Second Court That Works: Judicial Implementation of Permanency Planning Reforms

• NCJ Number: 171494
• Author(s): M Hardin; H T Rubin; D R Baker
• Date Published: 1995
• Length: 130 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: Edna McConnell Clark Foundation; American Bar Assoc
• Sale Source: American Bar Assoc
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This study describes and documents how an advanced court (Kent County Juvenile Court in Grand Rapids, Mich.) is implementing "permanency planning reforms" (how the court is performing the additional functions designed to achieve permanent and safe homes for maltreated children).

Abstract

The study includes a description and analysis of how the court proceedings are conducted, how the court calendar is managed, how the court is staffed and organized to handle abuse and neglect cases, and how the associated costs are handled. Overall, the study provides a blueprint for the reform of juvenile and family courts that wish to better serve the children and families that come before them. Findings show that the court has efficient staffing and is organized to fulfill the functions required of juvenile courts in child protection cases. This involves long-term, specialized judges setting policy and being the primary hearing officers beginning with the adjudicatory stage and continuing through termination of parental rights and adoption. They are supported by experienced lawyer referees, who handle preadjudication hearings. Further, the court's permanency planning department has active and professional leadership, and the court uses well-trained hearing coordinators to present legal and social files to the judges, record case hearing information that is transcribed for formal judicial orders, schedule next hearing dates through the clerk's office, and coordinate materials and parties for upcoming hearings. Findings also show that court resources are used efficiently, although there is an absence of state-of-the-art technological equipment. Further, Kent County has an effective system of caseflow management in child protection cases. The key features of the system are described in this report. Moreover, the style of court hearings is appropriate to the court's judicial oversight function, and the county has implemented both the letter and the spirit of mandated permanency planning reforms to a degree matched by few juvenile courts. The report contains a worksheet for estimating 1993 costs associated with child abuse and neglect litigation.