One family, one judge practice effects on children: permanency outcomes on case closure and beyond

IntroductionIn 1995, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) set out guidelines for best practices in cases of child abuse and neglect. One of the practices that has been widely adopted (although little studied) is the one family, one judge model, in which one judicial decision maker hears a case from beginning to end. According to the NCJFCJ, the one family, one judge model is preferable to standard practice because it permits judges to become thoroughly familiar with the needs of children and families, the efforts over time made to address those needs, and the complexities of each family's situation (NCJFCJ, 1995, p. 19). One of the hopes for this practice is that judges familiar with the families would be able to make more informed decisions that might lead to better outcomes for families and children and increase the quality of stakeholders' response to family crisis (Portune, Gatowski, & Dobbin, 2009, p. 37). The NCJFCJ promotes the one family, one judge model as a best practice in both dependency and delinquency cases (NCJFCJ, 2005). It has also been recommended by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (Duquette & Hardin, 1999), and by the United Kingdom's President of the Family Division of Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (Wall, 2011).Promoters of family courts, of which the one family, one judge model is an integral part, note the benefits of efficiency and consonance that judicial continuity brings (Rubin, 1998, p. 123). Families may benefit from greater familiarity with the judicial decision maker and the courtroom, as well as from not having to repeatedly share their stories with a series of changing judicial officers (Martinson, 2010; Rubin, 1998). Other reported advantages of judicial consistency include long-term perspectives, discouragement of repeated party excuses, and prevention of judicial reliance solely on social service agency recommendations (NCJFCJ, 1995). In the Canadian context, Martinson (2010) praises the one family, one judge model as particularly useful in high-conflict family law cases, in which judicial continuity may decrease inconsistencies in approach and results (p. 186) by limiting manipulation, procedural delays, and conflicting judgments. Concerns around one family, one judge models center on whether they are feasible, which may depend on jurisdictional resources and on whether increased familiarity might give rise to procedural concerns or biases (Moye, 2004; Rubin, 1998).Research on the One Family, One Judge ModelResearch is important to assess how family court innovations are being implemented, whether they are achieving desired goals, and whether they have been associated with any unintended consequences (NCJFCJ, 2004). Despite the growing endorsement and application of one family, one judge docketing, there is little research evaluating the model. An evaluation of a one family, one judge, pilot program in North Carolina found that participating families were connected to resources more quickly, achieved case milestones in a shorter time, spent fewer court days per completed hearing, and had fewer children in nonfamily and out-of-home placements than nonparticipating families (Kirk & Griffith, 2006). A study of a New York City adoption reform project compared cases using a one family, one judge model with a randomly sampled control group from the point of termination of parental rights through adoption. This study found that judicial continuity was related to shorter time between termination of parental rights and the finalization of adoption among the intervention group compared with controls (Festinger & Pratt, 2002).Stakeholder evaluations of one family, one judge programs indicate a strong agreement that the model creates a more informed bench and benefits the family by offering more coordinated services (Thoennes, 2001). Drawing on data from the study described here, we report elsewhere on a trend toward improved timeliness of processing of child abuse and neglect cases (Summers & Shdaimah, 2013a). …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.