Search results

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.

Domestic abuse presents significant challenges for legal systems around the world. In England and Wales, victims of domestic abuse sometimes find that they are pulled in different directions by multiple legal interventions in the criminal, civil, and family justice spheres. This is often due to inadequate information and evidence sharing but also inconsistent approaches and court orders. The “Harm Panel” report published in 2020 examined the approach of the family justice system in child arrangement cases involving allegations of domestic abuse. It found “silo working” was one of four structural barriers contributing to unsafe processes and outcomes. The Harm Panel provided renewed impetus for a policy to introduce integrated domestic abuse courts (IDACs) to address the problems of fragmented legal responses. There has previously been one unsuccessful attempt to introduce an IDAC in England Wales. This chapter will explore what went wrong and whether the evidence base for IDACs in other countries supports another attempt.

From June 2017 to May 2018, the Prison Reform Trust partnered with Families Outside to identify the particular impacts on children of a mother's involvement in the criminal justice system. This included a literature review and extensive consultations with 25 children and 31 mothers with lived experience. This chapter presents the main findings of the research, which identified five key themes: ‘Children with a mother in prison are invisible within the systems that are there to protect them’; ‘Every aspect of a child's life may be disrupted when a mother goes to prison’; ‘Children feel stigmatised when a mother is involved in the criminal justice system’; ‘Children affected by imprisonment face many barriers to support’ and ‘With the right support, children can become more resilient and develop the skills they need to thrive’. The material presented in this chapter constitutes a compelling case for reform. The chapter concludes with recommendations for action at local and national levels to protect children from the harm caused by maternal imprisonment.

Recent research finds that youth who identify as transgender or gender-expansive are disproportionately incarcerated in juvenile justice systems and are treated differently from their non-trans peers (Himmelstein and Brückner, 2011; Hunt and Moodie-Mills, 2012; Irvine, 2010; Mitchum and Moodie-Mills, 2014). Juvenile justice systems have paid little attention to this group of young people in terms of their unique service needs and risk factors. Using qualitative methods, the researchers analyze in-depth interviews and focus group findings from formerly incarcerated trans youth in juvenile justice settings to better understand their experiences. This paper aims to examine the challenges for young people, and, as well as considered recommendations for juvenile justice professionals to study toward making changes in policies, practices and programs that are needed to support young people who are transgender or gender expansive.

Using qualitative, case examples and descriptive analysis, this paper describes the experiences of trans youth in juvenile justice settings and studies toward developing models of promoting trans-affirming approaches to enhance juvenile justice institutions for trans and gender-expansive youth placed in them. The paper describes the evolution of an approach used by the authors, in New York state juvenile justice settings to increase a trans-affirming perspective as a central role in the organization’s strategy and design, and the methods it is using to institutionalize this critical change. Findings culled from the focus groups and in-depth interviews with 15 former residents of juvenile justice settings and several (3) key staff members from the juvenile justice system, focusing on policies, practices and training models are useful tools for assessing progress and recommending actions to increase the affirming nature of such systems. At its conclusion, this chapter will provide clear outcomes and implications for the development of policies, practices and programs with trans and gender expansive youth in juvenile justice systems.

Finding are conceptualized in six thematic categories, namely, privacy, access to health and mental health care, the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity, name and pronoun use, clothing, appearance and mannerism, and housing issues.

This study is limited as it focuses on formerly incarcerated youth in the New York City area.

The following implications for practice stemming from this study are as follows: juvenile justice professionals (including judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, probation officers and detention staff) must treat – and ensure others treat – all trans and gender-expansive youth with fairness, dignity and respect, including prohibiting any attempts to ridicule or change a youth’s gender identity or expression. Having written nondiscrimination and anti-harassment policy is also essential. These policies can address issues such as prohibiting harassment of youth or staff who are trans or gender expansive, requiring the use of respectful and inclusive language and determining how gender rules (e.g. usage of “male or “female” bathrooms, gender-based room assignments) will be addressed for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth. Programs should also provide clients and staff with training and helpful written materials. Juvenile justice professionals must promote the well-being of transgender youth by allowing them to express their gender identity through choice of clothing, name, hair-style and other means of expression and by ensuring that they have access to appropriate medical care if necessary. Juvenile justice professionals must receive training and resources regarding the unique societal, familial and developmental challenges confronting trans youth and the relevance of these issues to court proceedings. Training must be designed to address the specific professional responsibilities of the audience (i.e. judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, probation officers and detention staff). Juvenile justice professionals must develop individualized, developmentally appropriate responses to the behavior of each trans youth, tailored to address the specific circumstances of his or her or their life.

Providing trans-affirming services to youth in juvenile justice settings is a matter of equity and should be the goal strived for by all systems that care for these young people. Helping trans and gender-expansive youth reenter and reintegrate into society should be a primary goal. There are many organizations and systems that stand ready to assist juvenile justice systems and facilities in supporting trans and gender expansive youth in their custody and helping them to rehabilitate, heal and reenter a society that welcomes their participation and where they can thrive and not just survive.

The paper is original in that it examines the lived experiences of trans and gender-expansive youth in juvenile justice systems. An area, which has not been fully explored in the professional literature.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of major mechanisms instituted in Australia to ameliorate the experience of vulnerability arising as a corollary of involvement in Australian criminal courts as defendants, victims or witnesses of crime or family members/friends of such people.

The paper begins by providing an overview of two major categories of vulnerability within the criminal justice system – generally experienced vulnerability arising as a corollary of involvement in Australian criminal courts and attribute-based vulnerability. It focusses on the former locating it within a human rights framework. It then outlines dominant responses to this form of vulnerability. Finally it considers the potential for the Court Network program to achieve a more integrated approach to ameliorating this form of vulnerability.

The paper takes the view that major responses to systemic vulnerability in the criminal justice system fall short of adequately managing this form of vulnerability. It suggests that the Court Network model has the potential to address some lacunae in other responses and importantly to provide a gateway to them.

It explores an aspect of vulnerability that is now infrequently addressed and considers one option to supply lacunae in other major responses that has not yet been brought into the scholarly discussion in any significant way.

The Children Act 1989 revolutionised the way in which care proceedings were conducted. Gone were the rudimentary procedures of the old system, where parents and children had limited access to independent representation. Instead, the Act enabled the local authority, parents and children to be equally represented and for evidence to be presented in an open and accessible manner. The changes were widely welcomed and hailed as the most significant reform of children's law for decades. Drawing on academic, legal and policy literature, this article examines the changing nature and context for the representation of children and parents over the past two decades. While there have been developments that have strengthened the representation of children and parents, it is argued that more recent changes, including increased bureaucracy and the introduction of the Public Law Outline, may well have the effect of subverting the system introduced by the Children Act 1989 and of returning matters to the inadequate pre‐existing system.

This article examines the value of the concept of significant harm some 20 years after its introduction in the Children Act 1989. It introduces the concept of significant harm and then discusses the profile of children and families in care proceedings, the decision‐making process, the interpretation of significant harm in case law, ‘panic’ and its impact on patterns of referrals for case proceedings, and the issue of resources. An alternative model of the problem‐solving court is outlined. It is suggested that ‘significant harm’ has largely stood the test of time. However, the absence of a clear operational definition is both its strength and its weakness. It allows necessary professional discretion but is vulnerable to external pressures affecting its interpretation. A more confident workforce and sufficient resources are required, but the future role of the court and compulsory care is more contentious. The problem‐solving court model may offer a helpful way forward for the scrutiny of significant harm.

The purpose of this paper is to report on the initial validation of a new method, called the “Meaning of the Child Interview” (MotC), to assess the psychological meaning all children have for their parents, but which in cases of risk, submerge or distort the child’s identity. The MotC analyses parental discourse using a method developed from the discourse analysis used to classify the Adult Attachment Interview together with patterns derived from the infant CARE-Index, a procedure that evaluates face-to-face parent-child interaction. This allows the MotC to illuminate how the parent’s thinking influences the developing relationship between parent and child.

Parents are interviewed using the Parent Development Interview (PDI), or an equivalent, and then the interview transcript is classified using the MotC system. The coding method was developed from interviews drawn from the first author’s work with children and families in the family court system, and then tested with a sample of 85 mothers and fathers, 62 of whom were parents drawn from an “at risk” context. The parents were also videoed in a short free play interaction, using the CARE-Index.

The study found a strong correspondence between the levels of risk as assessed by the MotC patterns of parental representation of care giving, the risk to the parent-child relationship observed using the CARE-Index. There was also corroboration of the patterns of interaction identified by the MotC.

The results of the study provide good evidence for the Meaning of the Child as an identifiable construct, and as an assessment tool to identify and assess the nature of “at risk” parent-child relationships. MotC was developed in a clinical setting within the Family Court justice system, and is designed to offer assistance to child protection and mental health practitioners deciding how to intervene in particular parent-child relationships.