Court reforms to improve foster care
By Justice Carlos R. Moreno
 |
Justice Moreno |
Foster care is meant to be a short-term, safe haven for abused or neglected
children. Yet in California, as in most states, it all too often becomes a
long-term saga. Half of our state’s nearly 80,000 foster children remain
in care for two or more years, 17 percent of them for more than three years.
Most of these children are in foster care because of neglect, not abuse. Yet
far too many of them languish in a “foster care limbo,” shuffled
from placement to placement, separated from siblings, friends and schools.
Those who grow up in foster care face an increased risk of unemployment, homelessness,
mental illness and involvement with the criminal justice system. This is not
the future we have in mind for the most vulnerable among us.
In March 2006, Chief Justice Ronald M. George launched the California Blue
Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care, a statewide panel of experts
with experience in all aspects of child welfare. He gave us two years to develop
concrete and practical recommendations on how the courts and our partners can
improve outcomes for children and their families around safety, permanency,
well-being, due process and fairness.
The commission took a hard look at our juvenile dependency courts and learned
that:
- There are fewer than 150 full-time and part-time judicial officers who preside
over the state’s entire dependency court system. Full-time judicial officials
in California carry an average of 1,000 cases, which has a direct impact on
the level of time and attention any one case receives.
- Dependency hearings average only 10–15 minutes, far less than the
recommended 30–60 minutes and hardly enough time for a judge to get a
full picture of the needs, hopes and concerns of a child and his or her family.
- Attorneys who represent children and parents carry average caseloads of
273, which far exceed the caseload standards for attorneys recently adopted
by the Judicial Council. Children and parents sometimes do not even meet their
attorneys until the day of their hearings.
Is it any wonder that the voices of children and parents are not always heard
in court?
Is it any wonder that juvenile law is not a popular career path?
Is it any wonder that our juvenile dependency courts do not always meet federal
or state mandates for timely hearings?
As commissioner and Associate Justice Richard Huffman of the Court of Appeal,
4th Appellate District, aptly noted: Much of what is occurring in our dependency
courts would be considered “malpractice in any other area of the law.”
The Blue Ribbon Commission wants to change the way dependency courts do business.
We want to help dependency courts meet their obligations under state and federal
law and to live up to the good intentions and potential of the caring professionals
who work there.
The commission released draft recommendations for public comment in March.
Our overarching belief is that all children deserve a safe and permanent home.
There-fore, whenever possible, families should receive the support they need
to stay together safely. If a child must be removed, the courts and their partner
agencies should seek timely reunification or placement in another permanent
home.
Making this fundamental goal a reality is the basis for our proposals. In
wide-ranging recommendations, the commission calls for the active involvement
and leadership of the courts to fulfill our judicial responsibilities within
the child welfare system. We are requesting that the Judicial Council, the
policymaking body for the judicial branch, spearhead these changes.
One of the most important areas of reform is ensuring reasonable caseloads
for our judicial officers and attorneys, so they will have adequate time to
understand the needs and hopes of each child and family. We also need sufficient
judicial personnel so that the same judge can hear a case from beginning to
end. In addition, we are calling on the Judicial Council to implement court
performance measures as developed by the commission and as required by state
law.
We also believe that juvenile law should become a more respected career choice.
Reducing caseloads will help, but we also need more dedicated professionals
to join the field. Thus, the commission urges the State Bar to create a juvenile
law section, to make juvenile dependency law mandatory for the bar exam and
to forgive student loans for those who choose this career.
The courts do not operate in isolation. Thus the commission calls for strengthening
communication between the courts and our partners, building and implementing
better data systems and ensuring access to data and information that cuts across
agencies.
We also believe that no child or family should be denied critical services
because of funding constraints. The courts and our partners need adequate and
flexible funds to meet our legal and moral obligations. Therefore, the commission
calls for flexible use of federal foster care dollars, which are now largely
restricted for use only after removal of a child. We also want to eliminate
the barriers that currently preclude state and local agencies from pooling
funds to better meet the needs of children and families. And, we call on the
courts and our partner agencies in California to prioritize foster children
and their families when making decisions about services and allocation of resources.
In short, this commission is determined to make a difference. We know the
consequences if we do not act. We will see it in the lives of youth who grow
up without nurturing adults by their side and in the health and stability of
the communities where they live.
We acknowledge that not everything can happen at once in fiscally tight times.
But we remind ourselves that this is about the children and that time moves
slowly in the eyes of a child. It is from the foster children themselves that
the commission learned we have no time to lose.
- The commission invites the public to read and comment on the full set of
draft recommendations which are posted on the commission’s Web site,
www.courtinfo.ca.gov/blueribbon. The public comment period extends to May 12,
after which the commission will meet in June to finalize its recommendations
before presenting them to the Judicial Council for action in August 2008.
• Carlos R. Moreno, associate justice of the California Supreme Court, is
chair of the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care.
Draft Recommendations at a Glance
CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND SERVICES FUNDING
The Judicial Council should work with state and federal leaders to allow greater
flexibility in the use of prevention funds and to eliminate barriers to coordinating
funds for prevention and services.
PRIORITIZING FOSTER CARE
All agencies and the courts should prioritize children in foster care and
their families when providing services and when allocating and administering
public and private resources.
CASELOADS
The Judicial Council should advocate reasonable judicial, attorney and social
worker caseloads.
DATA AND INFORMATION
The Judicial Council should support the courts and all partners in the child
welfare system in eliminating barriers to the exchange of essential information
and data about the children and families they serve. The Judicial Council should
implement court performance measures to improve foster care outcomes as mandated
by state law.
DISPROPORTIONALITY
The courts and child welfare agencies should examine and address why a disproportionate
number of African-American and Native American children are in the child welfare
system.
KINSHIP
Child welfare agencies should engage family members earlier and the Judicial
Council should work with state and federal leaders to develop greater flexibility
in approving relative placements when necessary.
INDIAN CHILD WELFARE
The courts, child welfare and other agencies should collaborate with Indian
tribes and tribal courts to ensure that Indian children and families get the
services for which they are eligible.
EXTENDED SUPPORT FOR TRANSITIONING YOUTH
The Judicial Council should urge Congress and the state Legislature to extend
the age for children to receive foster care assistance from 18 to 21.
A VOICE IN COURT
The courts should ensure that all participants in dependency proceedings,
including children and parents, have an opportunity to be present at and heard
in court. CASA programs should be available in all counties.
LOCAL COMMISSIONS
The courts and child welfare agencies should jointly convene multidisciplinary
commissions at the county level to identify and resolve local concerns and
to help implement commission recommendations and related reforms.
• Visit www.courtinfo.ca.gov/blueribbon for the full set of recommendations
and to provide public comment. Court reforms to improve foster care
By Justice Carlos R. Moreno
 |
Justice Moreno |
Foster care is meant to be a short-term, safe haven for abused or neglected
children. Yet in California, as in most states, it all too often becomes a
long-term saga. Half of our state’s nearly 80,000 foster children remain
in care for two or more years, 17 percent of them for more than three years.
Most of these children are in foster care because of neglect, not abuse. Yet
far too many of them languish in a “foster care limbo,” shuffled
from placement to placement, separated from siblings, friends and schools.
Those who grow up in foster care face an increased risk of unemployment, homelessness,
mental illness and involvement with the criminal justice system. This is not
the future we have in mind for the most vulnerable among us.
In March 2006, Chief Justice Ronald M. George launched the California Blue
Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care, a statewide panel of experts
with experience in all aspects of child welfare. He gave us two years to develop
concrete and practical recommendations on how the courts and our partners can
improve outcomes for children and their families around safety, permanency,
well-being, due process and fairness.
The commission took a hard look at our juvenile dependency courts and learned
that:
- There are fewer than 150 full-time and part-time judicial officers who preside
over the state’s entire dependency court system. Full-time judicial officials
in California carry an average of 1,000 cases, which has a direct impact on
the level of time and attention any one case receives.
- Dependency hearings average only 10–15 minutes, far less than the
recommended 30–60 minutes and hardly enough time for a judge to get a
full picture of the needs, hopes and concerns of a child and his or her family.
- Attorneys who represent children and parents carry average caseloads of
273, which far exceed the caseload standards for attorneys recently adopted
by the Judicial Council. Children and parents sometimes do not even meet their
attorneys until the day of their hearings.
Is it any wonder that the voices of children and parents are not always heard
in court?
Is it any wonder that juvenile law is not a popular career path?
Is it any wonder that our juvenile dependency courts do not always meet federal
or state mandates for timely hearings?
As commissioner and Associate Justice Richard Huffman of the Court of Appeal,
4th Appellate District, aptly noted: Much of what is occurring in our dependency
courts would be considered “malpractice in any other area of the law.”
The Blue Ribbon Commission wants to change the way dependency courts do business.
We want to help dependency courts meet their obligations under state and federal
law and to live up to the good intentions and potential of the caring professionals
who work there.
The commission released draft recommendations for public comment in March.
Our overarching belief is that all children deserve a safe and permanent home.
There-fore, whenever possible, families should receive the support they need
to stay together safely. If a child must be removed, the courts and their partner
agencies should seek timely reunification or placement in another permanent
home.
Making this fundamental goal a reality is the basis for our proposals. In
wide-ranging recommendations, the commission calls for the active involvement
and leadership of the courts to fulfill our judicial responsibilities within
the child welfare system. We are requesting that the Judicial Council, the
policymaking body for the judicial branch, spearhead these changes.
One of the most important areas of reform is ensuring reasonable caseloads
for our judicial officers and attorneys, so they will have adequate time to
understand the needs and hopes of each child and family. We also need sufficient
judicial personnel so that the same judge can hear a case from beginning to
end. In addition, we are calling on the Judicial Council to implement court
performance measures as developed by the commission and as required by state
law.
We also believe that juvenile law should become a more respected career choice.
Reducing caseloads will help, but we also need more dedicated professionals
to join the field. Thus, the commission urges the State Bar to create a juvenile
law section, to make juvenile dependency law mandatory for the bar exam and
to forgive student loans for those who choose this career.
The courts do not operate in isolation. Thus the commission calls for strengthening
communication between the courts and our partners, building and implementing
better data systems and ensuring access to data and information that cuts across
agencies.
We also believe that no child or family should be denied critical services
because of funding constraints. The courts and our partners need adequate and
flexible funds to meet our legal and moral obligations. Therefore, the commission
calls for flexible use of federal foster care dollars, which are now largely
restricted for use only after removal of a child. We also want to eliminate
the barriers that currently preclude state and local agencies from pooling
funds to better meet the needs of children and families. And, we call on the
courts and our partner agencies in California to prioritize foster children
and their families when making decisions about services and allocation of resources.
In short, this commission is determined to make a difference. We know the
consequences if we do not act. We will see it in the lives of youth who grow
up without nurturing adults by their side and in the health and stability of
the communities where they live.
We acknowledge that not everything can happen at once in fiscally tight times.
But we remind ourselves that this is about the children and that time moves
slowly in the eyes of a child. It is from the foster children themselves that
the commission learned we have no time to lose.
- The commission invites the public to read and comment on the full set of
draft recommendations which are posted on the commission’s Web site,
www.courtinfo.ca.gov/blueribbon. The public comment period extends to May 12,
after which the commission will meet in June to finalize its recommendations
before presenting them to the Judicial Council for action in August 2008.
• Carlos R. Moreno, associate justice of the California Supreme Court, is
chair of the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care.
Draft Recommendations at a Glance
CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND SERVICES FUNDING
The Judicial Council should work with state and federal leaders to allow greater
flexibility in the use of prevention funds and to eliminate barriers to coordinating
funds for prevention and services.
PRIORITIZING FOSTER CARE
All agencies and the courts should prioritize children in foster care and
their families when providing services and when allocating and administering
public and private resources.
CASELOADS
The Judicial Council should advocate reasonable judicial, attorney and social
worker caseloads.
DATA AND INFORMATION
The Judicial Council should support the courts and all partners in the child
welfare system in eliminating barriers to the exchange of essential information
and data about the children and families they serve. The Judicial Council should
implement court performance measures to improve foster care outcomes as mandated
by state law.
DISPROPORTIONALITY
The courts and child welfare agencies should examine and address why a disproportionate
number of African-American and Native American children are in the child welfare
system.
KINSHIP
Child welfare agencies should engage family members earlier and the Judicial
Council should work with state and federal leaders to develop greater flexibility
in approving relative placements when necessary.
INDIAN CHILD WELFARE
The courts, child welfare and other agencies should collaborate with Indian
tribes and tribal courts to ensure that Indian children and families get the
services for which they are eligible.
EXTENDED SUPPORT FOR TRANSITIONING YOUTH
The Judicial Council should urge Congress and the state Legislature to extend
the age for children to receive foster care assistance from 18 to 21.
A VOICE IN COURT
The courts should ensure that all participants in dependency proceedings,
including children and parents, have an opportunity to be present at and heard
in court. CASA programs should be available in all counties.
LOCAL COMMISSIONS
The courts and child welfare agencies should jointly convene multidisciplinary
commissions at the county level to identify and resolve local concerns and
to help implement commission recommendations and related reforms.
• Visit www.courtinfo.ca.gov/blueribbon for the full set of recommendations
and to provide public comment.
|