Family court case conferencing and post-dispositional tracking: Tools for achieving justice for parents in the child welfare system

Fordham Law Review

Volumn 70, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 427-439

  Schechter, Sara P ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0348016959     PISSN: 0015704X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Funding for the pilot was provided by the federal government through the State Court Improvement Project, which directs funds to the highest court in each state for the improvement of child welfare proceedings. The New York Court of Appeals designated the Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children to implement New York's projects in connection with these funds, which include the Model Court. Technical assistance with regard to the Model Court was provided by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
2. The Model Court handled 1509 child protective and permanency cases, including those for neglect, abuse, extension of placement, termination of parental rights, adoption surrenders, adoptions, status review of freed children pursuant to section 1055-a of the New York Family Court Act, and related cases such as those concerning paternity, guardianship, and custody/visitation. See N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1055-a (McKinney 2001) (outlining the court's procedure in ensuring that adoptions proceed expeditiously). 3. Intake to the Model Court closed at the end of 2000, except for cases related to those already pending in the Model Court such as new neglect/abuse cases for after-born children and termination of parental rights cases stemming from the abuse/neglect cases that began in the Model Court. All cases that began in the Model Court remain within the jurisdiction of that court, however, and data on the progress to permanency of the children involved in those cases is still being collected.
3. In the Model Court, 63.5% of the neglect/abuse cases met the goal of disposition within the ninety-day period, as compared with 16.2% of such cases in the New York City Family Court in 1999, the most recent year for which data is available. By the end of the sixth month, 92.7% of the Model Court cases had reached disposition within the targeted time limit, as opposed to only 38.4% in the New York City Family Court.
4. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), was the seminal decision incorporating constitutional due process protections into Family Court. It was followed by numerous cases of similar ilk and statutory amendments codifying or anticipating Gault jurisprudence. For example, as a result of Gault, the child protective article of the New York Family Court Act, now article 10, was rewritten in 1970 "[t]o provide a due process of law for determining when the state, through its family court, may intervene against the wishes of a parent on behalf of a child so that his needs are properly met." N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1011 (McKinney 1999).
5. Our decision to track children released to their parents under supervision proved crucial to our success in preventing placement and achieving early reunification of those children, who had to be temporarily removed, with their parents, as agencies and law guardians were more willing to agree to let the children remain at home when they were assured of the court's close scrutiny.
6. Our potential had already grown in Manhattan based on the positive precedent set by the Family Treatment Court, a specialized part of the court that handles neglect cases where parental drug or alcohol abuse is alleged. The success of the Family Treatment Court, which began operations in 1998, demonstrated that change was indeed possible and that sometimes change was for the better.
7. More specifically, only forty-six percent of the children in child protective proceedings held in the Model Court, compared to fifty-eight percent in the Manhattan Family Court, were subjected to placement in 1999.
8. More specifically, twenty-seven percent of the children in child protective proceedings held in the Model Court, compared to twenty-five percent in the Manhattan Family Court, were released to their parents or other family members.
9. More specifically, twenty-four percent of the child protective cases brought in the Model Court, compared to thirteen percent in the Manhattan Family Court, were either dismissed, withdrawn, or adjourned.
10. The Model Court case mix was typical for a child protection and permanency part in New York City, where Family Court judges are assigned to one of three specialties: (1) delinquency and PINS ("persons in need of supervision"), (2) custody and domestic violence and (3) child protection and permanency.
11. Such hearings are colloquially called "1028 hearings" after the statutory section that authorizes them. N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1028 (McKinney 2001) (requiring petitioner to establish that the child would be in "imminent danger" if they are returned to the respondent).
12. Where a 1028 hearing is not requested, the preliminary hearing will be scheduled within ten days of intake.
13. The trial rate in the Model Court was thirty-nine percent. The Office of Court Administration does not keep trial rate statistics, but in a small sample counted by hand in October 1997 to provide baseline data for the Model Court, the trial rate in the Manhattan Family Court child protective/permanency planning parts was sixty-five percent.
14. In fact, the Office of Court Administration recently created a new job title, Case Coordinator, which will be filled by persons who will assume these duties of managing the time requirements and scheduling of cases as they proceed through court in all child protective/permanency parts.
15. With the technical assistance of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the New York Family Court was able to establish improved methods of communication and collaboration with other child welfare system stakeholders, such as ACS and law guardians, over the past three years.
16. Where a child has been in foster care for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months, a proceeding to terminate parental rights must be filed by the foster care agency unless compelling reasons dictate otherwise. See N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 384-b(3)(1) (McKinney Supp. 2001).
17. N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1055(b)(ii) (McKinney 2001) (stating that placement cannot be extended or continued until the court holds a permanency hearing).
18. At the permanency hearing, the court must either approve or modify both the permanency goal and the service plan. Id. § 1055(b)(iv)(B)(1) (addressing the court's role in considering whether placement extension is consistent with the permanency goals established in the child services plan).