Child Protection Cases in a Unified Family Court

Family Law Quarterly

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 147-195

  Hardin, Mark ^a  

^a AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1542548387     PISSN: 0014729X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (122)

1. See Catherine Ross, The Failure of Fragmentation: The Promise of a System of Unified Family Courts, 32 FAM. L.Q. 3 (1998).
2. See Barbara Babb, Where We Stand: An Analysis of America s Family Law Ajudicatory Systems and the Mandate to Establish Family Courts, 32 FAM. L.Q. 31 (1998).
3. Robert E. Shepherd, Juvenile Justice The Unified Family Court: An Idea Whose Time Has Come, 8 CRIM. JUST. 37, 38 (1993);
4. Paul Williams, A Unified Family Court for Missouri, 63 UMKC L. REV. 383, 392 (1994); ABA Steering Committee on the Unmet Legal Need of Children and Their Families, Recommendation (Aug. 1994). See also Ross, supra note 1, at 3; Babb, supra note 2, at 31.
5. This portion of the article is extracted, in part, from Mark Hardin, Responsibilities and Effectiveness of the Juvenile Court in Handling Dependency Cases, in 6 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN: THE JUVENILE COURT 53-63 (Center for the Future of Children of the Packard Foundation ed. 1996).
6. For a summary of early research recognizing the impermanence of foster care, see Emlen, Development of the Concept of Permanency Planning, in Susan W. Downs, FOSTER CARE REFORM IN THE 70's: FINAL REPORT OF THE PERMANENCY PLANNING PROJECT 1.5-1.8 (Regional Research Institute for Human Services, Portland State University 1981).
7. See generally JOHN BOWLBY, ATTACHMENT AND Loss (1969).
8. JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN ET AL., BEYOND THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD (1973); JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN ET AL., BEFORE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD (1979).
9. JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN ET AL., BEYOND THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD (1973); JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN ET AL., BEFORE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD (1979).
10. See, e.g., Michael S. Wald, State Intervention on Behalf of Neglected Children: A Search for Realistic Standards, 27 STAN. L. REV. 985 (1975); Michael S. Wald, State Intervention on Behalf of Neglected Children: Standards for Removal of Children from Their Homes, Monitoring the Status of Children in Foster Care, and Termination of Parental Rights, 28 STAN. L. REV. 623 (1976); and JUNE KNITZER & MARYLEE ALLEN, CHILDREN WITHOUT HOMES: AN EXAMINATION OF PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY TO CHILDREN IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE (1978).
11. See, e.g., Michael S. Wald, State Intervention on Behalf of Neglected Children: A Search for Realistic Standards, 27 STAN. L. REV. 985 (1975); Michael S. Wald, State Intervention on Behalf of Neglected Children: Standards for Removal of Children from Their Homes, Monitoring the Status of Children in Foster Care, and Termination of Parental Rights, 28 STAN. L. REV. 623 (1976); and JUNE KNITZER & MARYLEE ALLEN, CHILDREN WITHOUT HOMES: AN EXAMINATION OF PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY TO CHILDREN IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE (1978).
12. See, e.g., Michael S. Wald, State Intervention on Behalf of Neglected Children: A Search for Realistic Standards, 27 STAN. L. REV. 985 (1975); Michael S. Wald, State Intervention on Behalf of Neglected Children: Standards for Removal of Children from Their Homes, Monitoring the Status of Children in Foster Care, and Termination of Parental Rights, 28 STAN. L. REV. 623 (1976); and JUNE KNITZER & MARYLEE ALLEN, CHILDREN WITHOUT HOMES: AN EXAMINATION OF PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY TO CHILDREN IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE (1978).
13. VICTOR PIKE ET AL., HANDBOOK FOR SOCIAL WORKERS (1978).
14. AACWA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 620-628, 670-679 (1997).
15. AACWA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 672(a)(1), 671(a)(15) (1997). This requirement has recently been modified to emphasize that family preservation efforts should not be permitted to compromise children's health and safety, to require reasonable efforts to achieve new permanent homes, and to encourage states to articulate specific circumstances in which preventive and reunification efforts are not required. Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-89, § 101(a), amending 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15).
16. 42 U.S.C. § 675(5) (1997).
17. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-89, § 302 [hereinafter ASFA], amends 42 U.S.C. § 675(5) to establish stricter requirements for "permanency hearings." Among other things, the hearings now must take place within a shorter time after a child enters foster care and must be followed by concrete steps to secure a permanent placement for each child.
18. See Mark Hardin, Ten Years Later: Implementation of P.L. 96-272 by the Courts, in THE ADOPTION ASSISTANCE AND CHILD WELFARE ACT OF 1980: TEN YEARS LATER (North American Council on Adoptable Children 1990).
19. Note that some of these hearings not listed as common in 1978 (e.g., involuntary termination of parental rights and adoption) did occasionally occur at that time.
20. This has been thoroughly documented through state court self assessments performed pursuant to the federal Family Preservation and Support Act. See, e.g., NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS, CALIFORNIA COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REPORT 70 (1997).
21. Social Security Act, Title IV-B, Subpart 2, 42 U.S.C. § 630(d)(2); § 13712 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. § 670 note), as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-89, § 305(a)(3).
22. Many of the new functions of the courts during the different hearings are described in detail in NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES, RESOURCE GUIDELINES: IMPROVING COURT PRACTICE IN CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES (1995)[hereinafter RESOURCE GUIDELINES], which have been endorsed by the National Conference of Chief Justices, the American Bar Association, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
23. MARK HARDIN & ANN SHALLECK, COURT RULES TO ACHIEVE PERMANENCY FOR CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE: SAMPLE RULES AND COMMENTARY 37 (ABA 1985)[hereinafter SAMPLE RULES]; RESOURCE GUIDELINES, supra note 18, at 30-32.
24. RESOURCE GUIDELINES, supra note 18, at 37-40.
25. Id. at 50.
26. For further discussion of the need to notify and work with noncustodial, parents including unwed fathers, see infra at 177.
27. RESOURCE GUIDELINES, supra note 18, at 54-55; HARDIN & SHALLECK, supra note 19, at 61-62.
28. RESOURCE GUIDELINES, supra note 18, at 54-55; HARDIN & SHALLECK, supra note 19, at 61-62.
29. See, e.g., OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 2151.416 (Anderson 1997).
30. Theodore Stein, The Role of the Attorney in Case Planning, in FOSTER CHILDREN IN THE COURTS 359-371 (Mark Hardin, ed. 1983)[hereinafter FOSTER CHILDREN].
31. While semi-annual case progress reviews may be conducted by a court, the state child protection agency, or a foster care review board, post-disposition "dispositional hearings," which are required within 18 months of placement and annually thereafter, can only be held by courts or court approved entities. 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(C) (1997).
32. AACWA, 42 U.S.C. § 675(5), (6) (1997).
33. MICH. COMP. LAW ANN. § 712A.19 (B) (West 1997).
34. See, e.g, OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 2151.416 (Anderson 1997), and FLA. STAT. ANN § 409.1685 (West 1997).
35. S.C. CODE ANN. § 20-7-766(G)(Michie 1997).
36. AFSA, Pub. L. No. 105-89, § 302, amending 42 U.S.C. § 675(5).
37. MaryLee Allen, Carol Golubuck & Lynn Olsen, A Guide to the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, in FOSTER CHILDREN, supra note 25, at 576, 582-83, 594-95.
38. ASFA §§ 103, 302, amending 42 U.S.C. § 675(5).
39. ASFA, § 103(b), amending 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(F). Note that the permanency hearing now must take place "within 12 months after the date the child is considered to have entered foster care." ASFA § 302, amending 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(C). The date that a child shall be considered to have entered foster care is defined as the earlier of -(1) the date of the first judicial finding that the child has been subjected to child abuse or neglect; or (2) the date that is 60 days after the date on which the child is removed from the home. ASFA § 103(b), adding a new paragraph (F) to 42 U.S.C. § 675(5).
40. The Adoption and Safe Families Act also requires, among other things: the filing of termination of parental rights petitions after children have been in foster care for 15 of the last 22 months (with certain exceptions) and even earlier permanency hearings in cases where "reasonable efforts" to preserve the family are not required. Pub. L. No. 105-89, § 103, 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(E); Pub. L. No. 105-89, § 101(a), 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15)(E)(i).
41. See MARK HARDIN & ROBERT LANCOUR, EARLY TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS: DEVELOPING APPROPRIATE STATUTORY GROUNDS 9,10 (1996).
42. Id. 38. The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-272.
43. See, e.g., CITIZEN COMMITTEE ON THE JUVENILE COURT SUPPORT FUND, COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STATE OF ILLINOIS ANNUAL REPORT 33-44 (1997).
44. See, e.g., NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS, CALIFORNIA COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 (1997).
45. As used here "child protection agency" means the agency that brings evidence before the court, organizes services for the child and family, and either has legal custody or court ordered supervision of the family. While the child protection agency is a public agency in most cases, some states transfer the legal responsibility to private agencies, often after the completion of a child abuse or neglect investigation.
46. For example, if casework is delayed, it is difficult for this court to make final decisions concerning a permanent placement for the child at the permanency hearing. See ASFA § 103, amending 42 U.S.C. § 675 (S)(C).
47. Compare MARK HARDIN, HOW TO WORK WITH YOUR COURT: A GUIDE FOR CHILD WELFARE AGENCY ADMINISTRATORS (1993).
48. See generally Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, 42 U.S.C. § 620-627, 670-679, as amended by ASFA. See, e.g., OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §§ 2151.412 to 2151.419.
49. This observation is based on conversations between the author and drug counselors and caseworkers during training in different parts of the United States.
50. RESOURCE GUIDELINES, supra note 18, at 18.
51. According to data regarding child abuse and neglect collected by the National Center for State Courts (Williamsburg) and the American Humane Association in 1995: New York State had 211,446 reports, 36,875 substantiated reports, and 25,101 petitions; Michigan had 139,289 reports, 12,194 substantiated reports, and 10,761 petitions; and Connecticut had 36,701 reports, 18,401 substantiated reports, and 5,245 petitions.
52. Of the approximately 73 million children in the United States, approximately 500,000 are in child welfare agency supervised foster care. See U.S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES (1996) and STATISTICAL RECORD OF CHILDREN (Linda Schmittroth ed. 1994). The number of children for whom child protection cases are pending in court is probably roughly similar to the number of children in foster care. Among the many courts and jurisdictions that the author has visited throughout the United States, the great majority of petitions are filed shortly after a child has been placed in foster care. Only a small proportion of cases are taken to court to obtain supervisory authority (protective supervision) over children still in the home. In addition, in all but a few states and localities, there are court proceedings on behalf of the great majority of children in foster care. That is, only in a small proportion of cases are children allowed to remain in foster care for up to six months before court proceedings are brought. (No federal reimbursement is permitted when children stay in foster care more than six months without court approval. 42 U.S.C. § 672(e).) Because there are no reliable statistics, it is only the author's educated guess that the number of protective supervision court cases roughly balances the number of cases where children enter foster care without court proceedings. Whether or not this is true, it is clear that a tiny percentage of the nation's children are in child protection agency supervised foster care.
53. Of the approximately 73 million children in the United States, approximately 500,000 are in child welfare agency supervised foster care. See U.S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES (1996) and STATISTICAL RECORD OF CHILDREN (Linda Schmittroth ed. 1994). The number of children for whom child protection cases are pending in court is probably roughly similar to the number of children in foster care. Among the many courts and jurisdictions that the author has visited throughout the United States, the great majority of petitions are filed shortly after a child has been placed in foster care. Only a small proportion of cases are taken to court to obtain supervisory authority (protective supervision) over children still in the home. In addition, in all but a few states and localities, there are court proceedings on behalf of the great majority of children in foster care. That is, only in a small proportion of cases are children allowed to remain in foster care for up to six months before court proceedings are brought. (No federal reimbursement is permitted when children stay in foster care more than six months without court approval. 42 U.S.C. § 672(e).) Because there are no reliable statistics, it is only the author's educated guess that the number of protective supervision court cases roughly balances the number of cases where children enter foster care without court proceedings. Whether or not this is true, it is clear that a tiny percentage of the nation's children are in child protection agency supervised foster care.
54. ANNETTE RICKEL, KEEPING CHILDREN FROM HARM'S WAY: How NATIONAL POLICY AFFECTS PSYCHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 37 (1997).
55. JEAN C. SMITH ET AL., AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION UNDERSTANDING THE MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS OF CHILD MALTREATMENT IV-3 (1997).
56. ASFA, § 302, amending 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(C).
57. This assumes that state law gives parents up to one year to make improvements for a child of this age. Actual state law may be more or less strict. See, e.g., OHIO REV. CODE § 2151.415 (Anderson 1997). Federal law requires the filing of a termination of parental rights petition within 15 months after the time a child is deemed to have entered foster care. The child is deemed to have entered care either when a court determines that the child has been abused or neglected or when 60 days have passed after the actual foster placement. ASFA, § 103(b), adding 42 U.S.C § 675 (5)(F).
58. When the author attended law school, the leading hornbook on family law devoted only one page to child protection proceedings (referred to as "dependency" proceedings) and two to termination of parental rights resulting from child protection proceedings. H. CLARK, LAW OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 581-82, 630, 634-35 (1968).
59. Among the specialized works on children's rights and child protection law are: FOSTER CHILDREN IN THE COURTS (Mark Hardin, ed. 1983); HOWARD DAVIDSON & ROBERT HOROWITZ, LEGAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN (1984); DONALD T. KRAMER, LEGAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN (2d ed. 1994); MARC SOLER ET AL., REPRESENTING THE CHILD CLIENT (1993); THOMAS A. JACOBS, CHILDREN AND THE LAW: RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS (1995).
60. Among the specialized works on children's rights and child protection law are: FOSTER CHILDREN IN THE COURTS (Mark Hardin, ed. 1983); HOWARD DAVIDSON & ROBERT HOROWITZ, LEGAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN (1984); DONALD T. KRAMER, LEGAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN (2d ed. 1994); MARC SOLER ET AL., REPRESENTING THE CHILD CLIENT (1993); THOMAS A. JACOBS, CHILDREN AND THE LAW: RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS (1995).
61. Among the specialized works on children's rights and child protection law are: FOSTER CHILDREN IN THE COURTS (Mark Hardin, ed. 1983); HOWARD DAVIDSON & ROBERT HOROWITZ, LEGAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN (1984); DONALD T. KRAMER, LEGAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN (2d ed. 1994); MARC SOLER ET AL., REPRESENTING THE CHILD CLIENT (1993); THOMAS A. JACOBS, CHILDREN AND THE LAW: RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS (1995).
62. Among the specialized works on children's rights and child protection law are: FOSTER CHILDREN IN THE COURTS (Mark Hardin, ed. 1983); HOWARD DAVIDSON & ROBERT HOROWITZ, LEGAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN (1984); DONALD T. KRAMER, LEGAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN (2d ed. 1994); MARC SOLER ET AL., REPRESENTING THE CHILD CLIENT (1993); THOMAS A. JACOBS, CHILDREN AND THE LAW: RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS (1995).
63. Among the specialized works on children's rights and child protection law are: FOSTER CHILDREN IN THE COURTS (Mark Hardin, ed. 1983); HOWARD DAVIDSON & ROBERT HOROWITZ, LEGAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN (1984); DONALD T. KRAMER, LEGAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN (2d ed. 1994); MARC SOLER ET AL., REPRESENTING THE CHILD CLIENT (1993); THOMAS A. JACOBS, CHILDREN AND THE LAW: RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS (1995).
64. For an overview of state legislation governing child protection proceedings, see NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES, CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILY ISSUES (1995).
65. ADOPTION LAW AND PRACTICE, § 9.03 and § 9.04 (Joan Hollinger et al. eds., 1988); 42 U.S.C. § 673 (1997) .
66. The development of a full court record is a key to how the juvenile court in Grand Rapids, Michigan (Kent County), terminates parental rights in about half the time that typically occurs in other courts.
67. A number of special laws govern particular categories of child protection matters. Some of these involve interstate issues of child custody, visitation, and support. Among others, these include the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), 9 U.L.A. 143 (1987); the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A (1994); the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC); and the AACWA, 42 U.S.C. § 673 (1994). AACWA, for example, provides for cooperative support enforcement efforts for children in foster care and, among other things, allows for the use of Parent Locator Services for children in foster care to help provide more rapid notice on missing parents. AACWA also requires interstate payment of adoption assistance benefits, and coverage for health care. 42 U.S.C. §§ 675(3), 671(a)(21), as amended by the ASFA § 306. Also important are recent laws involving the treatment of minority populations in child protection cases. While the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C §§ 1901 et seq., sets forth special procedures and requirements and court jurisdiction for court proceedings involving Native American children, the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA), as amended by the Interethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996 prohibits discrimination in the placement and adoption of other minority populations. Failing to follow the ICWA can cause delay in a variety of ways. For example, late transfers of jurisdiction to tribal courts can start the case over, failure to follow ICWA requirements for consent to adoption can cause collateral attacks, and failure to follow ICWA placement preference can cause needless later changes of placement. Failure to understand and apply MEPA can also cause delays in achieving permanency for children. MEPA forbids agencies to deny or delay foster and adoptive placements based on race or ethnicity.
68. For example, different burdens of proof may be required for the loss of custody in an emergency, mandatory protective supervision by the agency, temporary loss of custody of the child, permanent loss of custody, proof of grounds for termination of parental rights, and the decision to terminate parental rights after grounds are proved.
69. Not all state laws allow investigative warrants and subpoenas in civil child protection investigations. See generally Mark Hardin, Legal Barriers in Child Abuse Investigations State Powers and Individual Rights, 63 WASH. L. REV. 493 (1988). This is due, in part, to a lack of leadership among judges and attorneys to ask legislatures to create such remedies.
70. The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on the admissibility of hearsay evidence in child protection cases. However, in Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971), a somewhat analogous case, the Court upheld the use of hearsay doctors' reports in administrative hearings to determine eligibility for social security disability payments. The Court held that admitting the doctors' reports was not violative of procedural due process because, among other reasons, the claimant had advance notice of the doctors' identities and the content of their reports, the claimant had the opportunity to subpoena and cross examine the doctors, and the claimant could have requested a supplemental hearing to cross examine the doctors.
71. The author has visited many jurisdictions in which this is a common practice.
72. At the time this hearing was observed, federal regulations required advance written notice and the right to a hearing prior to termination of benefits under the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. This program has since been replaced with the Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) program, in which there are no detailed federal regulations. However, many old state AFDC regulations remain in effect under TANF, and it is helpful to keep in mind that the regulations in question were adopted to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court decision in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
73. For example, at a recent presentation before the California "Beyond the Bench" legal education program and attended by the author, the Hon. John Steketee of the Kent County Juvenile Court in Grand Rapids, Michigan, reported that judges had supported the agency in its efforts to secure county funding for this purpose. Speech entitled "A Second Court that Works," December 14, 1997.
74. For an explanation of why the dispositional options available to judges in child protection cases are inadequate as permanent placement options, see MARK HARDIN, LEGAL PLACEMENT OPTIONS TO OBTAIN LEGAL PERMANENCE FOR CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE, IN FOSTER CHILDREN, supra note 25, at 150-57. For a discussion of custody or guardianship as permanent placement options in child protection cases, including the necessary court process, see FOSTER CHILDREN, supra note 25, at 157-70, especially 158-59.
75. For an explanation of why the dispositional options available to judges in child protection cases are inadequate as permanent placement options, see MARK HARDIN, LEGAL PLACEMENT OPTIONS TO OBTAIN LEGAL PERMANENCE FOR CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE, IN FOSTER CHILDREN, supra note 25, at 150-57. For a discussion of custody or guardianship as permanent placement options in child protection cases, including the necessary court process, see FOSTER CHILDREN, supra note 25, at 157-70, especially 158-59.
76. Id. 67. ASFA, Pub. L. No. 105-89, § 105, amending 42 U.S.C. § 653, specifically authorizes child protection agencies to use the Parent Locator Service to find missing parents.
77. Among those federal laws controlling information sharing that are the most important to child welfare cases are the following: the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5106a(b)(2)(A)(v),(vi),(viii); 5106a(b)(3); 5106(b)(4) (governing the reporting and investigation of child abuse and neglect); the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 671(a)(8), 675(D), 45 C.F.R. §§ 1355.21(a), 1355.30, 205.50 (foster care, services to families, and adoption assistance); the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, 34 C.F.R. Part 99; alcohol and drug treatment legislation, 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2; 42 C.F.R. Part 2.; the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(1)(A)(iv) (Temporary Aid to Needy Families welfare benefits), § 654 (child support); Medicaid, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(7), 1320b-7, 45 C.F.R. 431.300-431.306, 431.940-431.965; the Ryan White CARE Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300ff-61(a), 300ff-63 (HIV and AIDS treatment); the National Criminal History Background Check System, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5119-5119c; 28 C.F.R. 20.1-20.38; and the Crimes Against Children and Sexual Offender Registration Program, 42 U.S.C. § 14071, 61 Fed. Reg. 155,110 (Apr. 4, 1996). Judges and attorneys with child protection caseloads need to be aware of all of these and more. See generally, ALICE BUSSIERE ET AL., SHARING INFORMATION: A GUIDE TO FEDERAL LAWS ON CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION FOR CHILD WELFARE AGENCIES (1997).
78. These protections include notice to the person receiving treatment and the opportunity for a hearing before records are released. 42 C.F.R. Part 2.
79. In re B.S., 659 A.2d 1137 (Vt. 1996).
80. State court systems throughout the United States have recently conducted such self-assessments, pursuant to the Family Preservation and Support Act. Pub. L. No. 103-66, § 13712, 107 Stat. 649. The Act provides for grants to state courts to assess their performance in abuse and neglect cases and to develop and implement plans for improvement. Forty-seven state court systems and the District of Columbia courts have elected to participate.
81. For a description of the performance of the Kent County Juvenile Court in child protection cases, see MARK HARDIN, H. TED RUBIN & DEBRA RATTERMAN BAKER, A SECOND COURT THAT WORKS: JUDICIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF PERMANENCY PLANNING REFORMS (1995)[hereinafter A SECOND COURT THAT WORKS].
82. For a description of the performance of the Hamilton County Juvenile Court in child protection cases, see MARK HARDIN, JUDICIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF PERMANENCY PLANNING REFORMS: ONE COURT THAT WORKS (1992) [hereinafter ONE COURT THAT WORKS].
83. The ABA Center on Children and the Law has recently conducted a national progress survey of child abuse and neglect court improvement projects. Included in this survey are brief descriptions of Rhode Island's and Hawaii's recent progress on court improvement. A written description of the results of the survey should be available by the time that this article is published.
84. Mark Hardin, Child Protection Cases in the State of Rhode Island, in GWENDOLYN LYFORD ET AL., RHODE ISLAND FAMILY COURT ASSESSMENT (National Center for State Courts 1995) at 12 [hereinafter Child Protection in Rhode Island]. 76. Id. 77. Id. at 14.
85. Figures from other parts of the state are not summarized here because of the very small numbers of cases. The great majority of the population of the State of Hawaii resides on Oahu.
86. STEVE BOUCH ET AL., HAWAII COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: FINAL REPORT 40-42 (National Center for State Courts 1996)[hereinafter HAWAII FINAL REPORT].
87. Id. at 41-42. These comments from the text of the report were based, in large part, of the comments of Debra Ratterman Baker of the ABA Center on Children and the Law, as set forth in a memorandum appendix to the report.
88. Id.
89. Id. at 38.
90. A SECOND COURT THAT WORKS, supra note 72, at 4, 60.
91. Id. at 59.
92. RESOURCE GUIDELINES, supra note 18, at 94.
93. A SECOND COURT THAT WORKS, supra note 72, at 58.
94. ONE COURT THAT WORKS, supra note 73, at 47-48.
95. Id.
96. RESOURCE GUIDELINES, supra note 18, at 70-72, 74.
97. For a chart listing some measures of the completeness and depth of hearings in child protection cases and data sources for those measures, see MARK HARDIN ET AL., IMPROVING STATE COURTS' PERFORMANCE IN CHILD PROTECTION CASES: USER'S MANUAL FOR CONDUCTING YOUR COURT ASSESSMENT (1995)[hereinafter USER'S MANUAL]. Sample instruments for state court self assessments were provided by the ABA Center on Children and the Law and copies are available on request to 740 15th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005.
98. Child Protection Cases in Rhode Island, supra note 75, at 28.
99. Id.
100. Id.
101. Id. at 18.
102. Id.
103. HAWAII FINAL REPORT, supra note 79 at 13.
104. Id. at 11.
105. A SECOND COURT THAT WORKS, supra note 72, at 75; ONE COURT THAT WORKS, supra note 73, at 55.
106. A SECOND COURT THAT WORKS, supra note 72, at 75; ONE COURT THAT WORKS, supra note 73, at 55.
107. RESOURCE GUIDELINES, supra note 18, at 70-72, 74. Among the issues to be discussed were the need for continued placement of the child, whether the case plan needs revision, reasonable efforts to preserve the family, the appropriateness of the child's current placement, whether visitation terms should be modified, child support, the need for additional court orders, and the time frame for reunification or other permanent plan.
108. ONE COURT THAT WORKS, supra note 73, at 22.
109. A SECOND COURT THAT WORKS, supra note 72, at 3, 28.
110. Child Protection Cases in Rhode Island, supra note 75, at 8-9.
111. Id.
112. HAWAII FINAL REPORT, supra note 79, at 10.
113. ONE COURT THAT WORKS, supra note 73, at 2, 55.
114. A SECOND COURT THAT WORKS, supra note 72, at 3, 69.
115. RESOURCE GUIDELINES, supra note 18, at 19.
116. For further ideas, see generally RESOURCE GUIDELINES, supra note 18; SAMPLE RULES, supra note 19; USER'S MANUAL, supra note 90, at 4-10. (chart listing 12 key issues and 69 subissues related to court improvement).
117. RESOURCE GUIDELINES, supra note 18, at 42, 51, 62, 74, 84. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges has prepared training materials setting forth more highly detailed lists of issues corresponding to each hearing.
118. The RESOURCE GUIDELINES supports the use of forms with blanks to include the judge's findings. See RESOURCE GUIDELINES, supra note 18, at 40-41, 60-61, 72-73, 82-84.
119. See, e.g., MARK HARDIN & PENELOPE WENTLAND, CREATING STRAIGHTFORWARD AUTOMATED SUPPORT FOR CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES IN THE STATE COURTS (1997).
120. The ABA Center on Children and the Law is in the process of summarizing the results of state court self-assessments. In our review of the first 15 reports we found many critical comments concerning advocates' performance.
121. Proposed Standards of Practice for Lawyers Who Represent Children in Abuse and Neglect Cases, 29 FAM. L. Q. 375 (1995)(hereinafter ABA Standards).
122. ABA Standards, Standard L-1.