CHAPTER I: THE JUVENILE COURT

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

Good juvenile courts function on a socio-legal basis where the constitutional rights of children and parents are not abridged, and where the purpose of the court is therapeutic and preventive, rather than retributive and punitive.... In so doing the court provides or institutes aids or measures that will effectively deter delinquent behavior, promote rehabilitation for good citizenship, (and) alleviate dependency and neglect.⁽¹⁾

Illinois established the first juvenile court by statute in 1899. Recognizing that youth are different from adults because they have developmental needs which cannot be satisfied without adult assistance, care and supervision, this statute set forth a comprehensive set of rules and definitions "to regulate the treatment and control of dependent, neglected and delinquent children," with the goal that the "care, custody, and discipline of these children" should "approximate as nearly as may be that which should be given by (its) parents."⁽²⁾

By statute enacted in 1903, California's first juvenile court had jurisdiction over dependent, neglected and delinquent children. Since then the court's purposes and functions have changed. These changes include: separation of the dependency and the delinquency court -- and the creation of separate sections in juvenile law for dependency cases, status offenders and delinquent minors.

Historically, the goal of the juvenile dependency court has been to protect vulnerable children whose parents or other legal caregivers abuse or neglect them. Parens patriae, the state as parent, provides the legal basis for state intervention in order to protect children from harm. Working closely with law enforcement and child protective service agencies, the court must first determine the validity of child abuse and/or neglect allegations. Then the court must decide if the child needs to be placed in foster care, or can safely remain at home with supervision and assistance from public and/or private social service agencies.⁽³⁾

In 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court's Gault decision enhanced due process requirements for minors, and set forth the legal stages of delinquency proceedings. During the 1970's, juvenile and family courts were expected only to determine whether a child had been abused or neglected, and if so, whether the child needed to be removed from home or placed under court or agency supervision.

In 1974, Congress passed the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) which authorized funding for national household surveys and the collection of national statistics, research and demonstration projects, and state child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment programs.

In 1980 Congress passed The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (PL 96-272) Social Security Act 420-427, 471-479a.

Congressional intent was to:

1. overcome the unplanned use of foster care by child welfare agencies (i.e., end child "dumping");

2. assure safety and quality of foster placements; and

3. achieve far-reaching reforms in foster care practice, such as ending the practice of moving children frequently from foster home to yet another foster home.

Congress envisioned achieving these goals by requiring the Courts to:

1. explicitly determine that the child welfare agency has made "reasonable efforts" to prevent placement and to return the child home;

2. approve any non-judicial, voluntary placements within 180 days after original placement; the court, a citizens review board, or an agency is to review the case of each child in foster placement at least once every 6 months;

3. hold a hearing no later than 18 months after placement & periodically thereafter, to determine the permanent placement arrangement

4. provide procedural safeguards for parents when children are removed from the home or are moved into different foster homes.⁽⁴⁾

The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act brought about an ever closer collaboration between the judiciary and social services by requiring that the county Court determine whether the Child Welfare Agency met the federal "reasonable efforts" standard. See 1. above. If the Court determined that this requirement had not been met, it then could grant a continuance in order for social services to properly make this effort. Such a continuance could extend for 6-12 months.

Issue:

These delays are of great concern to many judges because they lessen the child's possibility for adoption. The older a child gets, the less adoptable he/she becomes. Furthermore, any changes, or continual changes, in the lives of these vulnerable minors increases emotional distress and creates disruption in developmental growth.

In 1997, Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (PL 105-89). The law does the following:

1) Reasonable Efforts: redefines "reasonable efforts" to a) emphasize children's health and safety, b) reaffirms certain specific situations (specified in the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act below) where reasonable efforts to preserve families are not required, and c) requires states to specify situations when services to prevent removal from the home or promote reunification are not required.

2) Safety Requirements: amends federal statutory language concerning case plans and six months reviews to ensure that the issue of child safety is specifically addressed.

3) Deadlines for Initiating Termination of Parental Rights: requires states to initiate or join termination of parental rights proceedings for children who have been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. California passed AB 1544 in 1997 to enable this requirement.

4) Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard: requires states to provide notice and opportunity to be heard -- to foster parents, couples planning to adoptive the children, and relatives caring for the children -- in all reviews and hearings.

5) Permanency Planning: changes the requirement that "dispositional" hearings be held within 18 months after placement in foster care: a) renames the hearing a "permanency" hearing , b) tightens the statutory language to require that the hearing includes a decision whether to return the child home, initiate termination proceedings, or place the child in another permanent living arrangement, and c) requires that the hearing take place within 12 months of the child's original placement.

6) Time-Limited Family Reunification Services: limits Title IV-B funding for services to reunify families to 15 months after removal from the home. These services include counseling, substance abuse treatment, domestic violence services, temporary child care and related services -- crisis nurseries, and transportation for such services.

7) Dependency Court Reform: PL 105-89 renamed this sub-part of Title IV-B of the Social Security Act and extended for 3 more years the federal $10 million annual grant program to improve the courts' handling of child abuse and neglect cases.

California Dependency Court Reform: In response, California's Judicial Council has adopted a Long-Range Strategic Plan, published the California Court Improvement Project Report and Judge Leonard Edwards of Santa Clara County Court has developed a list of 23 steps for achieving these improvements. See Appendix A: California Court Improvement Project and Chapter IX: Funding for California's Dependency System, sub-chapter on County Funding, section on County Trial Court Funding.)

Issue:

The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 requires that reunification and permanency planning efforts now take place simultaneously. This has caused some birth parents to fear that reunification is not really the goal of the system. Others say that it is like providing for the care of your children in a will. Parents do not intend to die, they write the will as a precaution.

Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) P.L. 104-235 extended the 1974 CAPTA for another five years which includes:

1. the prevention-based Community-Based Family Resource and Support grants program,
2. the Children's Justice Act,
3. the Adoptions Opportunities Act,
4. the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act,
5. the Missing Children's Assistance Act and
6. the Victims of Child Abuse Act.

It also required that states create at least one or more volunteer Citizen Review Panel (unless there are existing child fatality or foster review bodies meeting these requirements) that examine Child Protective Services (CPS) policies and procedures, and "where appropriate" specific cases and issue public reports.

THE JUVENILE COURT TODAY

California Juvenile Court Dependency Law is a unique area of the law which is embodied in statutes, modified by case law, and guided by Rules of Court. By law judges are required to make critical legal decisions regarding a dependent child's welfare in a "timely fashion". Judges are also responsible for overseeing social service efforts to rehabilitate and maintain families. If reunification and family preservation are deemed to be not in the child's best interests, then permanent alternative care must be provided. Statutory authority for Juvenile Court Dependency actions is contained in section 300 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code. Section 11165.6 of the California Penal Code defines child abuse as: (1) physical injury inflicted on a child by another person; (2) sexual abuse; or (3) emotional abuse. Section 11165.2 defines child neglect as negligent treatment which threatens the child's health or welfare. One widely accepted definition, used by schools of social work and others but not found in law, states that:

Child neglect is a condition in which a caretaker responsible for the child, either deliberately or by extraordinary inattentiveness, permits the child to experience avoidable present suffering and/or fails one or more of the ingredients generally deemed essential for developing a person's physical, intellectual and emotional capacities⁽⁵⁾

A relatively small number of children who come to the attention of authorities for maltreatment actually go to court in California. Many cases are investigated and dropped by the county child welfare department. Many more are settled through Family Support services, mediation, etc. and never reach the court.

Some Important Elements of Juvenile Dependency Court Procedure:

Family Preservation Program: informal. Assists families in working out their problems without court intervention.

Family Maintenance Program: more formalized. May include an emergency response, at which time the case may be closed, or a determination made that child requires placement services. Supportive services may be provided.

Petition filed: but held in abeyance for 6 weeks to 3 months while social services works with the family. If the situation stabilizes and a level of control is maintained, the case is closed. If not, petition is activated and family goes to court.

Family Reunification: child is in placement. Services are provided to the family to make sure the child returns home safely.

Permanency Planning: child cannot be returned home. Plan for adoption, or long-term placement.

In addition to relying upon the clinical expertise and case management information provided by the social worker in dependency cases, the Court relies upon Child Welfare Agencies to: investigate reports of neglect and abuse; arrange for the filing of court petitions; testify at court hearings; prepare services plans aimed at family reunification or alternative permanent placement; find and administer foster homes; and locate adoptive parents for children whose parental rights have been terminated.⁽⁶⁾

Voluntary Placements:

Abuse and/or neglect are not the only reasons children are removed from parental custody. Sometimes temporary family emergencies, such as: divorce, illness, job loss, lack of child care can be the cause. In these cases family reunification can be safely achieved, with a minimum of emotional trauma, and without interference of the court, through appropriate social service intervention with adequate community support. Until this year these voluntary placements could only last a year. The new Federal Title-E Welfare Waiver extended this period another 6 to 12 months. (For more on the Waiver see California's Title-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Project in Chapter IX: Funding for California's Dependency System)

Dependency Courts in the Media

Dependency Court proceedings are confidential. Recently, however, several juvenile court judges in California have opened their courts to the media so that informative books and articles might be written about juvenile court operations. Judges granted reporters unprecedented access to court files, group homes, closed hearings, etc. The books include: No Matter How Loud I Shout⁽⁷⁾ and Somebody Else's Children⁽⁸⁾, written by San Jose Mercury News staff with the cooperation of Santa Clara Superior Judge Leonard P. Edwards. In May 1998 the Los Angeles Times published a 3-part series about the "System Kids" which was written by newspaper staff who investigated Orange County's child welfare system, assisted by Judge Ronald Owens, of the Orange County Juvenile Court. According to attorneys, children's advocates, judges and social workers statewide, the problems faced by Orange County's dependent children are similar to those faced by children in the Dependency System elsewhere in California. The Times staff found an antiquated system that has too many children and lacks proper oversight -- a system that all too frequently fails the very children it is supposed to protect.

ISSUE:

Could a multi-functional child-family court better protect both children and families?

A tragic example of the problems caused by multiple judges making decisions concerning the same child was reported by a committee convened to investigate the death of Joseph Wallace [in Illinois]. The committee reported that five judges in Cook and Kane Counties made rulings concerning Joseph, but that they were not provided with critical information about previous court hearings. A court system which ensures that a child appears before the same judicial officer will substantially avoid this problem.⁽⁹⁾

(See also Judge Edward's recommendations in Appendix A: California Court Improvement Project and Chapter II: Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, the sub-chapter on Reduction of Domestic Violence as a Way to Protect Children and Preserve Families, in the section on Need for Coordination between Health, Justice and Social Workers)

Previous section. Table of Contents. Next section.