1 / 26

Hearing Quality Observation Project

Hon. Robin Sage Tara Garlinghouse. Hearing Quality Observation Project. Supreme Court of Texas Children’s Commission. Overview of Project. Continuation of study of legal system to assess the quality of our child protection hearings Project Goals:

arien
Download Presentation

Hearing Quality Observation Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Hon. Robin Sage Tara Garlinghouse Hearing Quality Observation Project Supreme Court of Texas Children’s Commission

  2. Overview of Project • Continuation of study of legal system to assess the quality of our child protection hearings • Project Goals: • Establish a baseline about the quality of court hearings including timeliness and length of hearing, docketing practices, depth of issues discussed, compliance with Texas Family Code, parent due process, engagement of parties at hearings, children in court, and legal representation within the system • Examine differences in due process and well-being issues addressed in court hearings and plans for children based on geographic location, child welfare / legal system culture, and presence of the parties • Make recommendations for the improvement of court hearings and Identify judicial and attorney training and education needs

  3. Project Elements • Children’s Commission developed project goals, observation tool and surveys in partnership with Children’s Bureau and American Bar Association National Resource Center for Legal and Judicial Issues • Observed 17 judges; 164 hearings; 12 locations • Interviewed 68 attorneys and 42 parents, but in-depth analysis not conducted for this report

  4. Observation Locations

  5. Data Collection and Methodology • Study included the many types of child welfare courts • Half-day hearing observations followed by file reviews • Hearing Quality Indicators • Procedural, Well-Being, Relevancy • Analyzed the data based on many different factors • Hearing type, court type, geography, parties present, engagement, advocacy, hearing length, docket case load

  6. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

  7. Findings: Court Process and Structure Factors measured: • Number of Judges Handling each Case • Language Assistance • Whether a Record was Made • Whether Witnesses were Sworn • Docket and Caseload • Hearing Length • Geographical Factors (Rural vs. Urban) • Court Types ( CPC vs. Non-CPC)

  8. Findings: Court Process and Structure • Number of judges per case: only 1 judge in 2/3 cases; 2 judges in 1/3 cases • Records made in 85% of cases, ¼ of records were by recording software • Translation/language assistance in 9% of cases • Witnesses were sworn in 54% of cases • Wait-times: average 56 minutes; maximum 4.25 hours

  9. Recommendations: Specific Time Settings Excessive Wait time for families, attorneys, and caseworkers costs time and money and discourages professionals from taking child welfare cases. Where possible, cases should be set for specific times. For example, one case each 15 minutes or in small clusters of 3-4 per hour would significantly cut waiting time.

  10. Findings: Court Dockets Courts followed several different models of docketing. Some courts set one docket for the entire day and worked until the docket was concluded; others set dockets per half day. One court set cases every 20 minuteswhile other set all of the cases for the morning or afternoon.

  11. Recommendations: Court Dockets 15 cases per half-day or 4 hour period seems to be the maximum number of cases where there is enough time and resources to cover the necessary issues in each hearing

  12. Findings: Court Structures • Child Protection Courts covered more relevant indicators • Possibly because: • Specialized Judges -- more training and experience in Child Welfare cases • Smaller dockets and longer hearings than many district courts • Child Protection Case Management System

  13. Findings: Hearing Length • Hearings ranged from 1-81 minutes • Overallaverage 15 minutes • Adversary 15.9 minutes • Status 15.1 minutes • Initial Permanency 15.9 minutes • Subseq. Permanency 16.6 minutes • Final 21.3 minutes* • Service Review/Other 10.9minutes • Placement Review 12 minutes

  14. Recommendations: Hearing Length • Hearings that lasted twenty-five minutes or more covered the most issues in depth and breadth, had higher engagement of parties, and addressed plans for the children and parents. • Dramatic difference in hearings that lasted less than 10 minutes and hearings that lasted more than 10 • Hearings should last a bare minimum of 10 minutes, but judges should aspire to spend twenty-five minutes on a hearing when possible

  15. Findings: Reasonable Efforts • Courts are required to examine whether DFPS has made reasonable efforts at three points in the case: (1) To avoid removal, (2) To reunify the child safely, and (3) To achieve permanency for the child. • Only 10% of the courts mentioned reasonable efforts in the hearings. Most court orders (62%) included only boilerplate language on reasonable efforts. .

  16. Findings: Indian Child Welfare Act • The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requires the court to make a finding whether a child under jurisdiction of the court is a member or is eligible to be a member of a Native American Indian tribe. ICWA affects the court’s jurisdiction as well as placement issues. • Only 4% of the Judges observed addressed ICWA in the hearing. Judges appear to be completely unaware of ICWA or may rely on case files (39%) to provide information. • 40% of Attorneys surveyed recently had lack of knowledge of ICWA. • The judge must ask about ICWA even if the agency does not bring it up or the case file has an indicator that it does not apply, preferably at the adversary hearing.

  17. Recommendations: Federal Requirements Compliance with Federally Required Findings: • Courts should make reasonable efforts findings from the bench 1. More in-depth discussion of reasonable efforts 2. Specific finding of reasonable efforts in court 3. Include specific findings in court orders • Judges should inquire early in the case about ICWA applicability and persist until there is compliance

  18. Findings: Due Process Factors measured: • Identification of Parties Present/Inquiry about Absent Parties • Service on Parties • Right to Court Appointed Attorneys • Hearing Delays • Court Reports • Entry of Court Orders • Extensions Granted • Setting Next Hearings

  19. Findings: Due Process • Courts routinely identified parties except at Placement Review Hearings • Courts inquired about service on parents and advised present parents of their right to have an attorney early in the case but did not continue to pursue throughout the case • Courts seldom delayed • Extensions were granted in 1/5 of cases • Courts set the next hearing from the bench 60% of the time • Court orders were timely signed and entered

  20. Recommendations: Due Process Issues • Frontload procedural issues into adversary hearings • Continue to address service on parties • Admonish parents of right to an attorney at every hearing • Review permanency plans and concurrent plans *This may go in next section* • Use bench cards to ensure all indicators are addressed

  21. Findings: Legal Representation • In 77% of Temporary Managing Conservatorship cases, the mother had a court appointed attorney; 63% of cases one or more fathers had an attorney • Attorneys were appointed early in the cases (70% prior to the show cause hearing) • Attorneys appeared regularly and advocated for their clients formally and informally for visitation, services, and reunification

  22. Findings: Child and Family Well-Being Factors measured: • Child Placement • Visitation with Parents and Siblings • Education Plans and Needs • Medical Care and Psychotropic Medication • Length of Time in Care • Engagement of Youth and Parties • Family Service Plan Review • Permanency and Concurrent Plans • Transition Living Plan Review

  23. Recommendations: Child and Family Well-being • More emphasis on well-being in PMC hearings • Address sibling visitation when siblings not placed together • Discuss psychotropic medications in greater depth • Consider alternative placements more often • More frequent review of permanency and concurrent plans

  24. Recommendations: Court Engagement of Parties • Children must be in court • It’s the law! • Most children want to be there • Courts conducted better hearings when children were present • Court should engage parents and children in court • Court should engage caregivers and foster parents • Foster parents should also be encouraged to come to court

  25. Continuous Quality Improvement • Share findings with child welfare community • Target training for all who work in child welfare system • Repeat this study every 2-3 years to monitor improvement

More Related