1 / 27

Analyses of Court Processing of Child Protection Applications for Very Young Children

Analyses of Court Processing of Child Protection Applications for Very Young Children Je anette Lawrence Greg Levine Kirsty Bowness Hannah Biggins The University of Melbourne Children’s Court of Victoria lawrence@unimelb.edu.au

tatum-mclaughlin
Download Presentation

Analyses of Court Processing of Child Protection Applications for Very Young Children

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. Analyses of Court Processing of • Child Protection Applications for Very Young Children • Jeanette Lawrence • Greg Levine • Kirsty Bowness • Hannah Biggins • The University of Melbourne • Children’s Court of Victoria • lawrence@unimelb.edu.au • funding byAustralian Research CouncilVictoria Law Foundation

  2. Attention focused on child protection Concerns about good starts to life for young children Need for practitioner/researcher collaboration Calls for evidence-based reform Studying court processing of protection applications

  3. Attention Good start to life The court’s contribution about 6% come to court Protection,Secure, stable environmentsfor children 0 to 47 months Studying court processing of protection applications Collaboration Evidence-based Collaborative activitiesfrom start & throughout The court’s data-base

  4. (2) Focusing analyses on appropriate questions and data in 2 Steps Studying court processing of protection applications (1) Finding (or creating)a suitable data base

  5. Existing sources- What sources of information already exist?- What can you do with what’s there? • Creating new data sources- What data source do you need to construct? (1) Finding (or creating)a suitable data base the search may not be easy • Making a data management system- Can you build on, supplement what’s there?

  6. Questions to ask of the data:- Institutional questions? e.g., documenting court trends improving court processes- Developmental questions e.g.,parental factors e.g., where is the child? ? • Existing sources- Finding computerised records used for other purposes- with enough data to analyse- adding data from court files- lots of cleaning and checking • Creating new data sources- mainly adding new variables from analyses • Making a data management system- producing a procedural manual

  7. Reasons forreturn: • Breach • Extension • New application(210) Protection Applications (522 in 2001) children aged 0 - 47 mos Court processing in hearings,contests, conferences • Exit CourtSystem(312) • with“Exit Order” Focusing analyses on appropriate questions and data • Grounds • for application: • abandoned • parent not available • physical harm • emotional orpsych. harm • harm to dev.or health • sexual harm • Final Order: • Struck out • Parents’undertaking • Supervision • Custody toSecretary • Guardianship to Secretary • Permanent Care

  8. Differences in Form of First Final and Exit Orders

  9. ? Questions to ask of this system HOW? Court processing of applications:What orders? How long - until Final Order? - until Exit from Court System? WHY? Reasons:- for applications?- returns to Court System after Final Order? Protection applications for 522 children (0 to 47 mos)- 1st heard in court in 2001- exited the court system by Sept., 2005 Age: • No difference in spread of ages for 262 boys, 260 girls • In 1st year of life 50% • 2nd year 18% • 3rd year 19% • into 4th year 13%

  10. Intrusion • Struck out, revokedwithdrawn, • Undertaking by parents • Supervision • Custody • Guardianship • Permanent Care What orders? • A final ordersubstantive order - determines:- if protection application proved- placement of the child - is first final order on file • An exit order- was the final order for 60%- for 40% cases that return is last final order on file at Sept 2005 • An interim order- Interim Accommodation Order (reviewed every 21 days)- Interim Protection Order (reviewed in 12 months)

  11. Original grounds in relation to first final order + 9 for Permanent care

  12. Original grounds in relation to exit order Permanent care (50)

  13. 100 Struck out 80 Pars Undertaking Supervision % 60 Custody Guardianship 40 20 0 0-6 7-12 13-18 Months in Six Months Bands Time to exit order 80 60 % 40 20 0 0 12 24 36 48 Months Time to first final order

  14. Stratified RS (+ SD from Mean of Order) on length of time to exit the court system • Is the protection application “proved” substantiated? • Make a Court Order (with legal conditions) • - for child’s protection and safety • - for placement of the child Subsample of 80 Protection Cases Long 34 24+ mos Short 28 0 to 6 mos Medium 18 7 to 23 mos

  15. What distinguishes between Short, Medium, Long Cases?

  16. Long Medium Where was the child placed - “finally by Sept. 2005”? 60 % 40 20 Short 0 Parents Relatives Community care Placement with:

  17. How stable was the child’s placement throughout? 100 Long Medium 75 Short % 50 25 0 Good Average Poor Stability

  18. In summary - for these most vulnerable children • Time is important indicator • Directions, processes, outcomes • For rehab, reunification or permanent care • Reasons for timing included • Statutory regulations • Changes in applications and Orders e.g., extensions, assessmentse.g. parental agreement, acceptance of Department plans • Returns to court • Related to placement with parents

  19. Implications • Accessing and using sources of data - as evidence- base for: reflection collaborative talk (practitioner/researcher) change • Existing data may not be large-scale - but is abasis for:- showing major trends- searching for the most appropriate next sourcee.g. computerised record -- then -- to intensive files • As part of:- system improvement- policy decisions- cultural change - intervention strategies for families at the “top end”

  20. 4 Steps to Tracking Court Process and Case Flow Management • Develop base-line computerised records of court processes • Describe trends in processes • Fill out trends with qualitative information in archival files (e.g., reports, recommendations) • Identify patterns of routes through the court system for typical and atypical protection cases All 522 protection applications for childrenaged 0 to 47 months in a calendar year(2001) processed in the Family Division of the Melbourne Children’s Court

  21. Association of original grounds with final order Grounds Final order abandoned Guardianship Supervision Parents’ Undertaking physical harm emotional, psych, harm Custody harm to development & health Struck out parents dead or unavailable

  22. Grounds Exiting order Association of original grounds with last orderOn file - regardless of time to make that order Custody harm to development & health emotional, psych, harm Struck out physical harm Guardianship Supervision Parents' Undertaking Permanent care abandoned or parents unavailable

  23. 100 Struck out 80 Par Undertaking Supervision % 60 Custody Guardianship 40 20 0 0-6 7-12 13-18 Months in Six Months Bands

  24. Application Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Struck Out Interim Accomm. Interim Protection Undertaking Supervision Custody Guardianship Permanent Care

  25. Percentage of First Final Orders Returning to Court System First Final Order Struck out (141) Undertaking (50) Supervision (198) Custody (101) Guardianship (25) Permanent Care (9) 0 0 25 50 75 100 %

More Related