Court Improvement Project Committee

MinutesGladstone Inn, Jamestown June 17, 2003

Members Present Judge Lee Christofferson, Chair Vince Ament Krista Andrews Larry Barnhardt Gladys Cairns Dixie Evans Rita Hannesson Kate Kenna Pat Podoll Marilyn Poitra Paul Ronningen Michon Sax Lanny Serrano Theresa Snyder	Members Absent Karen Antelope Connie Cleveland Jean Doll Marilyn Kary Robert Freed Sharon Hauschulz Julie Hoffman Jim Larson Sandra Kuntz Judge William McLees Frank Myrick
Staff Greg Wallace

Judge Christofferson called the meeting to order, welcoming members.

He called on Greg Wallace to review the new initiatives relating to grant funds for the current improvement project. Greg explained he had received an email from the regional office in Denver placing new requirements in order to receive court improvement funding. The details of the requirements are not entirely clear, but it appears the Committee will need to conduct a reassessment of the court improvement project in order to receive future funding. It is not clear whether the reassessment of the project has to be completed before receiving federal 2003 funding or whether 2003 funding can be used to conduct the reassessment.

Greg in formed the Committee the American Bar Association has set up two conference calls to clarify requirements and expectations and that he would participate in those calls. However, from the materials received, it appears the court improvement plan for the next four years needs to be tied with the IV-E audit that has been completed of foster care cases and the child and family services review that has been completed by the Department of Human Services. The court improvement project plan must address issues that have been identified by the Department of Human Services. He explained this is going to be somewhat burdensome. The current budget for court improvement covers administration of the lay guardian ad litem program, helps support the state Indian Child Welfare Act statewide training, and some minimal activities of the Committee. There is no money left over for an evaluation. Further, some of the tasks that appear to be necessary would have been carried out by Tara Muhlhauser, who is not longer a resource.

However, since the plan needs to take the assessment being carried out by the Department, he felt it would be proper to start with a report from the Department of Human Services. Paul Ronningen reported that the Department is in the process of developing a program improvement plan in response to the assessment of child welfare services. He explained that the department had completed its initial program improvement plan. The plan had been submitted to the feds. From his contacts, the plan submitted appeared to meet federal requirements, but an official response had not been received.

The first issue related to safety outcomes. The state had an11.7% rate of "reoccurrence of maltreatment". This is, basically, the child returned to the child welfare system after being returned home. The national standard is 6.1%. While the state "passed" in this are, it has been identified as an area for improvement.

Judge Christofferson asked how the court improvement plan could be tied to the goal or reducing reappearance in the system. The issues that bring the children back are often generational in nature, families have multiple problems, economic, alcohol, drugs, etc. It is more an issue of resources than court intervention. He also pointed out that the goal appears to be contradictory to the goal of reuniting the family as quickly as possible. If the system kept the child in care longer, the reoccurrence rate would go down, but that is exactly opposite of reunification efforts.

Lanny Serrano suggested that earlier intervention by the courts may be an alternative. Counties are reluctant to come to the court when "services are required". Perhaps earlier involvement with the courts would help families recognize the seriousness of the situation and take action before removal is necessary.

Larry Barnhardt stated that counties are reluctant to get custody if they are not going to place the child. Otherwise, they are in the position of parenting the child in the parents' home. It can result in some very difficult situations.

Pat Podoll suggested that the priority of cases become an issue. Workers are overwhelmed and are often dealing with crisis cases. Workers often feel they are dealing with laws that have no teeth in requiring parents to participate in program.

Michon Sax stated that the counties often do not have the staff to meet all the services that should be provided. Additionally, state's attorney time and court docket time become an issue. Earlier intervention by the courts would necessarily involve more time from the courts and the state's attorney's office.

After discussion, it was the consensus of the Committee that the reassessment should look at:

1. When should the court become involved?
2. Should notice to families and attorneys be streamlined to allow quicker onset of hearings?
3. Should review hearings be automatically scheduled for six months?
4. Are sufficient blocks of time on court calendar available to handle trials and is it possible to keep a case before the same judge?
5. How does the ICWA relate to timeliness of hearings? Members feel the notice of intervention procedures often result in delays.
6. The role (both formal and informal) of the court in non-custodial cases.

The Committee also discussed how information relating to safety of the child was brought to the court. How is safety of the child brought to the court's attention? Is there a standard risk/strength based assessment that can be used by the department to "quantify" the risk to the court? Both are items to review in a reassessment.

The members also pointed to concerns with delays in adoptions and bringing termination of parental rights cases forward. Anecdotally, members felt the availability of state's attorney time and the experience of state's attorneys in these matters is results in delays of termination of parental rights cases. On the other hand, members expressed concern that a number of terminations were resulting in "legal orphans".

After discussion, the members agreed to review:

1. The availability of state's attorneys;
2. The court's role in reviewing past termination cases.

Members felt the attorney general's office needs to be involved. A potential solution is regional prosecuting attorneys specializing in these cases.

The members discussed at length how to conduct the reassessment. If possible, the reassessment should be internal, primarily because the court improvement dollars are currently being used for the lay guardian ad litem project and the initiatives relating to the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Greg stated that it was hoped that 2003 funds could be used to conduct the reassessment. However, there was some indication that the reassessment had to be done before 2003 funding was available.

Krista Andrews then reported on standard protocols she had been working on for attorneys. The protocols are aimed primarily at court appointed attorneys and are based on national standards. She felt the protocols should also be developed for state's attorneys. Issues that should be addressed include enhanced or required training, a resource guide for attorneys and judges, and a packet that explains ASFA and the Indian Child Welfare Act. The curriculum for the attorneys should include, definition of reasonable efforts, the "spirit" of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and items relating to quality of representation. The packet should include expectations of the parents and a one page overview of the system for parents, including the role of the guardian ad litem. Krista will continue to work on this.

Dixie and Lanny handed out the quarterly report of the GAL project. They have had 841 cases statewide since the inception of the project. They have completed training for the Northeast and Southeast districts and will have the program operational statewide by July 1, 2003.

Judge Christofferson reported that his law clerk has a rough draft of the compendium of cases completed. It is much shorter than the first version. It is now available for state's attorneys. Members suggested that it be included in the packet being developed by Krista.

The Committee then took up discussion of implementation of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Judge Christofferson suggested the Native American Training Institute be contacted to conduct regional sessions on tribal land to identify issues and concerns. The regional training sessions should be held before the state conference in late January. Members supported the concept.

Greg Wallace stated he was not sure how much money from the Court Improvement Project would be available. Much depended on the reassessment requirements. It was the consensus of the Committee to dedicate up to $10,000 to facilitate these meetings if the budget permitted.

Pat Podoll then reported on initiatives relating to Family Group Decision Making. She reported that the philosophy is consistent with restorative justice. It involves the family in taking responsibility for their decisions and behavior. She will forward information to Greg for distribution to members for the next meeting.

Having no further business, the meeting was adjourned.