Court Welfare Research Articles

Litigation as a Governance Strategy: Courts, Bureaucracies and the Welfare Rights of Irregular Migrants

ABSTRACTOver the last few years, the welfare rights of illegalized migrants living in Belgium have become increasingly restricted. Without a legal residence status, such rights are limited to (conditional) access to public healthcare. Welfare courts have, however, sometimes gone against the grain and granted social assistance benefits to irregularized applicants, based on fundamental rights principles. Conflicting jurisprudential trends have emerged and are still debating the ambiguous, and multiple meanings of ‘human dignity’ especially for those with a precarious immigration status. This article delves into the role of courts in the implementation of migrants' welfare rights. Based on ethnographic fieldwork within welfare courts, in public administrations and amongst migrants, it shows how litigation has become part of the daily governance of social protection. This allows certain categories of migrants to gain access to financial assistance, yet creates lengthy, complex procedures and leading to great uncertainty for claimants.

The Willful Neglect of the American Child Welfare and Family Court System

The Willful Neglect of the American Child Welfare and Family Court System

Disability, abnormality and criminal law: sterilisation as lawful and ‘good’ violence

This article analyses the place of the intersections of the criminal law of assault and the Family Court's welfare jurisdiction in rendering Family Court authorised sterilisation of girls with intellectual disability a legally permissible form of violence. The article does this by examining court authorised sterilisation of girls with intellectual disability by reference to the concepts of ‘legal violence’ and ‘abnormality’. The article's central argument is that Family Court authorised sterilisation of girls with intellectual disability is a form of lawful and ‘good’ violence against abnormal legal subjects. Such girls are – by reason of their incapacity – positioned outside the group of ‘normal’ legal subjects of assault who have the capacity to decide to consent to contact with their otherwise ‘impermeable’ and legally sacrosanct bodies. As the girls with intellectual disability are deemed to constitute ‘abnormal’ legal subjects of assault, the lawfulness of the contact involved in the act of their sterilisation is not dependent on the consent of the girls themselves, but instead on the consent of their parents as authorised by the Family Court acting in its welfare jurisdiction. In the course of authorising parental consent to sterilisation, the Family Court not only renders an act of sterilisation ‘lawful violence’, but also ‘good violence’ through the characterisation of girls with intellectual disability as absolutely different to individuals without disability, and through the characterisation of the act in legal, familial and medical terms.

Care assessments concerning involuntary removal of children from intellectually disabled parents

This study set out to analyse how parenting and the needs of the children are assessed by social authorities and courts in families where one or both parents have an intellectual disability (ID). The texts of child welfare investigations and court judgments in 16 cases of care orders concerning parents (30) with IDs and their children (29) in two counties in Sweden were analysed by a hermeneutic case study. The study shows that even though many of the children are described as already harmed by neglect, clear assessments of care needs are not presented and it is uncertain which of the children's needs a placement in a family home is assumed to satisfy. The conclusion of the article is that, even though no direct discrimination can be established, the particular individual and structural difficulties of the families' life circumstances are not taken into consideration. This can be seen as a discriminatory practice.

Rethinking Treatment for Children with Gender Dysphoria and the Family Court's Welfare Jurisdiction

The authorisation of treatment for children with gender dysphoria has been found, inappropriately, to fall within the Family Court of Australia’s welfare jurisdiction. For a particular medical treatment to attract the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction it must be found that the child is not competent to consent to the treatment themself and the treatment must fall within the ambit of what the Court has called a ‘special medical procedure’. The intent behind the exercise of the Court’s welfare jurisdiction is to safeguard the best interests of children.Contrary to previous decisions of the Court, treatment for gender dysphoria does not fall within the factors identified by the majority of the High Court in Marion’s Case as being indicative of a ‘special medical procedure’. The practical effects of this mistaken characterisation are, paradoxically, detrimental to children with gender dysphoria. In addition, the ability of mature children to authorise partially irreversible treatment for themselves has been unnecessarily complicated, and measures should be taken to clarify and standardise the law in this area.

Juvenile court pathways to legal permanence for children in substitute care

Abstract Using administrative data describing the contemporaneous substitute care and juvenile court histories of 8116 children entering substitute care in Cook county Illinois, this study examines children's pathways to legal permanence. Specifically, by parsing children's exit to permanence by its constituent legal milestones, and examining the extent to which variability in the rates of these milestones are attributable to the court calendar (i.e., judge) and child levels, respectively, this study attempts to pinpoint the primary sources of variability in children's pathways to legal permanence. Results suggest that the transitions between certain legal milestones (e.g., disposition to reunification, disposition to TPR) account for a majority of the variability in children's exit to permanence. Results also suggest that a moderate amount of variability in permanency rates is attributable to court calendars, but that the magnitude of calendar-level influence varies considerably across legal milestone transitions; for some transitions (e.g., TPR to adoption finalization), calendar-level influence is effectively zero, whereas for other transitions (e.g., entry to dispositional order), calendar-level influence seems to eclipse the influence of observed child-level characteristics. Implications for child welfare and juvenile court scholarship, policy, and practice are discussed.

Lawful Correction or Child Abuse: Clarifying the Boundaries, Sanctions and Decision-Making Surrounding the Physical Discipline of Children

Parents and other adults responsible for children’s care and protection in Victoria are subject to inconsistent messages regarding the lawful limits of physical discipline, or corporal punishment. Different approaches are taken by civil, welfare, family and criminal courts, by different government agencies, and in different jurisdictions, producing confusion amongst professionals and the general public. This collaborative research at Monash University between the Faculty of Law and Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences (Child Abuse Prevention Research Australia), funded by the Legal Services Board, Victoria explores these sources of confusion and proposes policy and legislative reform, as well as professional education measures. This Report presents the findings from an extensive review of reported Australian case law where physical punishment of a child has been discussed in some detail, in criminal law, family law and other jurisdictions, together with the perspectives of practising lawyers, magistrates and judges working in various jurisdictions who completed surveys or participated in interviews.

Your shout too! Children's views of the arrangements made and services provided when courts adjudicate in private law disputes

Government reports and research studies from several countries, going back over several years, have highlighted the harm suffered by children caught up in their parents' conflict about where they should live and who they should see. This article adds to the still-small body of research presenting children's views about the sources of support available to them around the time of court hearings and subsequently. A questionnaire was sent, via the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) and through their resident parent, to the majority of children in England aged 10 or over about whom a court welfare report had been written during a six-month period. Responses were received from 141 children and demographic data are provided on these respondents. More of the respondents expressed broad satisfaction with their residence arrangements than was the case for contact arrangements. Whilst more than half of the respondents were broadly satisfied with the services they had received, others evidenced very real causes for complaint. Others valued the service provided but considered it to be ‘too little, too late’. For an important minority, the complexity of their situations and the deep-seated problems of one or both parents made it very difficult for even the most skilled and sensitive professionals to arrive at a conclusion that met the child's needs and accorded with their wishes. The findings support those from studies focusing on the views of parents as well as children, which show that, whilst a skilled court welfare service continues to be essential for a minority of the most vulnerable children trapped in these conflictual situations, it is essential that such children be considered as ‘children in need’ who can benefit from the family support services available to all vulnerable children.

Pathways to Mental Health Services for Children and Youth in the Child Welfare System: A Focus on Social Workers’ Referral

Case abstraction was used to collect data from court reports to examine characteristics that predict referral to mental health services by court and child welfare social workers and whether referral to mental health services was a significant determinant of service utilization. Home placement and multiple types of abuse were significant predictors of a referral to mental health services by the court social worker and age and reported sexual abuse were significant in the utilization of services. Practice and policy implications are discussed.

Services used by perinatal substance-users with child welfare involvement: a descriptive study

BackgroundSubstance use during pregnancy often leads to involvement in the child welfare system, resulting in multiple social service systems and service providers working with families to achieve successful child welfare outcomes. The Vulnerable Infants Program of Rhode Island (VIP-RI) is a care coordination program developed to work with perinatal substance-users to optimize opportunities for reunification and promote permanency for substance-exposed infants. This paper describes services used by VIP-RI participants and child welfare outcomes.MethodsData collected during the first four years of VIP-RI were used to identify characteristics of program participants, services received, and child welfare outcomes: closed child welfare cases, reunification with biological mothers and identified infant permanent placements.Descriptive ResultsMedical and financial services were associated with positive child welfare outcomes. Medical services included family planning, pre- and post-natal care and HIV test counseling. Financial services included assistance with obtaining entitlement benefits and receiving tangible support such as food and clothing.ConclusionsFindings from this study suggest services that address basic family needs were related to positive child welfare outcomes. The provision of basic services, such as health care and financial assistance through entitlement benefits and tangible donations, may help to establish a foundation so mothers can concentrate on recovery and parenting skills. Identification of services for perinatal substance users that are associated with more successful child welfare outcomes has implications for the child welfare system, treatment providers, courts and families.

Judging the Children Act 1989: courts and the administration of family justice

Focusing on those aspects of the Children Act 1989 which relate to the family justice system, this article outlines the development over the last 20 years of the family courts and the court welfare system (now CAFCASS ‐ Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service), and the operation of two provisions: section 1(5) the ‘no order’ principle and section1(2) the avoidance of delay. Neither of these provisions have delivered what they promised and further procedural change through the Public Law Outline and the Private Law Programme have been introduced to divert cases from proceedings and reduce delay. The foundations for a family court set down in the Act appear at last to be being developed. However, the recently announced Family Justice Review means that the role and function of family courts is again uncertain.

Identity crisis in the family courts? Different approaches in England and Wales and Australia

The question of whether family courts are primarily a legal or a social welfare institution has persisted in the history of the court welfare service in England and Wales. The role originated in the probation service and is now undertaken by Cafcass (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service). Although this social work contribution to settling parental disputes has been welcomed by the courts, there has been a continuous tension between the legal and social welfare functions of the family justice system. Cafcass has recently attempted to reformulate this by diverting most cases away from formal hearings into a conflict resolution process. However, this new model raises questions of legitimacy, and has not yet been accepted by lawyers or the public. A comparison with the history of Australian courts shows a similar pattern of conflict. After a long struggle, recent reforms in Australia may have achieved a workable consensus that prioritises non-legal resolution processes over adjudication. If this new approach is successful, it will be worth considering a similar solution in England and Wales, and a radical break from the past.

CHILDREN, THE UNCRC, AND FAMILY LAW IN ENGLAND AND WALES

There is no doubt that, overall, there has been a great deal of activity in relation to children's rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) since it was ratified by the UK government in 1991. Of particular significance in the context of family law, however, are the provisions of Article 12, which have in many ways proved to be more problematic than other provisions, not least because, in the context of family law, children's participation rights are necessarily juxtaposed with the long‐standing and hitherto unchallenged rights of parents to make important decisions about family life. The reorganisation in 2001 of the family court welfare services in England and Wales with the creation of the Children and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), generated a new impetus for the consideration of children's participation rights and, at an organizational level, considerable progress has been made in embracing the provisions of the UNCRC. More problematic, however, is the acceptance of children's participation in making decisions about their futures by adults using and working in the family justice system. At the level of the courts, judicial attitudes are slow to change and in England, as court judgments often demonstrate, these are firmly rooted in a view of children as being incompetent in such issues; at the level of parents using the system, it is arguable that new discourses about the best interests of the child serve as a proxy for continuing discourses about parents’ rights that have become evident, most recently, in the context of an increasingly influential fathers’ rights lobby; and at the level of welfare practitioners, recent research also demonstrates that, although the rhetoric of children's rights is widely accepted, the willingness and ability to make these real in the context of family proceedings is, for a variety of reasons, less in evidence.

Beyond Assessment: Social Work Intervention in Family Court Enquiries

Most parents or carers who separate or divorce are able to make arrangements themselves about where their children will reside and how the children’s contact with the non-resident parent will be managed. A further group of parents or carers are able to come to agreement with the assistance of community- or court-based dispute resolution/ mediation services. There are times, however, when disputes cannot be resolved without recourse to the courts and, when this happens, the court will normally request that a welfare report be prepared by a CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) practitioner. While the boundary between assessment and intervention in social work is often less than clear, the commissioning of a court welfare report in family proceedings strongly suggests an assessment focus and appears to carry little expectation that the practitioner should intervene in order to meet the needs of the children or adults involved. This article presents recent research findings that illustrate ways in which CAFCASS practitioners do go beyond the assessment role expected of them in the course of the enquiries they undertake. Implications for policy and practice in this area of social work are then discussed.

Gateway to Justice: The Juvenile Court and Progressive Child Welfare in a Southern City. By Jennifer Trost (Athens, University of Georgia Press, 2005) 209 pp. $49.95 cloth $19.95 paper

Gateway to Justice: The Juvenile Court and Progressive Child Welfare in a Southern City. By Jennifer Trost (Athens, University of Georgia Press, 2005) 209 pp. $49.95 cloth $19.95 paper

JENNIFER TROST. Gateway to Justice: The Juvenile Court and Progressive Child Welfare in a Southern City. (Studies in the Legal History of the South.) Athens: University of Georgia Press. 2005. Pp. xi, 209. Cloth $49.95, paper $19.95

JENNIFER TROST. Gateway to Justice: The Juvenile Court and Progressive Child Welfare in a Southern City. (Studies in the Legal History of the South.) Athens: University of Georgia Press. 2005. Pp. xi, 209. Cloth $49.95, paper $19.95

Gateway to Justice: The Juvenile Court and Progressive Child Welfare in a Southern City

Gateway to Justice: The Juvenile Court and Progressive Child Welfare in a Southern City

Families in Conflict: Perspectives of Children and Parents on the Court Welfare Service, Ann Buchanan, Joan Hunt, Harriet Bretherton and Victoria Bream, Bristol, The Policy Press, 2001, pp. vii + 114, ISBN 1 861 34 333 7, pound16.99

Journal Article Families in Conflict: Perspectives of Children and Parents on the Court Welfare Service, Ann Buchanan, Joan Hunt, Harriet Bretherton and Victoria Bream, Bristol, The Policy Press, 2001, pp. vii + 114, ISBN 1 861 34 333 7, £16.99 Get access Sue Fyvel Sue Fyvel Jamma Umoja Family Assessment Service, Scotland, Couple Counselling, Lothian, Edinburgh Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The British Journal of Social Work, Volume 33, Issue 2, 1 March 2003, Pages 263–264, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/33.2.263 Published: 01 March 2003

Families in Conflict: Perspectives of Children and Parents on the Family Court Welfare Service

Child & Family Social WorkVolume 7, Issue 2 p. 145-146 Families in Conflict: Perspectives of Children and Parents on the Family Court Welfare Service Ann Buchanan, Joan Hunt, Harriet Bretherton and Victoria Bream The Policy Press, Bristol, 1901, 114 pp. £16.99. ISBN 1 86134 333 7 Simon Arthur, Simon Arthur Norfolk CAFCASS Team ManagerSearch for more papers by this author Simon Arthur, Simon Arthur Norfolk CAFCASS Team ManagerSearch for more papers by this author First published: 24 November 2002 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2206.2002.t01-4-00236.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume7, Issue2May 2002Pages 145-146 RelatedInformation

Severe emotional disturbance and violent offending among incarcerated adolescents

The study reported in this article examined the prevalence of eligibility for educational services for serious emotional disturbance (SED) among incarcerated youths, as well as how this designation relates to offender type. Administrative data from juvenile corrections, county child welfare agencies, and the state Department of Education (special education services for SED) were matched across systems and used to investigate the relationship of SED to violent offending among incarcerated adolescents while controlling for prior child welfare and juvenile court histories. Logistic regression was used to understand whether youths with SED designations were more likely to be incarcerated for violent offenses. SED status was not significantly associated with incarceration as a violent offender. Implications for screening and intervention services are discussed. Key words: juvenile corrections; serious emotional disturbance; special education; violence ********** Concern regarding the relationship between mental health disorders and serious and violent youthful offending is not new. Research indicates that comorbidity of psychiatric disorders and delinquency among youths is fairly substantial (Farrington et al., 1990; Loeber, Brinthaupt, & Green, 1990; Reinherz, Giaconia, Lefkowitz, Pakiz, & Frost, 1993; Williams, Ayers, & Arthur, 1997). Various studies have estimated that youths in juvenile justice systems experience mental health disorders at a rate of two to four times that of youths in the general population (Otto, Greenstein, Johnson, & Friedman, 1992). Yet, although the comorbidity research seems relatively well-developed, the study of how and when needs are identified and served is a newer area of inquiry (Burns, 1999; Stouthamer-Loeber, Loeber, & Thomas, 1992; Teplin, Abram, & McClelland, 1997). This gap in knowledge hampers the ability to guide policy and practice regarding when and how to intervene. Research on mental health services and serious delinquency is complicated by the fact that different agencies use different eligibility criteria for services. Although schools are major providers or brokers of mental health services for children (Zahner, Pawelkiewicz, DeFrancesco, & Adnopoz, 1992), studies of mental disorder among delinquents typically focus on diagnostic labels such as DSM-IV diagnoses used by noneducation personnel. Yet, some school-based mental health services, such as the educational services provided for serious emotional disturbance (SED), are based on entirely different criteria. For a youth to have a label of SED, he or she must exhibit one or more of the following to a marked degree so that it affects educational performance: the inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors; an inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers; inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances; a general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression; and a tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems (Office of Special Education Programs, 1997). The present study adds to the emerging body of research on service use, SED, and delinquency by investigating mental health disorder identified by the public school system among incarcerated juveniles. Estimates of the prevalence of SED among youths can be unreliable because of problems with definitions, measures, and methodology. The United States Office of Special Education Programs (1997) estimated that between 1 and 10 million children are disabled by SED, but only about 440,000 children are receiving special education services. Other researchers estimated the prevalence rate of SED for youths in the general population at 9 percent to 13 percent (Friedman, Katz-Levy, Manderscheid, & Sandheimer, 1996). The national rate of special education service for SED has remained stable at slightly less than 1 percent (Oswald & Coutinho, 1995). …