Court Improvement Project Committee

MinutesGladstone Inn, Jamestown January 7, 2003

Present
Judge Lee Christofferson
Vince Ament
Krista Andrews
Larry Bernhardt
Connie Cleveland
Jean Doll
Dixie Evans
Ted Gladden
Rita Hannesson
Sharon Hauschulz
Tara Muhlhauser
Pat Podoll
Paul Ronningen
Michon Sax
Lanny Serrano
Greg Wallace

Absent
Karen Antelope
Joelyn Foote
Robert Freed
Julie Hoffman
Jim Larson
Kate Kenna
Sandra Kuntz
Judge William McLees
Frank Myrick
Marilyn Poitra
Theresa Snyder

Judge Christofferson called the meeting to order.

Paul Ronningen then reviewed the Federal Review of Compliance with ASFA. He reviewed areas of compliance in areas that needed improvement and then reported on the improvement plan developed by the department.

Pat Podoll and Connie Cleveland advised that the feds were concerned with the department of human services' use of "services recommended" and "services required". Tara Muhlhauser added that the feds' confusion was the result of slightly different interpretation in each region as to the assessment process. Concern was also expressed as to meeting the physical needs, i.e., dental and health care for foster care children.

Tara Muhlhauser pointed out that one of the areas of non-compliance involved the length of time to achieve adoption. This may be a combination of the court process and agency issues.

Judge Christofferson pointed to a lack of resources in terms of getting assessments after termination as an important barrier. Members discussed several potential barriers, including duplicative assessment, mandatory training of adoptive parents.

The Committee discussed at length the issues surrounding adoption and what role the CIP/ASFA Committee should play.

Tara Muhlhauser stated that issues relating to foster care re-entry are similar. She felt the role of the Committee relating to issues surrounding re-entry needed to be discussed. After discussion, members felt the continued regional training/sessions to get at the issues was justified.

Tara Muhlhauser reported on the timeframes for moving cases forward. It appears that with few exceptions, timeframes are being met. There continue to be problems in areas involving the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and in cases where the trial needs to be scheduled before a judge.

Greg Wallace distributed a report generated from UCIS, the district court reporting system. The report showed the timeframes in which cases are disposed. He explained that the report had been sent to trial court administrative personnel and directors of juvenile courts to ensure the data was correct. The report is to be run and monitored on a monthly basis by court personnel. Greg will continue to monitor the report to see if bottlenecks develop.

Tara Muhlhauser and Dixie Evans then reported on the lay guardian ad litem project. They indicated they were in the process of providing training for guardians ad litem for the Northwest district, with plans of taking referrals by the end of January. The Northeast and Southeast districts will be added by the end of the biennium.

Judge Christofferson questioned the ability of the project to maintain quality guardians ad litem at $15 per hour and questioned the limit of 15 hours per case. Tara Muhlhauser reported that, while there is always turnover, the hourly rate is seldom mentioned by the lay guardians ad litem. The 15 hours per case is an average, many cases take very few hours.

Judge Christofferson stated that the most need for guardians ad litem was in the long-term care cases, those cases where the child is in care for a year or more. He questioned how a guardian ad litem could provide services if limited to 15 hours. Tara Muhlhauser explained that extra hours are allotted on a case-by-case basis and that she was also concerned with the limit, but there were budgetary limitations. She has wanted to expand the project into post-termination - one adoptive children, but the money hasn't been there.

Judge Christofferson suggested that we need to look at a tiered system of paying guardians ad litem. Those with two or three years of experience should be paid $25 per hour. This would help retain the more experienced guardians ad litem.

Greg Wallace explained that the budget presented to the legislature included a 5% increase for indigent defense services. How this will break out for guardian ad litem services is not known. But, he will try to put together an estimate of the impact of a two-tiered system.

The Committee then took up discussion of the tasks of the group beginning with implementation of the Indian Child Welfare Act. The second annual ICWA training session was discussed. Connie Cleveland thought the agenda was light, that it was pretty introductory and needed to focus more on specific implementation issues. Pat Podoll suggested giving the difference in structure between ASFA and ICWA, time needed to be spent on how the two blend. It was also suggested that potential topics included the Multi-Cultural Placement Act and how tribes decide enrollment eligibility.

Judge Christofferson suggested that since the Court Improvement Committee is one of the primary sponsors, the Committee should ask for some input into the content. Connie Cleveland volunteered to serve on the planning committee.

The Committee then continued review of the goals and objectives, the result of which is reflected in the work plan.

The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m., having completed discussion of education, termination of parental rights, and the Indian Child Welfare Act.