Many defendants in domestic violence court feel like the system is out to ruin their lives. Over the years, several of the clients I represented became jobless and homeless after being arrested. Some people have a very hard time attending the mandatory classes and counseling, coming to court, and complying with their probation requirements such as staying in contact with a probation officer. A few clients feel the court experience has helped them.
Responsibilities of Federal, State, and County Governments The Child Welfare Services CWS system works to protect children by investigating reports of child maltreatment, removing children from unsafe homes, providing services to children and families to safely reunify foster children with their families, and finding safe placement options for children that cannot be safely reunified with their families.
The principal goals of the CWS system are to promote the safety, permanency in family placementsand well—being of children affected by child maltreatment. The CWS system spans across federal, state, and county government agencies. Federal Policy and Oversight The federal government enacts child welfare laws and policies that require or provide incentive funding for state compliance.
The federal government also audits state spending of federal CWS funds, sets policy priorities and requirements for using federal CWS funds, establishes program improvement goals for states that fail to reach federal performance targets, and issues funding penalties for noncompliance with federal policies and program performance targets.
State Policy and Oversight The federal government gives states some flexibility in how they operate their CWS programs. The DSS develops program and fiscal policies for CWS, provides technical assistance and training to counties, receives federal CWS funding and distributes these funds to the counties, monitors county CWS program performance, and collaborates with counties to establish program improvement goals.
In addition to county welfare agencies, county probation agencies perform case management including family reunification and placement services for foster children who are also involved in the juvenile justice system. The state provides county CWS agencies with some flexibility in how they operate their local CWS program, and therefore there is some variation in administration and services offered among county CWS agencies.
Juvenile dependency courts hold a series of hearings described later in the chapter that determine how a child moves through the CWS system. The CWS system serves these children through four main program components.
Emergency Response ER is the initial contact component of the program. For cases requiring an in—person investigation, social workers visit the subject child and family and make a determination if the child should be removed from the home, if voluntary supportive services should be provided, or if the case should be closed without further action.
In other cases, the initial assessment determines that no investigation is necessary, most often because the reported maltreatment did not meet the statutory definition of maltreatment. The CWS agencies provide FM services following a maltreatment report when there is concern about potential future harm to the child, but the county believes that the child can safely remain in his or her home with supportive services.
Examples of FM services include counseling, parent training, temporary daycare, and mental health or substance abuse treatment. Family Reunification FR provides time—limited support services to the family, while the child is in temporary foster care, with the goal of safely reunifying the child and family.
Examples of FR services include counseling, parent training, and mental health or substance abuse treatment. Permanent Placement PP provides case management and placement services to foster children who cannot be safely reunified with their families.
As will be discussed in Chapter 3, CWS caseload declines are primarily the result of children spending less time in foster care and more children exiting than entering foster care each year. As shown in Figure 1, the largest decrease in CWS caseloads over the last decade occurred in the PP program component.
From —03 to —12, PP caseloads declined by 54 percent. In contrast to declining overall caseloads, cases that were evaluated out increased by nearly 50 percent from —03 to — These cases are a subset of the ER component.
These risk—assessment tools measure risk to the child based upon the information provided in a child maltreatment report, and evaluate whether an investigation is necessary.
In many cases, CWS agencies receive reports of activities that either do not meet the definition of child maltreatment or the reports contain insufficient information to conduct an investigation. In recent years, nearly a third of new CWS cases have been closed without any in—person investigation, and the bulk of the remaining new cases have been closed shortly after investigation or after the provision of short—term services to the child and family.
Through case review and a series of hearings, juvenile dependency courts decide: As illustrated in Figure 3, the CWS system responds to each child maltreatment report in different ways. Some cases require an in—person investigation, while others do not based upon the information in the maltreatment report.
Trends in Child Maltreatment Allegation, Substantiation, and Foster Care Entry Rates The rate of child maltreatment allegations in the state has changed very little in the last several years.
From tothere was an average of 51 child maltreatment allegations per 1, children in the population. However, during this same time period, the rate of child maltreatment reports substantiated by the CWS system declined significantly 27 percent and the rate of children entering foster care declined by 13 percent.
However, the significant decline in substantiated child maltreatment and decline in foster care entry rates are in part the products of changes in how the CWS system has responded to child maltreatment. Below, we provide further detail on what is driving the downward trend in substantiation and foster care entry rates.
As shown in Figure 4, there is also large variation in the decline in substantiated case rates by county.The Family Court of the State of New York was created as a specialized court to handle Legal Aid Society only represents children in Family Court). For more information on Introductory Guide to the New York City Family Court.
Nov 17, · Attorneys for Children Program. Attorneys for Children co-sponsored an introduction to the Fatherhood Man-Up Program.
The speaker was Ingrid Davis- jurisdiction of the courts of this state, and that he objected to the jurisdiction at the first available opportunity. Furthermore, contrary to the mother's. Family Problems,DCF, and the Law: A Guide for Parents by Lynn ashio-midori.comne Jill Davies About the Authors Attorney Lynn B.
Cochrane has worked at Greater Hartford Legal Aid, Inc. since , where she represents children and parents in child protection matters.
help parents and their children if DCF and the courts get involved in their. Preserving the Infrastructure of Democracy – At the Courthouse Introduction. Access to state courts is critically important. From child custody proceedings and criminal prosecutions to foreclosure actions and domestic violence cases, state courts play a central role in our society by protecting individuals, resolving disputes, securing justice .
The Michigan Supreme Court has already signed several Treatment Court Administrative Papers establishing Veterans’ Courts and our state has many judges sharing information to continue to establish these specialty courts.
This question and answer guide addresses the role of the forums in the Tribal Courts and State Courts: The Prevention and Resolution of Jurisdictional Disputes Project. "Bringing our Children Home: An Introduction to the Indian Child Welfare Act “.
creating, and implementing a wellness court program. Drug Courts Programs Office.