A Seven-Year Lesson on Unified Family Courts: What We Have Learned since the 1990 National Family Court Symposium

Family Law Quarterly

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 67-91

  Kuhn, Jeffrey A ^a  

^a ABA's Standing Comm Substance Abuse ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032390358     PISSN: 0014729X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (61)

1. SANFORD N. KATZ & JEFFREY A. KUHN, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A MODEL FAMILY COURT: A REPORT FROM THE NATIONAL FAMILY COURT SYMPOSIUM (1991).
2. The term "therapeutic justice" was first coined by Senior Family Court Judge Michael A. Town of Hawaii's Family Court in a paper delivered to the Chicago Bar Association on March 11, 1994. The term has its origins in "Therapeutic Jurisprudence," first used by Professor David Wexler at the University of Arizona in the early 1990s.
3. See STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, FAMILY DIVISION CASE WEIGHTING/STAFFING RATIO STUDY (Final Report 1996).
4. Id. at A4.
5. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES, MODEL RESOURCE GUIDELINES: IMPROVING COURT PRACTICE IN CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT CASES (1995) [hereinafter MODEL RESOURCE GUIDELINES].
6. KATZ & KUHN, supra note 1.
7. TIMOTHY F. FAUTSKO ET AL., PLANNING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FAMILY COURT IN KENTUCKY 37-44 (1997).
8. Id. at 39.
9. See JOHN E.B. MYERS, CHILD WITNESS LAW AND PRACTICE 417 (1st ed. 1987); see also I. RUSS, CHILD DEPENDENCY BENCHBOOK (1st ed. 1994).
10. See JOHN E.B. MYERS, CHILD WITNESS LAW AND PRACTICE 417 (1st ed. 1987); see also I. RUSS, CHILD DEPENDENCY BENCHBOOK (1st ed. 1994).
11. FAUTSKO, supra note 7, at 40. Also, the dependency court division of the Los Angeles County, California, Superior Court worked with the Disney Company in the early 1990s to develop a child-friendly court facility containing child size furnishings and developmentally appropriate decor and entertainment.
12. Id. at 39.
13. JEFFREY A. KUHN, TREATMENT-BASED FAMILY DRUG COURT PROTOCOLS (1997).
14. U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, DIFFERENTIATED CASE MANAGEMENT, BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE FACT SHEET (Nov. 1995)[hereinafter DIFFERENTIATED CASE MANAGEMENT].
15. MODEL RESOURCES GUIDELINES, supra note 5.
16. DIFFERENTIATED CASE MANAGEMENT, supra note 13. Fundamental DCM principles were considered by the author in developing DCM recommendations specific to a unified family court.
17. See Ann Milne, Mediation - A Promising Alternative for Family Courts, 42 Juv. & FAM. CT. JOURN. 61 (1991). As many as 33 states require mandatory participation in divorce mediation.
18. The practice of using citizen volunteer panels, called juvenile conference committees, to resolve minor delinquent conduct issues has existed in New Jersey's Family Court since its inception in 1984. Family group conferencing programs in child protection cases, first practiced in New Zealand's Family Court, are gaining popularity. The Family Court in Hawaii presently operates a family group conferencing program.
19. KATZ & KUHN, supra note 1, at Recommendation No. 7.
20. FAUTSKO, supra note 7, at 26.
21. KATZ & KUHN, supra note 1, at Recommendation No. 10.
22. See UTAH FAMILY COURT TASK FORCE, FINAL REPORT TO THE UTAH JUDICIAL COUNCIL 27 (1994).
23. These criteria are based on the one judge/one family case management practice conducted in the Family Court of Monmouth County, New Jersey, from 1990 through 1992.
24. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, FAMILY DIVISION WHITE PAPER (1993).
25. STEVE BUCKHOLZ & THOMAS ROTH, CREATING THE HIGH PERFORMANCE TEAM (1987).
26. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW OF COURT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (1997).
27. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON EFFICIENCY II, SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON TECHNOLOGY, 25-30 (1996) [hereinafter SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON TECHNOLOGY].
28. FAUTSKO, supra note 7, at 44.
29. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON TECHNOLOGY, supra note 27, at 52.
30. Id.
31. KATZ & KUHN, supra note 1, at Recommendation No. 2.
32. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON TECHNOLOGY, supra note 26, at 57. The Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix, Arizona, was the first court jurisdiction to experiment successfully with the "kiosk" concept.
33. Id. The Maricopa County project represents these positive outcomes through telephonic interviews between the author and staff from the Arizona Supreme Court in April 1996.
34. RICHARD A. BERK & PETER H. ROSSI, THINKING ABOUT PROGRAM EVALUATION (1990); JOAN L. HERMAN, LYNN L. MORRIS & CAROL T. FITZ-GIBBON, EVALUATOR'S HANDBOOK, cited in Sanford L. Braver, M. C. Smith & Stephanie R. DeLuse, Methodological Considerations in Evaluating Family Court Programs, 35 FAM. & CONCILIATION CTS. REV. 1 (1997) [hereinafter Braver et al.].
35. RICHARD A. BERK & PETER H. ROSSI, THINKING ABOUT PROGRAM EVALUATION (1990); JOAN L. HERMAN, LYNN L. MORRIS & CAROL T. FITZ-GIBBON, EVALUATOR'S HANDBOOK, cited in Sanford L. Braver, M. C. Smith & Stephanie R. DeLuse, Methodological Considerations in Evaluating Family Court Programs, 35 FAM. & CONCILIATION CTS. REV. 1 (1997) [hereinafter Braver et al.].
36. RICHARD A. BERK & PETER H. ROSSI, THINKING ABOUT PROGRAM EVALUATION (1990); JOAN L. HERMAN, LYNN L. MORRIS & CAROL T. FITZ-GIBBON, EVALUATOR'S HANDBOOK, cited in Sanford L. Braver, M. C. Smith & Stephanie R. DeLuse, Methodological Considerations in Evaluating Family Court Programs, 35 FAM. & CONCILIATION CTS. REV. 1 (1997) [hereinafter Braver et al.].
37. Braver et al., supra note 33.
38. Id.
39. Id.
40. BERK & ROSSI, supra note 33.
41. See generally RICHARD A. KRUEGER, FOCUS GROUPS, A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR APPLIED RESEARCH (2d ed. 1994).
42. Braver et al., supra note 33.
43. Id.
44. J. L. Lebon, Acceptability as a simple measure in mental health program education, 10 EVALUATION AND PROGRAM PLANNING 191-95, cited in Braver et al., supra note 33.
45. Braver et al., supra note 33.
46. See DON A. DILLMAN, MAIL AND TELEPHONE SURVEYS (1978).
47. Id.
48. Id.
49. Laune Kramer & Christine A. Washo, Evaluation of a Court-mandated Prevention Program for Divorced Parents: The Children First Program, 42 (2) FAMILY RELATIONS 179 (1993).
50. Id.
51. Braver et al., supra note 33.
52. Id.
53. Id.
54. Thomas D. Cook & Donald T. Campbell, Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings, cited in Braver et al., supra note 33.
55. Braver et al., supra note 33.
56. Performed by the Survey Research Center of the University of Kentucky, May 1993.
57. Braver et al., supra note 33.
58. KATZ & KUHN, supra note 1, at Recommendation No. 20.
59. The most noteworthy example of a family resource center is located in Reno, Nevada. The "Children's Cabinet" acts as a hub from which families are directed to either in-house or outside service providers. The Cabinet is administrated and managed by the local family court in partnership with county social service agencies. Contact Family Court Judge Charles McGee in the Second Judicial District Family Court in Reno for additional information.
60. KUHN, supra note 12.
61. Id.