Court strategies under ASFA to help substance-using families recover

Juvenile and Family Court Journal

Volumn 51, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 1-8

  Larsen, Judith ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034347105     PISSN: 01617109     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-6988.2000.tb00013.x     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. In visits across the nation to urban family courts this author often hears judges and other court personnel estimating that about 80% of their cases have substance abuse issues as an underlying cause of family dysfunction. Reported statistics tend to reflect substance abuse only if it is part of the charging petition. In reality, the court often does not learn about substance abuse issues until late in the case as, for example, where a mother is charged with neglect and later it is discovered that a partner who lives in the house, but is not charged in the case, is drug-involved.
2. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Practical Approaches to the Treatment of Women Who Abuse Alcohol and Other Drugs. 1994; Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Pregnant Substance-Using Women. 1993 (TIP #2).
3. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Practical Approaches to the Treatment of Women Who Abuse Alcohol and Other Drugs. 1994; Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Pregnant Substance-Using Women. 1993 (TIP #2).
4. Edwards, Leonard P. Improving Implementation of the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. In RESOURCE GUIDELINES: IMPROVING COURT PRACTICE IN CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES (p. 139-166). National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: 1995; Feig, Laura and McCullogh, Charlotte. The Role of Child Welfare. In Mary Haack, Ed., DRUG-DEPENDENT WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN (p.215-235). Springer: 1997;
5. Edwards, Leonard P. Improving Implementation of the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. In RESOURCE GUIDELINES: IMPROVING COURT PRACTICE IN CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES (p. 139-166). National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: 1995; Feig, Laura and McCullogh, Charlotte. The Role of Child Welfare. In Mary Haack, Ed., DRUG-DEPENDENT WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN (p.215-235). Springer: 1997;
6. Edwards, Leonard P. Improving Implementation of the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. In RESOURCE GUIDELINES: IMPROVING COURT PRACTICE IN CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES (p. 139-166). National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: 1995; Feig, Laura and McCullogh, Charlotte. The Role of Child Welfare. In Mary Haack, Ed., DRUG-DEPENDENT WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN (p.215-235). Springer: 1997;
7. Edwards, Leonard P. Improving Implementation of the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. In RESOURCE GUIDELINES: IMPROVING COURT PRACTICE IN CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES (p. 139-166). National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: 1995; Feig, Laura and McCullogh, Charlotte. The Role of Child Welfare. In Mary Haack, Ed., DRUG-DEPENDENT WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN (p.215-235). Springer: 1997;
8. Ross, Richard. A DAY IN PART 15: LAW AND ORDER IN FAMILY COURT. Four Walls Eight Windows: 1997
9. Both The Adoption Assistance and Welfare Act of 1980, P.L. 96-272, 42 U.S.C. 670 et seq. and The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, P.L. 105-89, 42 U.S.C. 620 et seq. are amendments of The Social Security Act.
10. ASFA at 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15) describes when reunification services do not have to be offered, and how reasonable efforts can be directed to support adoptive placements rather than reunification.
11. ASFA has a formula for calculating a date on which a permanent placement for the child must be selected: 12 months from the earlier of the first judicial finding that the child has been subjected to child abuse or neglect, or the date that is 60 days after the date on which the child is removed from the home. ASFA at 42 U.S.C.675. Some state laws express this as a firm 12 months from entry into foster care. Most courts refer to this in general terms as the one-year permanency planning date.
12. ASFA at 42 U.S.C. 671 (15).
13. ASFA at 42 U.S.C. 629a
14. ASFA at 42 U.S.C. 671 (a) (15).
15. th Ave., Room 201, Miami, FL 33142. (305) 634-9921; fax (305) 634-9921.
16. Jackson County Family Drug Court descriptions are available from David Kierst, Chief, Juvenile Services, Family Division, Circuit Court of Jackson County, MO, Kansas City, MO 64106-2706. (816) 435-4850; fax (816) 435-4844. The Administrative Judge of the Juvenile Court is Judge Ron Hollinger. Presiding over Family Drug Court is Commissioner Molly Merrigan.The main provider is North Star, a division of Missouri's Comprehensive Substance Abuse Treatment and Rehabilitation (C-STAR) system.
17. th Ave., Room 208, Miami FL 33142. (305) 638-6879; fax (305) 638-6354.
18. Descriptions of the Washoe County Family Drug Court can be obtained from Judge Charles M. McGee, Washoe County District Court, P.O. Box 11130, Reno, NV 89520. (775) 328-3179; fax (775) 328-3565.
19. Descriptions of the San Diego County Dependency Court Recovery Project can be obtained from Andrea Murphy, Superior Court, P.O. Box 2724, San Diego, CA 92112-2720. (619) 515-8678; fax (619) 531-3663.
20. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982); and Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972).
21. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982); and Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972).
22. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982); and Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972).
23. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982); and Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972).
24. Persons interested in applying new technologies to family courts and drug treatment may contact Farrokh Alemi, Ph.D.,The George Washington University, School of Public Health. (703) 993-4650; fax (703) 748-1543; e-mail falemi@gmu.edu.
25. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L.104-193 (August 22, 1996).
26. Research data on out-patient versus in-patient for a number of programs is described in the National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph No. 162, PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE: 1995 edited by Louis Harris, including the following articles and abstracts: Kleber, Herbert D. A Passion to Improve Treatment: the Nathan B. Eddy Award Lecture (p.24-33); Platt Jerome J., Kirby Kimberly C., Marlowe, Douglas B., Lamb, R.J. and Lidz, V. Effectiveness of Outpatient Versus Day Treatment for Cocaine Users (p.90); Weisner, Constance M., Moore, Charles, McLellan,A.Thomas, Hunkeler, Enid, Li, Elizabeth and Hu, Tei-Wei. Day Hospital Versus Intensive Outpatient Treatment in an HMO During Treatment Measures at Eight Weeks (p. 164). See also GAO. Drug Abuse: Research Shows Treatment is Effective, but Benefits May be Overstated. Report to Congressional Requesters, March, 1998.
27. Research data on out-patient versus in-patient for a number of programs is described in the National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph No. 162, PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE: 1995 edited by Louis Harris, including the following articles and abstracts: Kleber, Herbert D. A Passion to Improve Treatment: the Nathan B. Eddy Award Lecture (p.24-33); Platt Jerome J., Kirby Kimberly C., Marlowe, Douglas B., Lamb, R.J. and Lidz, V. Effectiveness of Outpatient Versus Day Treatment for Cocaine Users (p.90); Weisner, Constance M., Moore, Charles, McLellan,A.Thomas, Hunkeler, Enid, Li, Elizabeth and Hu, Tei-Wei. Day Hospital Versus Intensive Outpatient Treatment in an HMO During Treatment Measures at Eight Weeks (p. 164). See also GAO. Drug Abuse: Research Shows Treatment is Effective, but Benefits May be Overstated. Report to Congressional Requesters, March, 1998.
28. Research data on out-patient versus in-patient for a number of programs is described in the National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph No. 162, PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE: 1995 edited by Louis Harris, including the following articles and abstracts: Kleber, Herbert D. A Passion to Improve Treatment: the Nathan B. Eddy Award Lecture (p.24-33); Platt Jerome J., Kirby Kimberly C., Marlowe, Douglas B., Lamb, R.J. and Lidz, V. Effectiveness of Outpatient Versus Day Treatment for Cocaine Users (p.90); Weisner, Constance M., Moore, Charles, McLellan,A.Thomas, Hunkeler, Enid, Li, Elizabeth and Hu, Tei-Wei. Day Hospital Versus Intensive Outpatient Treatment in an HMO During Treatment Measures at Eight Weeks (p. 164). See also GAO. Drug Abuse: Research Shows Treatment is Effective, but Benefits May be Overstated. Report to Congressional Requesters, March, 1998.
29. Research data on out-patient versus in-patient for a number of programs is described in the National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph No. 162, PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE: 1995 edited by Louis Harris, including the following articles and abstracts: Kleber, Herbert D. A Passion to Improve Treatment: the Nathan B. Eddy Award Lecture (p.24-33); Platt Jerome J., Kirby Kimberly C., Marlowe, Douglas B., Lamb, R.J. and Lidz, V. Effectiveness of Outpatient Versus Day Treatment for Cocaine Users (p.90); Weisner, Constance M., Moore, Charles, McLellan,A.Thomas, Hunkeler, Enid, Li, Elizabeth and Hu, Tei-Wei. Day Hospital Versus Intensive Outpatient Treatment in an HMO During Treatment Measures at Eight Weeks (p. 164). See also GAO. Drug Abuse: Research Shows Treatment is Effective, but Benefits May be Overstated. Report to Congressional Requesters, March, 1998.
30. The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment is evaluating the Manhattan, Kansas City, Mo., and Miami family drug courts. Data may be obtained from those courts, or from Bruce Fry, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockwell II Building, Suite 618, Rockville, MD 20857, telephone: 301-493-6533, fax: 301-443-3543.