Hon. James N. Citta (on file with the author).
95. See id. at 12.
96. See id. at 17.
97. See, e.g., Nina Burleigh, The Killer Next Door, N.Y. TIMES MAG., Dec. 8, 1997, 52, 57; Terry Pristin, New Jersey Daily Briefing: Family Sought to Commit Boy, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 4, 1997, at B1.
98. See, e.g., Nina Burleigh, The Killer Next Door, N.Y. TIMES MAG., Dec. 8, 1997, 52, 57; Terry Pristin, New Jersey Daily Briefing: Family Sought to Commit Boy, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 4, 1997, at B1.
99. Elizabeth F. Emens, Nancy W. Hall, Catherine Ross & Edward F. Zigler, Preventing Juvenile Delinquency: An Ecological, Developmental Approach, in CHILDREN, FAMILIES AND GOVERNMENT: PREPARING FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY 308, 313 (E.F. Zigler et al., eds., 1996).
100. See Mark Soler, Re-Imagining the Juvenile Court, in CHILD, PARENT AND STATE: LAW AND POLICY READER 596, 601-02 (S. Randall Humm et al., eds., 1994).
101. Emens et al., supra note 85, at 321 (describing the Yale Child Welfare Research Program). See also David L. Olds et al., Long-term Effects of Home Visitation on Maternal Life Course and Child Abuse and Neglect: Fifteen-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Trial, 278 JAMA No. 8, 637 (Aug. 27, 1997) (presenting data supporting the recommendation of the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect that home visitation services be provided routinely to all parents of newborns). Compare the discussion of prevention with regard to marital dissolution in Schepard, supra note 69, at 107-21.
102. See In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967); Ross, supra note 18, at 1040; PATRICIA PURITZ ET AL., A CALL FOR JUSTICE: AN ASSESMENT OF ACCESS TO COUNSEL AND QUALITY OF REPRESENTATION IN DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS (American Bar Association 1995)(surveying the failure to achieve the the right to counsel guaranteed to minors in Gault).
103. See In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967); Ross, supra note 18, at 1040; PATRICIA PURITZ ET AL., A CALL FOR JUSTICE: AN ASSESMENT OF ACCESS TO COUNSEL AND QUALITY OF REPRESENTATION IN DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS (American Bar Association 1995)(surveying the failure to achieve the the right to counsel guaranteed to minors in Gault).
104. See supra at 11.
105. Bruce Lambert, A Court Aims at Roots of Child Neglect: On Long Island, New Program Takes on Parents ' Substance Abuse, N. Y. TIMES, Dec. 12, 1997, at B17, B26 (quoting Chief Judge Judith Kaye of the State of New York regarding judicial reform and the opening of the nation's first Family Drug Treatment Court).
106. This discussion of the hypothetical outcome of George's case in a unified family court assumes a high level of performance by court personnel. It does not, however, overlook the potential for oversights and mistakes even in a unified family court. Nor does it examine the risks posed by concentrating discretionary power over one family in one judge or one team.
107. E.g., DAVID ROTHMAN, THE DISCOVERY OF THE ASYLUM: SOCIAL ORDER AND DISORDER IN THE NEW REPUBLIC (1971).