U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices

AdministrationforChildrenandFamilies

AdministrationonChildren,YouthandFamilies

Children’sBureau

OfficeonChildAbuseandNeglect

Workingwith

theCourtsin

ChildProtection

Working with the Courts

in Child Protection

The Honorable William G. Jones 

2006

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Administration on Children, Youth and Families

ChildrenÊs Bureau

Office on Child Abuse and Neglect

Working with the Courts in Child Protection i

Table of Contents

PREFACE ......................................................................................................................................................1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 3

1. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 5

2. THE COURT SYSTEM AND CHILD PROTECTION ................................................................ 7

Jurisdiction .....................................................................................................................................7

Juvenile Court .................................................................................................................................7

Specialized Courts ...........................................................................................................................8

Powers of the Court ......................................................................................................................10

Th e Rights of Parents and Children in Child Maltreatment Cases .................................................13

3. THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN CHILD MALTREATMENT LEGISLATION AND 

CASEWORKER PRACTICE ....................................................................................................... 17

Th e Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act ............................................................................17

Th e Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ............................................................................19

Th e Indian Child Welfare Act .......................................................................................................19

Th e Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act ...........................................................................19

Th e Adoption and Safe Families Act ..............................................................................................20

Th e Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. .................................................................21

4. THE JUVENILE COURT PROCESS ......................................................................................... 23

Th e Petition for Removal ..............................................................................................................23

Th e Initial Hearing .......................................................................................................................26

Pretrial Conferences ......................................................................................................................28

Discovery ......................................................................................................................................29

Th e Adjudication Hearing .............................................................................................................29

Th e Disposition Hearing ...............................................................................................................30

Review Hearings ...........................................................................................................................32
 ii Table of Contents

Th e Permanency Hearing ..............................................................................................................33

Termination of Parental Rights .....................................................................................................34

Adoptions .....................................................................................................................................37

Appeals .........................................................................................................................................39

5. THE CRIMINAL COURT PROCESS ........................................................................................ 41

Arrest, Bail, and Other Conditions of Release ...............................................................................41

Preliminary Hearings ....................................................................................................................42

Discovery ......................................................................................................................................42

Plea Bargaining .............................................................................................................................42

Trial ..............................................................................................................................................42

6. DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES AND OTHER COURT PROCEEDINGS .......................... 45

Custody and Divorce Hearings .....................................................................................................45

Domestic Violence Hearings .........................................................................................................48

Mental Health Hearings ................................................................................................................49

Confi dentiality of Court Records ..................................................................................................51

Suits Against Child Protective Services Caseworkers and Agencies ................................................51

Class Actions Against Agencies ......................................................................................................51

7. GOING TO COURT ................................................................................................................... 53

Th e Rules of Evidence ...................................................................................................................53

Expert Testimony ..........................................................................................................................55

Court Reports ..............................................................................................................................55

Testifying ......................................................................................................................................55

Ex Parte Communications .............................................................................................................57

Children’s Testimony .....................................................................................................................57

Judges’ Expectations of Child Protective Services Caseworkers ......................................................61

8. WORKING WITH THE COURTS ............................................................................................. 65

Understanding Judges ...................................................................................................................65

What Caseworkers Can Do To Eff ect Change in the Court ..........................................................66

9. COURT IMPROVEMENT AND BEST PRACTICES ................................................................ 71

Child and Family Services Reviews and the Courts .......................................................................71

Best Practices ................................................................................................................................74

Judicial Leadership ........................................................................................................................76

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................78

ENDNOTES ......................................................................................................................................... 79
Working with the Courts in Child Protection iii

APPENDICES: 

 APPENDIX AGLOSSARY OF TERMS ................................................................................... 83

 APPENDIX BRESOURCE LISTINGS OF SELECTED NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 

CONCERNED WITH CHILD MALTREATMENT ................................................................... 91

 APPENDIX CSTATE TELEPHONE NUMBERS FOR REPORTING CHILD ABUSE ........ 99 

 APPENDIX DGUIDELINES FOR CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES CASEWORKERS 

FOR PERMANENCY AND REVIEW HEARINGS .................................................................. 101

 APPENDIX ELEGAL AND JUDICIAL ISSUES SUGGESTED BY THE CHILD AND 

FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ............................................ 111

Working with the Courts in Child Protection 1

Preface

Each day, the safety and well-being of children 

across the Nation are threatened by child 

abuse and neglect. Intervening eff ectively in the 

lives of these children and their families is not the 

sole responsibility of a single agency or professional 

group, but a shared community concern. Th e 

Child Abuse and Neglect User Manual Series has 

provided guidance on child protection to hundreds 

of thousands of multidisciplinary professionals and 

concerned community members since the late 1970s. 

Th e User Manual Series provides a foundation for 

understanding child maltreatment and the roles 

and responsibilities of various practitioners in its 

prevention, identifi cation, investigation, assessment, 

and treatment. Th rough the years, the manuals have 

served as valuable resources for building knowledge, 

promoting eff ective practices, and enhancing 

community collaboration.

Since the last update of the User Manual Series in 

the early 1990s, a number of changes have occurred 

that dramatically aff ect each community’s response to 

child maltreatment. Th e changing landscape refl ects 

increased recognition of the complexity of issues facing 

parents and their children, new legislation, practice 

innovations, court improvements, and system reform 

eff orts. Signifi cant advances in research have helped 

shape new directions for interventions, while ongoing 

evaluations show “what works.” 

Th e Offi ce on Child Abuse and Neglect within the 

Children’s Bureau of the Administration for Children 

and Families, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, has developed this third edition of 

the User Manual Series to refl ect increased knowledge 

and the evolving state of practice. Th e updated and 

new manuals are comprehensive in scope while also 

succinct in presentation and easy to follow, and 

they address trends and concerns relevant to today’s 

professional.

Th is manual, Working with the Courts in Child 

Protection, provides a basis for understanding court 

processes most relevant to child abuse and neglect 

cases. Th e manual off ers guidance and practical tips 

primarily for child protective services caseworkers. It 

also may be useful to other nonlegal professionals, 

such as those working in law enforcement, health 

care, mental health, and child advocacy, who wish to 

gain a better understanding of court processes. 

Th is manual builds on information presented in other 

publications in the User Manual Series, particularly A 

Coordinated Response to Child Abuse and Neglect: A 

Foundation for Practice and Child Protective Services: 

A Guide for Caseworkers. Readers are encouraged to 

refer to other manuals relevant to their professions 

and interests. 
 2 Preface

User Manual Series

Th is manual—along with the entire Child Abuse and Neglect User Manual Series—is available from Child 

Welfare Information Gateway. For a full list of available manuals and ordering information, contact:

Child Welfare Information Gateway

1250 Maryland Avenue, SW

Eighth Floor

Washington, DC 20024

Phone: (800) FYI-3366 or (703) 385-7565

Fax: (703) 385-3206

E-mail: info@childwelfare.gov

Th e manuals also are available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanual.cfm.
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 3

PRIMARY AUTHOR

Th e Honorable William G. Jones is a retired juvenile 

and family court judge who served for 25 years for the 

Mecklenburg County District Court hearing child 

abuse and neglect, termination of parental rights, 

and other family court cases. He has been a longtime member of the National Council of Juvenile and 

Family Court Judges and its Permanency Planning 

and Family Violence Departments. In Charlotte, 

North Carolina, Judge Jones was instrumental in the 

establishment of the Guardian ad Litem Program, 

the Children’s Law Center, a Supervised Exchange 

and Visitation Center, and the Family Court. He 

continues to sit as an emergency judge in North 

Carolina, serves on two court-appointed panels 

charged with monitoring compliance by child welfare 

agencies with U.S. District Court injunctions, and acts 

as a consultant to various communities and programs 

regarding children and families in the courts. 

CONTRIBUTOR

H. Lien Bragg, M.S.W., is a former consultant with 

Caliber, an ICF International Company. She has over 

a decade of social service work experience. Ms. Bragg 

has served in a variety of victim and community 

service capacities, including providing technical 

assistance to State and local public child welfare and 

human service agencies regarding the intersection of 

domestic violence and child abuse and neglect.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PRIOR EDITION

Th is manual is an update of the 1992 publication 

Working with the Courts in Child Protection by Jane 

Nusbaum Feller with Howard A. Davidson, Mark 

Hardin, and Robert M. Horowitz. Th e fi rst edition of 

the manual was published in 1980 as Child Protection: 

Th e Role of the Courts by Hortense R. Landau, Marsha 

K. Salus, and Th elma Stiff arm, with Nora Lee Kalb. 

Th e prior work informed and contributed to the 

content of this publication. 

REVIEWERS

Howard Davidson, American Bar Association

Mark Hardin, American Bar Association 

Beverly Heydon, Howard County, Maryland, Offi ce 

of Law

Katherine Pinto, Howard County, Maryland, 

Department of Social Services

Th e Honorable W. Stephen Rideout, Alexandria, 

Virginia, Juvenile and Domestic Relations

District Court

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 4 Acknowledgments

Sarah Webster, Texas Department of Protective and 

Regulatory Services (retired)

TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANEL

Th e following were members of the January 2001 

Technical Advisory Panel for the User Manual Series 

contract. Th e organizations identifi ed refl ect each 

member’s affi liation at that time. 

Carolyn Abdullah 

FRIENDS National Resource Center 

Washington, DC 

Lien Bragg 

American Public Human Services Association 

Washington, DC 

Sgt. Richard Cage 

Montgomery County Police Department

Wheaton, MD 

Diane DePanfi lis, Ph.D. 

University of Maryland at Baltimore School of Social 

Work

Baltimore, MD 

Pauline Grant 

Florida Department of Children and Families 

Jacksonville, FL 

Jodi Hill 

Connecticut Department of Children and Families 

Hartford, CT 

Robert Ortega, Ph.D. 

University of Michigan School of Social Work 

Ann Arbor, MI 

Nancy Rawlings 

Kentucky Cabinet for Families and Children 

Frankfort, KY 

Barry Salovitz 

Child Welfare Institute/National Resource Center 

on Child Maltreatment 

Glenmont, NY 

Sarah Webster 

Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory 

Services 

Austin, TX 

Ron Zuskin 

University of Maryland at Baltimore School of Social 

Work

Baltimore, MD 

Th e following members subsequently were added to 

the Technical Advisory Panel: 

William R. (Reyn) Archer III, M.D.

Hill and Knowlton, Inc.

Washington, DC 

David Popenoe, Ph.D.

National Marriage Project 

Princeton, NJ 

Bob Scholle

Independent Consultant

Pittsburgh, PA 

Brad Wilcox, Ph.D. 

University of Virginia, Department of Sociology 

Charlottesville, VA 

ADDITIONAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Th e third edition of the User Manual Series was 

developed under the guidance and direction of Irene 

Bocella, Federal Task Order Offi cer, and Catherine 

Nolan, Director, Offi ce on Child Abuse and Neglect. 

Also providing valuable input and review were Susan 

Orr, Associate Commissioner, Children’s Bureau, 

and Emily Cooke, Special Assistant for Court 

Improvement, Division of Program Implementation, 

Children’s Bureau.

Th is manual was developed and produced by Caliber, an ICF International Company, Fairfax, VA, under 

Contract Number HHS-282-98-0025.
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 5

CHAPTER 1

Purpose and Overview

The courts play a central role in making decisions 

regarding the protection of children who have 

been maltreated. Understanding this process is crucial 

for any professional involved in child protection. By 

having a thorough knowledge of this legal process 

and by working in partnership with the courts, child 

protective services (CPS) caseworkers and other 

professionals can work toward the safety, permanency, 

and well-being of children more eff ectively. 

Child maltreatment cases are handled in a variety of 

courts. Th us, the rules and procedures that govern 

these cases may diff er depending on the type of 

proceeding within which an allegation of abuse is 

brought, the laws governing the court involved, and 

the local practice in a particular court. 

In recent years, a number of reforms have addressed the 

unique nature of child maltreatment and the special 

needs of its victims. Both legislative and judicial 

eff orts have improved the ability and fl exibility of the 

courts to respond to allegations of abuse or neglect. 

Courts now have more alternatives and resources with 

which to work when faced with a case where abuse or 

neglect has been established by the required burden of 

proof under State law. 

Th is manual provides the basic information needed 

by CPS caseworkers to work successfully with the 

courts. It introduces concepts and terminology 

associated with the courts, describes the key court 

processes, and presents practical information to help 

caseworkers prepare for what can be an overwhelming 

experience. Th e manual describes: 

Th e general or common court system;

Th e powers of the court and the rights of parents 

and children in child maltreatment cases;

Th e interplay between child maltreatment 

legislation and caseworker practice;

Th e juvenile court process;

Th e criminal court process;

Domestic relations and other court proceedings;

Th e issues involved in going to court;

Th e relationship between CPS caseworkers and 

the court;

Court improvement and best practices.

Appendices to this manual include a glossary, resource 

listings, and guidelines for CPS caseworkers for 

permanency and review hearings.

Various terms are used within the fi eld and 

throughout communities to describe CPS agencies 

and caseworkers, including:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
6 6 Purpose and Overview

CPS agency: 

Department of Social Services

Child welfare agency

Social services

Family services

CPS caseworker:

Caseworker

Social worker

Social caseworker

Worker

In many settings, there is little or no distinction 

among these terms. For the sake of clarity and ease of 

•

–

–

–

–

•

–

–

–

–

understanding, this manual primarily uses “CPS” and 

“CPS caseworker.” 

One note of caution is necessary. On its own, this 

manual cannot adequately prepare any professional, 

legal or nonlegal, to practice in the area of child 

protection. Consultation with a skilled legal specialist 

is critical, as is comprehensive training on working 

with the courts, particularly with respect to unique 

State laws and local practices. 

Information and suggestions incorporated throughout 

this manual do not necessarily imply endorsement by 

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

or offi cial interpretation of Federal requirements. 
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 7

State courts, including county and municipal 

courts, are responsible for resolving a wide variety 

of issues and do so increasingly in diverse ways. In 

addition to going to court for child abuse and neglect 

cases, child protective services (CPS) caseworkers 

often also must be involved in court proceedings for 

child support, domestic violence, criminal conduct, 

juvenile delinquency, child custody, mental health, 

and directly related proceedings such as termination 

of parental rights (TPR) and adoption. How courts 

are organized and how they divide their caseloads vary 

widely by State and even within a State. Th us, it is 

important for CPS caseworkers to know which courts 

hear which kinds of cases in their communities.

Th is chapter begins with an introduction to the 

concept of jurisdiction. Th e chapter continues with 

an overview of the juvenile court, then provides 

descriptions of other specialized courts. To set the 

stage for the later discussion of court processes, the 

chapter also reviews the general powers of the court, 

as well as the rights accorded to parents and children 

in judicial proceedings. 

JURISDICTION

To hear and to decide a case, a court must have 

jurisdiction or “authority” over that type of case, as 

specifi ed by State law. Th e allegations of the petition 

initiating the case must satisfy the statutory criteria for 

cases of that type. Th e court must have jurisdiction 

over the parties against whom the case is brought, 

such as the parents of a child removed from the home. 

It is the judge’s responsibility to decide at the outset 

whether the court has jurisdiction over the subject 

matter of the case and over the parties. Objections 

to jurisdiction, although infrequent in child abuse 

and neglect cases, can be complex and require CPS to 

have legal representation. 

JUVENILE COURT

Th e juvenile court decides whether children have been 

victimized by maltreatment, as defi ned by State law. 

It then assumes responsibility for ordering services 

and monitors cases to ensure that its interventions are 

as benefi cial and eff ective as possible. 

Th e Focus of Juvenile Courts

Th e juvenile court—the earliest of the specialized 

courts—originated in Illinois in 1899. Initially, the 

juvenile court’s primary focus was on delinquency 

(i.e., the commitment by youth of what would be 

crimes if they were adults) and status off enses (i.e., 

transgressions of children that would not be crimes 

if adults committed them). Th e emphasis was on 

the rehabilitation and reform of the youth who 

came before the court. Over time, the juvenile court 

concept spread rapidly to other States and expanded 

to include protecting children from child abuse and 

neglect. 

CHAPTER 2

The Court System

and Child Protection
 8 The Court System and Child Protection

Th e juvenile court operates according to the legal 

power of parens patriae. Th e parens patriae doctrine 

stipulates that the State has the legal authority to act 

as the guardian of children whose parents are unable 

to provide adequate protection or meet their needs 

suffi ciently. 

Today, juvenile court judges hear cases alleging 

child abuse and neglect, delinquency, and status 

off enses. Most also hear TPR cases and adoption 

matters. Some juvenile courts have responsibility for 

mental health commitment and admission hearings, 

abortion consent waivers for minors, and petitions for 

emancipation. 

Th e organization and structure of juvenile courts vary 

widely from State to State and within States, depending 

on how State legislatures create their court systems 

and on the volume of cases in each jurisdiction. Some 

large communities have full-time courts dedicated to 

hearing just child abuse and neglect or delinquency 

cases, while others have one or more full-time courts 

that hear a mix of juvenile cases. Judges in smaller 

and rural communities regularly hear a variety of case 

types and commonly hear all the juvenile cases on the 

same docket with other types of cases. 

How Juvenile Courts Are Diff erent From Other 

Courts

Juvenile courts operate like other courts when 

deciding whether a child was abused or neglected or 

committed a delinquent act or a status off ense. What 

is unique about juvenile courts is that they also make 

extensive use of experts, including CPS caseworkers, 

juvenile probation offi cers, psychologists, mental 

health professionals, physicians, domestic violence 

specialists, educators, child development specialists, 

foster parents, relative caretakers, and others. Th e 

court utilizes the expertise of these individuals to 

understand children and their families better, why 

events occurred that necessitated court intervention, 

and how to prevent recurrence. Juvenile courts 

attempt to look beyond individual and family defi cits 

to understand the family and child as a whole. Th ey 

aim to make well-informed decisions to address needs 

for housing, childcare, in-home services, domestic 

violence advocacy, mental health or substance abuse 

treatment, paternity establishment, child support, 

educational services, or employment. Also unique 

to the juvenile court, particularly in CPS cases, are 

the frequent review of parents and the assessment of 

agency performance. 

SPECIALIZED COURTS

Many communities are experimenting with 

“specialized” or “dedicated” courts that focus on 

particular areas, such as mental health, truancy, 

domestic violence, substance abuse, child support, 

and reentry. Specialized courts are designed to 

require treatment and services for the specifi c off ense 

in addition to, or instead of, punishment, such as 

incarceration. Th ese courts are more common in 

larger communities that have available funding. 

Th ree specialized courts that are particularly relevant 

to CPS cases are highlighted here.

Family Courts

Several States either have or are implementing 

“unifi ed” or “coordinated” family courts that hear 

most, if not all, of the diff erent types of cases having 

to do with children and families. Family courts are 

characterized by:

Case management practices that expedite the 

resolution of cases; 

Specialized services; 

Coordination of all cases involving the same 

family, often before the same judge; 

Extensive use of alternative dispute resolution 

methodologies; 

Reduced court appearances; 

•

•

•

•

•
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 9

Enhanced training for judicial offi cers;

A commitment to providing participants with 

good customer service. 

Family court cases are fundamentally diff erent from 

criminal cases for several reasons. First, they involve 

intimate, interpersonal relationships and highly 

charged emotions that profoundly aff ect how the 

parties approach the litigation. Commonly, the 

courtroom battle is an extension of unresolved personal 

confl icts. Th e adversarial process only heightens the 

confl ict. Second, they involve multiple claims, each 

with a unique set of issues and timetables for court 

action. Th ird, the litigation is ongoing. Any changes 

in the circumstances in the lives of the parents or 

children, changes in the fi nancial circumstances, or 

noncompliance with support or visitation provisions 

of an order frequently require renewed litigation. 

Where family courts have been established, they 

typically include the juvenile court and attempt to 

coordinate cases that arise there with cases on other 

dockets involving the same family. Th ey also provide 

access to a variety of services, some of which may be 

valuable resources in child maltreatment cases (e.g., 

child waiting rooms with capable caretakers when 

parents need to be in court).

•

•

Model Family Courts

Currently, there are 25 model family courts located throughout all the States and the District of 

Columbia. Th e National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) has conducted extensive 

information dissemination, curriculum development, and training and technical assistance in support of 

the model courts process. Its nationally recognized Child Victims Act Model Courts Initiative works to 

improve juvenile and family court practices in child abuse and neglect cases nationwide.1

A “model court” is created when a lead judge in a juvenile court jurisdiction seeks to implement the 

principles of court reform. Th ese were fi rst formulated in the 1995 NCJFCJ publication Resource 

Guidelines: Improving Court Practices in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (online at http://www.ncjfcj.

org/images/stories/dept/ppcd/pdf/resguide.pdf). Th e model court teams identify impediments to the 

timeliness of court events and to the delivery of services for families with children in care and then design 

and implement court- and agency-based changes to address these barriers. Model courts receive ongoing 

technical assistance and training from the Permanency Planning for Children Department of NCJFCJ. 

For more information on model courts and this initiative, visit the “Frequently Asked Questions” page of 

the NCJFCJ Web site at http://www.ncjfcj.org/content/view/267/156.

Drug Courts

Drug courts, an increasingly common specialized court, 

emphasize recovery from addiction, provide access to 

immediate treatment, and conduct frequent reviews 

to monitor abstinence, participation in treatment, 

and compliance with court orders. Th e reviews are 

a constructive and supportive group process in which 

each participant’s performance is assessed in the drug 

court. While drug courts handle mostly criminal 

cases and require an underlying criminal conviction 

to mandate participation, the number of dependency, 

delinquency, and child custody drug courts is rising. 

Drug courts, including criminal ones, are resources 

CPS should utilize whenever possible. Studies suggest 

that parental substance abuse is a contributing factor 

for between one-third and two-thirds of children 

involved with CPS.2

 Drug courts can facilitate access 

to treatment, which otherwise may not be available. 

Individuals with substance use disorders who access 

services through drug courts generally initiate 

treatment sooner, have lower rates of recidivism, and 

participate in treatment longer.3
 10 The Court System and Child Protection

Juvenile and Family Drug Courts

Recently, a number of jurisdictions have referred to 

the experiences of adult drug courts to determine 

how juvenile courts might adapt to the increasing 

population of substance abusing juveniles and parents. 

Th e result is the emergence of:

Th e juvenile drug court—a drug court that 

focuses on juvenile delinquency matters and 

status off enses that involve juveniles who are 

substance abusers.4

 

Th e family drug court—a drug court that deals 

with cases involving parental rights in which:

An adult is the litigant (i.e., any party to a 

lawsuit, which means plaintiff , defendant, 

petitioner, respondent, cross-complainant 

or cross-defendant, but not a witness or 

attorney);

Th e case comes before the court through 

either the criminal or civil process; 

Th e case arises out of the substance abuse of 

a parent.5

Juvenile and family drug courts provide immediate 

intervention in the lives of children and parents using 

•

•

–

–

–

Family Drug Courts

As of December 31, 2004, there were 153 family drug courts in 33 States and the District of Columbia. A 

family drug court, also known as a family dependency treatment court, is a juvenile or family court docket 

in which selected abuse, neglect, and dependency cases are identifi ed and treatment providers collaborate 

to provide safe homes for children while simultaneously providing drug and alcohol treatment and other 

support services to the parents.6

 Family drug courts typically operate within the general court organization 

in their respective jurisdiction. In most family drug courts, the judge, after consultation with attorneys, 

CPS, and treatment providers, will decide which cases to accept into the program. Once in the program, 

participants are subjected to frequent drug screenings and may appear more frequently before the judge, 

sometimes as often as once a week, to report on their progress with treatment.7

drugs or those exposed to substance abuse through 

family members. Th ey also provide a structure 

allowing for the ongoing, active participation and 

oversight of a judge. Common goals of juvenile drug 

courts include providing children with substance 

abuse treatment and services, off ering constructive 

support to aid them in resisting further criminal 

activity, supporting them to perform well in 

school and to develop positive relationships in the 

community, and helping them to build skills that 

will aid in leading productive substance- and crimefree lives. Th e goals of family drug courts are similar, 

but also include helping parents become emotionally, 

fi nancially, and personally self-suffi cient and develop 

eff ective parenting skills.

 POWERS OF THE COURT

Courts and judges often are viewed as possessing 

enormous power and infl uence. Th e power of the 

courts is ever changing, and the authority of judges 

varies considerably from State to State. Some courts 

exercise the authority to dictate to CPS where children 

should be placed, sometimes including specifi c foster 

homes. Other States are more prescriptive in their 

statutory laws about placement options for children 

For more on drug courts, including grants and 

funding information, visit the National Criminal 

Justice Reference Service at http://www.ncjrs.org/

drug_courts/summary.html.

For more information on family drug courts, go to

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffi les1/bja/206809.pdf.
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 11

in State custody and give less discretion and authority 

to the courts. CPS caseworkers who recognize and 

know how to access the powers of the court will fi nd 

them advantageous to the resolution of their cases. 

Th is section describes seven diff erent powers held by 

the court:

Power to subpoena witnesses;

Power to subpoena documents and records;

Power to assist CPS investigations;

Power to make negative “reasonable eff orts” 

determinations;

Power to hold individuals in contempt;

Power to order treatment;

Inherent power of the position.

Th is section also highlights how these powers can 

benefi t casework practice and court processes.

Power To Subpoena Witnesses 

Courts have the power to subpoena witnesses. A 

subpoena is a court order that directs a person to 

appear in court. Anyone who is properly served with 

a subpoena and who fails to appear as directed is 

subject to being held in contempt.

Courts also can compel a witness to testify, unless there 

is a constitutional right or a privilege that protects the 

witness from having to do so. Th e U.S. Constitution’s 

Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination 

is a protection that applies to criminal proceedings as 

well as to testimony in any other forum, including 

child abuse and neglect courts, if the testimony might 

be used against the witness in a future prosecution. 

Th ere are two types of immunity that the prosecuting 

attorney or, in some States, the judge may grant: 

Use immunity—bars the use of a witness’s 

testimony and statements from being used 

directly or indirectly against that person in a 

subsequent trial. Future prosecution must be 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

based on evidence independent of the immunized 

testimony or statements. 

Transactional immunity—bars any subsequent 

court action against the immunized person, 

regardless of the source of the evidence against 

that person. 

Use immunity is generally preferred because it 

does not prevent prosecuting the person based on 

independently acquired evidence. For example, 

both parents are allegedly the only people present 

when their child is killed. Th e prosecutor may grant 

use immunity to the parent believed not to have 

participated in the actual murder to gain that parent’s 

testimony against the other. If subsequent evidence is 

uncovered from an independent source that implicates 

the immunized parent (e.g., an eyewitness comes 

forward or a videotape of the incident is discovered), 

he can then be prosecuted. If transaction immunity 

had been granted, however, even with this subsequent 

evidence, the parent could not be charged. If either 

type of immunity is granted, the witness can be 

compelled to testify. 

Depending on State law, witnesses who are doctors, 

clergy, lawyers, and mental health professionals may not 

be compelled to divulge confi dential communications 

made to them by or about their clients. Th e content 

of these communications is privileged and cannot be 

disclosed without the express, informed consent of 

the client. Th ese privileges encourage those seeking 

professional assistance to interact freely and openly 

with those professionals in order to maximize the 

benefi ts of their services and to eliminate fear of 

repercussions. Such privileges, however, may not 

apply if the client reveals child maltreatment. Under 

those circumstances, the professional may be required 

to make a report to CPS and to testify in court if a 

court proceeding results from the report. Th e court 

ultimately determines whether any claim of privilege 

applies. Any witness who refuses a court directive 

to provide testimony can be held in contempt and 

incarcerated until the testimony is given. 

•
 12 The Court System and Child Protection

Power To Subpoena Documents and Records

Courts also have the power to issue a subpoena 

duces tecum (i.e., a court order requiring the release 

of specifi ed documents or records). Th is subpoena 

commands a person to produce in court certain 

designated documents or records. For example, a 

court may require a hospital to provide its records on 

a child’s care or compel a CPS caseworker to produce 

a case fi le or notes of conversations.

Power To Assist CPS Investigations 

CPS caseworkers can face seemingly insurmountable 

barriers in their investigations of suspected child 

maltreatment. For example, parents are under no 

legal obligation to allow CPS to enter their homes to 

conduct an investigation. Th e Child Abuse Prevention 

and Treatment Act (CAPTA), as amended by the 

Keeping Children and Families Safe Act (P.L. 108–

36), requires a CPS worker to advise the individuals 

being investigated for child abuse or neglect of the 

complaints and allegations being made against them, 

but they must still protect the confi dentiality rights 

of the person who reported the suspected abuse. (42 

U.S.C. 5106a(b)(2)(A)(xviii)). 

Obtaining formal documents and other information 

related to the alleged maltreatment, such as medical 

or school records, is also diffi cult. To assist CPS in 

obtaining information necessary to investigations, 

some States have granted courts the authority to order 

parents to allow CPS to examine and to interview their 

children and to compel others who have information 

relevant to a child maltreatment investigation to make 

that information available for CPS examination. 

Power To Make a Negative “Reasonable Eff orts” 

Determination

A court can fi nd that CPS has failed to make 

“reasonable eff orts” to:

• Avoid a child’s removal from the home; 

Reunite a child with the family from which the 

child was removed; 

Secure an adoptive home or other permanent 

placement for a child. 

A negative reasonable eff orts fi nding can result 

in a court order preventing CPS from seeking 

reimbursement for the cost of that child’s care or 

to report the fi nding to Federal and State oversight 

agencies.

“Reasonable” is a familiar term in the law, and 

determining what is reasonable is a familiar standard 

for judges. It is applied on a case-by-case basis to 

the particular needs of that child and family and the 

services necessary to meet those needs. (For more 

information on reasonable eff orts, refer to the section 

on the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) in 

Chapter 3, Th e Interplay Between Child Maltreatment 

Legislation and Caseworker Practice.) 

Power To Hold Individuals in Contempt

Th ere are two types of contempt, civil and criminal. 

Civil contempt is the willful failure to do something 

that a court has ordered, such as refusing to testify 

when the court has found that no privilege applies 

or refusing to pay child support when there are 

ample funds to do so. Civil contempt is punishable 

by incarceration, which, in theory, can last until the 

witness relents and complies. Usually, however, a 

compromise is negotiated or one side relents before 

anyone is sent to jail.

Criminal contempt can be indirect or direct. 

Indirect contempt is a willful violation of a court’s 

order. Examples of indirect contempt include a 

CPS caseworker’s refusal to arrange for a particular 

evaluation or a parent’s refusal to submit to paternity 

testing. Indirect criminal contempt requires advanced 

notice of the specifi c charge and a full hearing. Direct 

contempt occurs in the presence of the judge and 

usually involves some disruptive or disrespectful 

behavior, such as uttering an epithet when the judge 

announces an unfavorable decision. Direct criminal 

•

•
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 13

contempt is punishable immediately. Both direct 

and indirect criminal contempt can be punished by 

incarceration for a fi xed time determined by statute, 

a fi ne, or both. 

Power To Order Treatment

Some States specifi cally authorize courts to order 

parents to participate in mental health or substance 

abuse treatment. Whether or not the court has that 

power by statute, it does have the power to determine 

if the child should be removed from or returned to 

a parent, which may be conditioned on the parent’s 

participation in treatment. 

Inherent Power of the Position

One of the most signifi cant judicial powers is not 

found in statutes or in case law; it is the power to 

gain the attention of others. Most of the professionals 

involved with child maltreatment respect the position 

and authority of the court and are responsive to judicial 

requests or inquiries. When a judge calls a meeting to 

address a particular issue or invites stakeholders in a 

child abuse or neglect case to a meeting, they usually 

attend. Th is is the power “to get people to the table.” 

Of course, the outcome of such a meeting depends on 

the judge’s leadership skills and the extent to which 

the attendees are willing and able to communicate 

eff ectively and to collaborate in achieving system 

improvements. (See Chapter 9, Court Improvement 

and Best Practices for more on judicial leadership.) 

THE RIGHTS OF PARENTS AND CHILDREN IN

CHILD MALTREATMENT CASES 

Th e court system accords both parents and children 

certain legal rights and entitlements, depending on 

the type of proceeding in which they are involved, 

including:

Th e right to family integrity;

Th e right to notice of the proceedings;

Th e right to a hearing;

Th e right to counsel;

Th e right to a jury trial;

Th e CAPTA requirement of a Guardian ad Litem 

or court-appointed special advocate;

Th e entitlement to reasonable eff orts.

Parents and children must not only be informed of their 

rights, but they also must understand the protections 

those rights aff ord them. Court representatives and 

CPS caseworkers can educate families about their 

rights and help them feel empowered in an otherwise 

intimidating process. 

Th e Right to Family Integrity

Public policy has long recognized a right to family 

integrity, and there has been ample case law 

defending that right. Th e legal framework regarding 

the parent-child relationship balances the rights 

and responsibilities among parent, child, and State, 

as guided by Federal statutes. It has long been 

recognized that parents have a fundamental liberty 

interest, protected by the Constitution, to raise their 

children as they choose. Th is parent-child relationship 

grants certain rights, duties, and obligations to both 

parent and child, including the responsibility of the 

parent to protect the child’s safety and well-being. If 

a parent, however, is unable or unwilling to meet this 

responsibility, the State has the power and authority to 

take action to protect a child from signifi cant harm.8

A series of U.S. Supreme Court cases have defi ned 

when it is constitutional for the State to intervene in 

family life.9

 Although the Court has given parents 

great latitude in the upbringing and education of their 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

For information on any particular State’s child abuse 

and neglect laws, visit http://www.childwelfare.

gov/systemwide/laws_policies/search/index.

cfm.
 14 The Court System and Child Protection

children, it has held that the rights of parenthood 

and the family have limits and can be regulated in 

the interest of the public. Th e Court has further 

concluded that the State, as parens patriae, may restrict 

the parent’s control by regulating or prohibiting the 

child’s labor, by requiring school attendance, and by 

intervening in other ways to promote the child’s wellbeing.10 

In a recent case, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffi rmed 

the right to family integrity in Troxel v. Granville

when it said that parents’ interest in the “care, custody, 

and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of 

fundamental liberty interests.”11 In Troxel v. Granville, 

the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a Washington 

State statute authorizing grandparent visitation. Th e 

Court decided that the statute unconstitutionally 

infringed on Granville’s fundamental liberty interest 

in raising her children free from State interference. 

Th is fundamental interest extends to a family’s right 

to remain together. 

As discussed in the next chapter, CAPTA is one of 

the primary pieces of Federal legislation guiding 

casework (See Chapter 3, Th e Interplay Between Child 

Maltreatment Legislation and Caseworker Practice), 

and it supports the right of family integrity through 

community-based grants that aim to strengthen 

families. Of course, this right is not absolute. A 

compelling State interest, such as the need to 

protect children from signifi cant harm, will justify 

infringement on the right to family integrity.

Th e Right to Notice of the Proceedings

Parents or other custodians of a child have the right 

to “notice” of any petition fi led regarding that child 

and to be notifi ed of any hearing regarding that 

petition. Th e right to notice encompasses the right to 

be formally given the petition, which also must state 

what the parent has done or not done that makes 

court involvement necessary. Th e right to notice is 

a fundamental element of the constitutional right 

to due process. Due process specifi es the right to be 

present in court, representation by an attorney, and 

procedures that are speedy, fair, and impartial. It 

applies to both parents, whether or not they are living 

together. Orders entered without notice are subject 

to being withdrawn.

Putative fathers (those identifi ed as the biological 

parent, but whose paternity has not been legally 

established) also must be identifi ed in the petition 

and be served. Th eir relationship to the child needs 

to be determined as early in the proceeding as possible 

by formal acknowledgment or by genetic testing. If 

paternity is established, these fathers or their families 

may become fi nancial and placement resources for 

the child.

Petitions may be fi led and emergency ex parte orders 

may be entered without advance notice to parents. 

Ex parte is defi ned as being on behalf of or involving 

only one party to a legal matter and in the absence 

of and usually without notice to the other party. For 

example, an emergency removal of a child from an 

unsafe home situation may be done through an ex 

parte order. Action must be taken, however, to serve 

the parents with the petition and order as quickly as 

possible. Foster parents and kinship care providers 

also must be notifi ed of pending court hearings and 

be given an opportunity to be heard during these 

proceedings. (For more information on ex parte

communications, see Chapter 7, Going to Court.)

Th e Right to a Hearing

Another fundamental element of due process is the 

right to a hearing on the merits of a petition, including 

the right to cross-examine or to question any witness 

called by CPS, by the other parent, or on behalf of 

the child, as well as the right to present evidence on 

one’s own behalf.

Th e Right to Counsel

Most States provide court-appointed lawyers for 

indigent parents in child maltreatment cases, but 

there is no Federal constitutional right to counsel in 

such cases. A constitutional right to counsel (i.e., 
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 15

every citizen’s right to an attorney) does attach in 

some TPR cases, but not all.12

Th e quality of this representation varies widely among 

lawyers and courts. With the goal of improving 

quality, national, as well as many State and court, 

standards or guidelines exist for attorneys practicing 

juvenile and family law. Some jurisdictions also 

mandate training before appointing attorneys to child 

abuse and neglect proceedings. In fact, the amended 

CAPTA requires that attorneys representing children 

receive training that is “appropriate to [their] role.”13

Th e Right to a Jury Trial

A few States grant parents the right to a jury trial 

in child maltreatment cases, but the right is usually 

“waived” or “voluntarily given up” by the parent. In 

criminal child maltreatment cases, by contrast, the 

U.S. Constitution gives adult defendants in every 

State a right to trial by jury.

Th e CAPTA Requirement of a Guardian ad Litem 

or Court-appointed Special Advocate

Children who allegedly have been maltreated are 

entitled to a Guardian ad Litem (GAL), who is an 

independent advocate for the children’s best interest. 

States must comply with this requirement in order 

to satisfy CAPTA State Grant funding requirements. 

Th e GAL role may be fulfi lled by the appointment 

of an attorney, a volunteer who is not an attorney, or 

both. Volunteers also may be called court-appointed 

special advocates (CASA). Th e volunteers often are 

professionals trained in other disciplines, such as 

nursing, psychology, or education. Responsibilities 

of the GAL or CASA include:

Meeting the child; 

Exploring the facts of the case; 

Obtaining medical, educational, and other 

records; 

Determining the child’s perspective and needs; 

Identifying appropriate services and resources; 

Monitoring the progress of the case; 

Promoting the child’s interests. 

Where both an attorney and a GAL are appointed, 

it is with the expectation that they will function as a 

team in performing those tasks and in advocating for 

the child, as well as in making the child’s own views 

known to the court. Th ese advocates can be valuable 

sources of knowledge and information and important 

allies when they and the CPS caseworker concur on 

how the case should be resolved. 

In some States, an attorney usually is appointed as the 

child’s GAL. Laws in some States require the GAL to 

advocate in the best interests of the child, even when 

contrary to the expressed wishes of the child. In other 

States, however, the GAL’s advocacy may be guided 

more clearly by legal ethics that compel advocacy in 

support of a child’s stated wishes. Although legal 

ethics may dictate that the attorney advocate the 

client’s position zealously, there also is consideration in 

ethical rules for the common situation where certain 

clients (e.g., very young children) are considered 

incapable of possessing the judgment necessary to 

guide an attorney’s actions. Th ese situations likely 

will result in the GAL advocating what is believed to 

be in the child’s best interest. 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association

Th e National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association (NCASAA) promotes and supports volunteer 

advocacy in juvenile courts for children alleged to be maltreated. NCASAA provides money and technical 

assistance to start and expand programs, disseminates performance standards, produces training manuals 

and other publications, and trains program leaders and volunteers. For more information on NCASAA 

and GAL, go to http://www.casanet.org.
 16 The Court System and Child Protection

How children are represented in child maltreatment 

cases—whether by a lawyer, a volunteer GAL or 

CASA, or one of each—is a matter of State law or 

local practice. CPS caseworkers will want to know 

what model is used in their community and whether 

any advocates who are attorneys owe allegiance to the 

child’s stated or best interest.

In addition to CAPTA’s requirements of counsel or 

a GAL, minors who are parents also may be eligible, 

in some States, for a diff erent type of GAL. Th is is 

nearly universal in civil cases, which include child 

maltreatment and TPR proceedings. Th e assignment 

is articulated in the States’ Rules of Civil Procedure, 

most of which track the Federal rules, which state that 

minors are entitled to have a responsible adult function 

as a decision-maker for them in matters related to 

any litigation. Th e court appoints someone to fulfi ll 

this responsibility. If there is no confl ict of interest 

between the roles of counsel for the minor parent 

and the GAL, the same person can be appointed to 

perform both functions. It is not required, however, 

nor is it required that the GAL be a lawyer.

Th e Entitlement to Reasonable Eff orts

Except in certain aggravated circumstances, parents 

and children are entitled under the Adoption 

Assistance and Child Welfare Act (P.L. 96–272) 

and ASFA (P.L. 105–89) to have State agencies 

make reasonable eff orts to keep them together, or if 

a child has been removed from the family, to make 

reasonable eff orts to reunify the family. ASFA also 

states that children who are not going to be reunited 

with their families are entitled to reasonable eff orts by 

State agencies or departments to secure a permanent 

placement for them.

Federal law further requires that judges decide at 

each critical stage of an abuse or neglect case whether 

the agency has complied with the reasonable eff orts 

requirement. Th e obligation to make reasonable 

eff orts applies to CPS alone, not to the parents, any 

other individuals, or service providers.

“Reasonable eff orts” is not defi ned in Federal law. 

Some States, however, have attempted to defi ne it, and 

caseworkers will need to familiarize themselves with 

any defi nition in their State’s statutes. Information 

about the application of reasonable eff orts in a 

State’s appellate court should be provided by the 

CPS agency’s attorney to the head of the agency for 

dissemination to caseworkers and other pertinent 

staff , along with clarifi cation of the decision’s impact 

on their responsibilities. 

Caseworkers are encouraged to read Making Reasonable Eff orts: A Permanent Home for Every Child, developed 

by the Youth Law Center, for a comprehensive discussion on the reasonable eff orts requirement and how 

it aff ects their responsibilities and those of their agency, attorneys for all parties, and the judges. It can be 

obtained online at http://www.emcf.org/pdf/children_makingreason.pdf.
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 17

Children had little legal protection from 

maltreatment until the early 20th century 

when addressing child abuse and neglect became 

a component of the new juvenile court movement. 

Court practices varied, but generally were inadequate 

to meet the needs of abused and neglected children 

and their families. Th e identifi cation of battered 

child syndrome in 1962 heightened public interest 

in child maltreatment and resulted in the passage of 

legislation in most States to enhance protections for 

children.14

As recently as the late 1970s, it was common that the 

only people in the courtroom in child maltreatment 

cases were the caseworker, the judge, and sometimes 

the parents. Children rarely participated in the 

process and none of the parties, including child 

protective services (CPS), had legal representation. 

Nor were there Guardians ad Litem (GALs) or courtappointed special advocates (CASAs). Th e court’s role 

was limited. If it found abuse or neglect, it would 

place the child in the custody of CPS, and that ended 

its responsibility. Th ere were no case plans, no court 

reports, no periodic reviews, no reasonable eff orts 

requirement, and no permanency planning. 

Since then, sweeping changes have occurred in the law, 

CPS practice, and the litigation of child maltreatment 

cases. Family dynamics and problems (e.g., AIDS, 

homelessness, substance abuse) have become more 

complex as well. Th ese changes have increased the 

frequency of interaction between the courts and CPS 

dramatically and have transformed the nature of their 

relationship. Th erefore, it is imperative that CPS 

caseworkers understand the implications of signifi cant 

legislation on successful outcomes for families. 

Th e case example in Exhibit 3-1 illustrates a family 

experiencing multiple issues needing intervention. 

Following the case example are summaries of relevant 

legislation, including:

Th e Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act;

Th e Individuals with Disabilities Education Act;

Th e Indian Child Welfare Act;

Th e Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act;

Th e Adoption and Safe Families Act;

Th e Interstate Compact on the Placement of 

Children. 

Following each summary is a discussion of how that 

legislation may be applicable in the case example.

THE CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND

TREATMENT ACT

Th e fi rst Federal legislation to address child 

maltreatment became law in 1974 with the passage 

of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act 

•

•

•

•

•

•

CHAPTER 3

The Interplay Between

 Child Maltreatment 

Legislation and Caseworker 

Practice
 18 The Interplay Between Child Maltreatment Legislation and Caseworker Practice

Exhibit 3-1 

Case Example

April Smith is a 32-year-old mother of three children, aged 16 months, 4 years, and 12 years. CPS conducted 

an emergency removal of the three children due to allegations of severe neglect, inappropriate supervision, 

the sexual abuse of the 12-year-old child, and domestic violence. A CPS investigation concluded that the 

allegations possessed substantial evidence warranting ongoing CPS involvement and the fi ling of a petition 

to juvenile court for foster care placement.

Th e CPS petition contained the following information and allegations:

• Th e 16-month-old and two unrelated 7-year-old children were left at home for approximately 3 days in 

the care of the 12-year-old child without any adult supervision;

• Th e 4-year-old and 12-year-old children reported witnessing violent, physical attacks against Ms. Smith;

• Th e 12-year-old child reported that Robert Johnson had touched her inappropriately on three occasions;

• Th e 12-year-old attempted suicide, is failing academically in school, is suspected of having a learning 

disability, and was suspended from school on two occasions for fi ghting with peers;

• Th e rental home was littered with broken glass, animal and human feces, molding food, and hazardous 

electrical fi xtures;

• Th e domestic violence perpetrator, Mr. Johnson, is the biological father of Ms. Smith’s 16-month-old 

and 4-year-old children, but Ms. Smith and Mr. Johnson are not married;

• Ms. Smith abuses alcohol and cocaine;

• Mr. Johnson also abuses alcohol and cocaine; 

• Ms. Smith was employed by a cleaning service, but recently lost her job;

• Mr. Johnson is employed as a landscaper.

Th e initial hearing granted CPS temporary legal and physical custody of the three children. At the 

adjudication hearing, the court ordered that the children be placed in foster care, that CPS develop a case 

plan for reunifi cation, and that Ms. Smith and Mr. Johnson cooperate with CPS in receiving services. (See 

Chapter 4, Th e Juvenile Court Process, for defi nitions of “initial hearing” and “adjudication hearing.”)

Th e CPS caseworker assigned to the Smith family faced several issues:

• Th e siblings were not placed in the same foster home. While the 16-month-old and 4-year-old children 

were placed in the same foster home, the lack of available therapeutic foster homes or residential 

facilities prompted placement of the 12-year-old child in a temporary receiving shelter until approval 

was granted for placement into a therapeutic residential facility or home located in a neighboring State. 

Th ere were no known relatives available for placement.

• Th e whereabouts of Eric Lequoi, the alleged biological father of the 12-year-old child, were unknown. 

Mr. Lequoi’s last known whereabouts were with his family at a Native American reservation in 

Wyoming.

• Ms. Smith denied having a substance abuse problem and wanted to maintain her relationship with Mr. 

Johnson.

• Mr. Johnson refused to participate in substance abuse treatment, sexual off ender assessment, or a 

batterer intervention program and denied that he was the biological father of the 16-month-old child. 

Ms. Smith maintained that Mr. Johnson was the biological father of the 16-month-old and 4-year-old 

children. 

Considerations and actions regarding this case and how existing legislation aff ects the provision of services 

are discussed throughout the remainder of this chapter.
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 19

(CAPTA) (P.L. 93–247).15 In return for Federal 

funding, CAPTA required that States adopt mandatory 

child abuse reporting laws, ensure the confi dentiality 

of agency records and court proceedings, and appoint 

a GAL for every child in maltreatment proceedings 

in juvenile court. CAPTA has been reauthorized 

periodically and amended by Congress, most recently 

as part of the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act 

of 2003 (P.L. 108–36). 

Th e recent amendment to CAPTA changed the 

confi dentiality requirements so that States now are 

obligated to share confi dential information with any 

agency or individual who has a statutory duty to 

protect children.16 Th is amendment also contains 

language that allows States fl exibility to determine 

State policies that permit public access to child abuse 

court proceedings. 

Caseworkers follow the defi nitions established 

by CAPTA and State laws to substantiate child 

abuse and neglect against Ms. Smith and Mr. 

Johnson. Th e condition of the home and the 

act of leaving three under-aged children without 

adult supervision for 3 days meet the threshold 

for substantiating neglect.

THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

EDUCATION ACT 

Originally enacted in 1975, the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (P.L. 94–142) 

entitles eligible children to education programs that 

meet their special needs. An Individual Education 

Plan (IEP) is developed for eligible children to identify 

their specifi c educational needs as well as strategies 

for meeting them. In its most recent reauthorization, 

CAPTA contains a provision that requires CPS to 

refer children under the age of three for evaluation 

of IDEA eligibility in substantiated cases of abuse or 

neglect.17

Th e 12-year-old child’s poor academic 

performance and possible learning disability are 

signifi cant presenting problems. IDEA off ers the 

3⁄4

3⁄4

CPS caseworker the opportunity to engage Ms. 

Smith in meeting the educational needs of her 

child and in coordinating services with the child’s 

teacher and special education administrator. 

IDEA also provides access to individualized 

services that address the child’s educational needs, 

as well as her emotional and mental diffi culties. 

Th rough IDEA, CPS can demonstrate reasonable 

eff orts to collaborate with external agencies to 

meet children’s needs and to reunify families.

THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT

Th e Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (P.L. 95–

608) of 1978 requires specifi c protections to Native 

American children involved in CPS and juvenile 

court proceedings. If a child is affi liated with a tribal 

organization, the tribe has the right to intervene in 

proceedings or to petition to have the case transferred 

to tribal court.18

Eric Lequoi, the alleged father of the 12-year-old 

child, is Native American. Th e CPS caseworker 

will need to locate Mr. Lequoi to establish 

paternity. If he is the child’s biological father, 

the caseworker will need to determine whether 

he is a viable permanency option for the child or 

can provide child support and medical insurance. 

Once the paternity of the child is established, the 

caseworker will need to determine whether the 

child is entitled to the protections of ICWA. 

THE ADOPTION ASSISTANCE AND CHILD

WELFARE ACT

Th e Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (P.L. 

96–272) of 1980 requires that CPS make reasonable 

eff orts to avoid unnecessary removals of children 

from their homes and to reunify foster children 

with their families. “Reasonable eff orts” means 

providing a parent with useful resources that enable 

them to protect the child, to provide a stable home 

environment, and to promote the child’s well-being. 

3⁄4
 20 The Interplay Between Child Maltreatment Legislation and Caseworker Practice

If the court fi nds that reasonable eff orts have not been 

made, CPS funding from Federal and State sources 

may be reduced. 

In this case example, the requirements for 

bypassing reunifi cation eff orts are not met, so 

the caseworkers should assume that the goal 

is to reunify the children with their biological 

parent, Ms. Smith. (For more information on 

circumstances where reunifi cation should not be 

the goal, see the next section on Th e Adoption 

and Safe Families Act, as well as Exhibit 4.2, 

Circumstances Under Which Reunifi cation Is 

Not Attempted.) In order to meet the reasonable 

eff orts requirement, the CPS caseworker must 

conduct a comprehensive and thorough family 

assessment to identify specifi c services that will 

address the issues prompting removal of the 

children. Th e CPS caseworker, for example, may 

recommend that a domestic violence specialist 

conduct a domestic violence assessment with 

Ms. Smith and that Mr. Johnson participate in a 

batterer intervention program. 

In this case, the court also may expect that the 

following services will be off ered to demonstrate 

reasonable eff orts: 

A developmental or medical assessment of 

the children; 

A child sexual abuse assessment of the 12-

year-old; 

A substance abuse assessment and treatment 

plan for Ms. Smith and Mr. Johnson;

Domestic violence counseling;

A parenting program;

Emergency benefi ts for the family (e.g., 

temporary shelter, groceries voucher);

Enrollment in the Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families program;

Vocational rehabilitation services; 

Parent and sibling visitation. 

3⁄4

3⁄4

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Additionally, reasonable eff orts require that 

services be available and accessible to Ms. Smith 

and Mr. Johnson. Th us, if transportation to 

substance abuse treatment or weekly urine 

screens is an issue, the CPS caseworker may want 

to provide transportation or bus tokens to them.

THE ADOPTION AND SAFE FAMILIES ACT

In 1997, Congress passed the Adoption and Safe 

Families Act (ASFA) (P.L. 105–89) in response to 

concerns that many children were remaining in 

foster care for long periods or experiencing multiple 

placements. Th e law requires timely permanency 

planning for children. Permanency for children 

involves either reunifi cation with the biological 

parent, legal guardianship with a relative or caregiver, 

adoption, or an alternative planned permanent living 

arrangement. ASFA emphasizes that the child’s safety 

is the paramount concern in any child maltreatment 

case. 

In addition, ASFA addressed the lack of clarity 

regarding what constituted making “reasonable 

eff orts” to keep families together. Th e legislation:

Restricts the reasonable eff orts requirement of 

attempting to keep families intact by permitting 

it to be waived under specifi ed circumstances, 

such as severe or chronic maltreatment or the 

death of another child in the household due to 

maltreatment; 

Expands the reasonable eff orts requirement 

to make it applicable to CPS eff orts to secure 

permanent homes for children who will not be 

reunited with their families;

Mandates a permanency hearing to occur no 

more than 12 months after a child is placed in 

foster care;

Dictates, with some exceptions, that petitions for 

termination of parental rights need to be fi led for 

3⁄4

•

•

•

•
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 21

children who have been in foster care for 15 of 

the previous 22 months;

Includes several provisions to promote, to 

facilitate, to fund, and to support adoptive 

placements; 

Gives substitute care providers the right to receive 

notice of court hearings and the opportunity to 

be heard;

Requires criminal record checks on all substitute 

care providers; 

Directs that compliance with these provisions 

and other performance standards be carefully 

monitored and enforced.19

ASFA has a signifi cant impact on caseworker practice, 

guiding caseworkers through family reunifi cation, 

the provision of services to the family, and alternative 

permanent placements, if necessary.

Ms. Smith and Mr. Johnson abuse alcohol and 

cocaine, which exacerbates the incidence and 

severity of physical violence perpetrated by Mr. 

Johnson. Substance use disorder and domestic 

violence are commonly known to be chronic 

issues that typically require extensive time for 

successful treatment and resolution. ASFA 

requires that Ms. Smith and Mr. Johnson address 

and resolve their substance abuse and domestic 

violence issues in a shortened and restricted 

length of time. If Ms. Smith and Mr. Johnson 

cannot resolve their issues within 12 months, the 

CPS caseworker is faced with the possibility of 

making a recommendation at the permanency 

hearing that parental rights be terminated and the 

children be placed for adoption. Th e caseworker 

also could utilize concurrent planning, which 

seeks to reunify children with their birth families 

while, at the same time, establishing an alternative 

permanency plan if reunifi cation cannot take 

place.20 In either case, the CPS caseworker 

needs to be diligent and expeditious in engaging 

Ms. Smith and Mr. Johnson in services. It is 

equally important for the caseworker to ensure 

•

•

•

•

3⁄4

compliance with the court-ordered case plan. 

Th e caseworker also may collaborate with service 

providers to assist Ms. Smith and Mr. Johnson 

with addressing their issues in a timely manner.

Establishing paternity is another critical piece 

of casework practice to prevent further delays in 

achieving permanency. If the permanency plan’s 

goal is adoption, the children cannot be freed 

for adoption unless the parental rights of their 

biological parents are terminated. In this case, 

Mr. Johnson denies paternity of the 16-monthold child. Th e CPS caseworker must ascertain 

if Mr. Johnson’s claims are true and, if so, begin 

proceedings to locate the biological father. 

Additionally, if the children remain in foster care 

placement, child support needs to be established 

and paid to the CPS agency by Ms. Smith and 

Mr. Johnson. If Ms. Smith and Mr. Johnson are 

separated, each parent will need a separate child 

support order. Th e CPS caseworker can utilize 

the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) offi ce 

that is responsible by law for establishing and for 

enforcing paternity, child support, and medical 

insurance obligations for children in foster care. 

Collaboration with the CSE offi ce is an example 

of the CPS caseworker’s ability to demonstrate 

reasonable eff orts to the courts and to ensure 

timely permanency for Ms. Smith’s children. 

THE INTERSTATE COMPACT ON THE

PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN

In addition to Federal legislation, the Interstate 

Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) also 

can play an important role in caseworker practice. 

ICPC is an agreement among all 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

regarding placement (e.g., kinship care, adoption, 

foster care) across State lines. Th e placement must be 

approved by the ICPC offi ces of each of the aff ected 

States before it can occur. 

3⁄4
 22 The Interplay Between Child Maltreatment Legislation and Caseworker Practice

Due to the special needs of the 12-year-old 

child and the lack of an appropriate therapeutic 

foster care placement, an alternative foster 

care placement located in a neighboring State 

was recommended. Th is process can be time 

3⁄4 consuming and can prolong the quest for 

permanency. Th us, the CPS caseworker will need 

to contact the State ICPC offi ce immediately, 

follow all ICPC requirements, and pursue timely 

completion of the ICPC process.

For more information on Federal child abuse and neglect legislation, visit the Legal Issues and Laws page 

of the Child Welfare Information Gateway website at http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_

policies/search/index.cfm.
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 23

Other than judges or attorneys, most people fi nd 

court proceedings intimidating and confusing. 

Child protective services (CPS) caseworkers and 

families involved in juvenile court face the daunting 

task of understanding the court process, the roles of 

court personnel, the complex legal jargon, and the 

court’s expectation of them. CPS caseworkers need 

to be competent in navigating the juvenile court 

process to achieve positive outcomes for children and 

families. Th is chapter discusses the juvenile court 

process and the responsibilities of child protection 

caseworkers, attorneys, and judges at each step of 

a family’s involvement with the court. Exhibit 4-1 

presents a fl ow chart of the juvenile court process. 

Because the process varies widely across jurisdictions, 

this fl ow chart illustrates one example of how a child 

maltreatment case might proceed. 

THE PETITION FOR REMOVAL

Cases of any type begin with the fi ling of an initial 

pleading with a court. A child protection proceeding 

is initiated by fi ling a petition. Th e petition usually 

will be captioned “In re Jane Doe,” meaning it is 

brought regarding her. Th e State or county is the 

petitioner and the parents, caretakers, or child may be 

referred to as respondents. Th ey are not “defendants” 

and the petition does not “charge” them with child 

abuse or neglect. Th e petition contains the essential 

elements of the conduct that is alleged to be child 

maltreatment. It does not need to contain all the facts 

known to the petitioner, but should include enough 

to establish the court’s jurisdiction. 

Th e decision to fi le a child maltreatment petition is 

made by the CPS caseworker and supervisor, often 

in consultation with the agency’s lawyer. Most States 

allow only CPS to initiate child protection proceedings, 

but some also permit other public offi cials or even 

private citizens to do so. It is a complex and diffi cult 

decision that requires assessing the risk of harm to the 

child and weighing it against the distress caused by 

removal. Th e decision to fi le should always be based 

on safety considerations and not on how likely it is 

that the case can or cannot be won in court. As a 

result, child maltreatment petitions tend to concern 

children who are exposed to serious threats to their 

safety.

Th e requirements for reasonable eff orts have resulted 

in more attempts to “remove the harm and not the 

child” by eff ectively addressing maltreatment without 

going to court. Th ese attempts include diverting 

families to community-based programs and services, 

such as residential mental health treatment, substance 

abuse treatment combined with the placement of the 

child with a relative, housing subsidies, child care, 

or fi nancial support; in-home services ranging from 

intensive family preservation to periodic monitoring; 

and ordering violent or sexually abusive adults out of 

the child’s home. 

Another important factor that CPS caseworkers and 

others in the court process, including service providers, 

CHAPTER 4

The Juvenile Court Process
 24 The Juvenile Court Process

Request for Removal

(No Notice to Parents)

Request for Removal

(Notice to Parents)

Emergency Removal Without

Court Approval

Petition Filed

Child Removed Child Not Removed

Petition Filed

Initial Hearing

Child’s Removal Continued Child Returned Home

Pretrial Motions or Conferences

Case Cannot Be Resolved Without 

Contested Adjudicatory Hearing Case Resolved by Consent

Adjudicatory (Fact Finding) Hearing

Disposition Hearing

Child Remains/Is Returned 

Home Under Supervision

Child Remains/Is Placed 

Outside Home

Mediation

Periodic Reviews

Child Remains/Is Placed 

Outside Home

Child Remains/Is 

Returned Home

Permanency Hearing

Goal: Reunification

Child Remains/Is 

Returned Home

Goal: Adoption 

Termination of Parental 

Rights

Goal: Permanent

Placement Other Than 

Adoption

Goal: Reunification

Child To Be Returned 

Home in No More Than 

Three Months 

Termination of Parental 

Rights

Denied

Termination of Parental 

Rights Granted

Post -permanency 

Hearing Review

Efforts To Achieve Permanent 

Placement Other Than 

Reunification Reviewed

Child Is Returned Home Child Not Returned Home 

Reunification Will Not Be Goal

Adoption or Other Permanent 

Plan Finalized

Mediation

Request for Removal

(Notice to Parents)

Exhibit 4-1

Juvenile Court Process Flow Chart
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 25

must keep in mind is the importance of learning and 

respecting the cultural traditions and strengths of the 

families in which they intervene. Every eff ort must be 

made, either through written materials in the native 

language of the parents and child or by using certifi ed 

interpreters, to ensure that CPS and the parents 

understand each other. 

Content of Petitions

Petitions, or “complaints,” alleging child maltreatment 

should be prepared by lawyers with the information 

provided by CPS caseworkers. Th ese facts need 

to be conveyed in a manner that clearly describes 

what the parent or parents did or failed to do and 

how it aff ected the child. Together, the lawyer and 

the caseworker should construct a real-life story by 

identifying the characters, by describing the setting 

and the events, and by relating their impact on the 

child or other participants.

In documenting cases, caseworkers need to be careful 

to state only the facts and not legal conclusions. For 

example, the caseworker should write, “On January 

1, 2003, Joe Smith hit his son Jack Smith, age 7, on 

the arm with a baseball bat, breaking the boy’s arm,” 

instead of “the father physically abused his son.” 

Lawyers’ opinions and practices vary widely regarding 

whether a petition should be detailed or should recite 

only the facts essential to establishing jurisdiction. 

(See Chapter 2, Th e Court System and Child Protection, 

regarding jurisdiction.) Th e length of the petition also 

will vary depending on the complexity of a particular 

case and on local practice. Long petitions may be a 

useful guide for gathering and presenting evidence at 

trial. Care must be taken not to include any allegation 

in a petition that cannot be proven by evidence in 

court. Whether short or long, the petition must 

contain allegations of fact to support every element 

of the particular claim asserted. Otherwise, the court 

will dismiss the petition. 

Filing and Serving Petitions

Th e CPS caseworker or attorneys representing CPS 

typically are responsible for delivering new petitions 

to the clerk of the juvenile court for fi ling. Th e clerk 

will fi le the case and give it a docket number and an 

initial hearing date. Th e caseworker should request a 

stamped copy of the petition.

Once a petition is fi led, it needs to be served on 

the respondents. Serving a petition generally is 

accomplished by personally delivering to each 

respondent the petition, the summons, and the 

notice of hearing. Typically, the sheriff or another 

law enforcement offi cer is responsible for this act. In 

many States, service also can be made by registered 

or certifi ed mail with a return receipt. In some 

communities, the papers may be served by the CPS 

caseworker. It can be diffi cult to serve persons whose 

whereabouts are unknown, so they will need to be 

served by following the State’s alternative processes 

for providing notice of the petition, such as placing 

an ad in a newspaper. (See the section, “Termination 

of Parental Rights,” later in this chapter for further 

discussion on this topic.)

Petitions and Removals

State and local practices regarding the fi ling of 

petitions, emergency removals, and prior authorization 

of removals by judicial offi cers are not governed by 

Federal law and vary widely between and within 

States. Ideally, no child should be removed from a 

family until after a petition is fi led and the court has 

conducted a hearing at which the parents were present 

and had an opportunity to be heard. In reality, most 

removals are authorized by ex parte orders and the fi rst 

hearing is conducted after the removal has occurred. 

Petitions alleging maltreatment do not have to include 

a request that the child be removed. It sometimes may 

be useful to fi le a petition without asking for removal. 
 26 The Juvenile Court Process

An example would be a case in which maltreatment is 

substantiated and removal does not appear necessary, 

but the parents are resistant to CPS intervention. 

Th e court may be convinced to exercise its powers 

of persuasion, or even coercion, to promote parental 

cooperation.

Where ex parte removal is requested, judges have the 

option of denying the request or of scheduling an 

initial hearing at which the issue of placement can 

be considered more fully. In making the decision 

whether to grant the application ex parte, the judge 

will determine the risk of harm to the child if removal 

is not authorized and what eff orts CPS has made or 

could make to avoid removal or reduce the risk of 

harm. 

When immediate removal of a child is dictated by 

emergency circumstances, a petition should be fi led 

promptly and judicial approval for the removal 

obtained. Th e laws of some States set time limits 

for obtaining retroactive approval for the removal. 

Courts have procedures in place to ensure that CPS 

caseworkers have round-the-clock access to a judge 

with the expertise and authority to respond to requests 

for removal. If these procedures are not available or 

preferred by the court, a CPS caseworker needs to 

ensure that the timely fi ling of the petition occurs 

immediately after emergency removals.

In some jurisdictions, removals by police or CPS 

caseworkers are sometimes made without judicial 

authorization or any attempt to obtain it, even in 

nonemergencies. Th is practice was condemned by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 

which held that “[I]t is unconstitutional for State 

offi cials to eff ect a child’s removal on an ‘emergency’ 

basis where there is reasonable time safely to obtain 

judicial authorization consistent with the child’s 

safety.”21 While this ruling may apply only to States 

within the Second Circuit, it reminds practitioners 

of the importance of obtaining judicial authorization 

whenever possible.

Continuances, Adjournments, 

Postponements, and Delays

Continuances (postponements of a date of a trial, 

hearing, or other court appearance to a later date) 

or adjournments (temporary postponements of the 

proceedings of a case until a specifi ed future time) 

should be avoided, if at all possible. Th ey waste court 

time and inconvenience the parties, CPS caseworkers, 

attorneys, Guardian ad Litem (GAL) or courtappointed special advocate (CASA) volunteers, and 

witnesses. Typically, the impact of these delays is felt 

most acutely by the children and families involved. 

Most importantly, they delay resolution of the case 

and permanency for the child. 

THE INITIAL HEARING

Th e fi rst event in court after the fi ling of a petition 

is the initial hearing, known also as the preliminary 

protective hearing, shelter care hearing, detention 

hearing, emergency removal hearing, or temporary 

custody hearing. It occurs soon after the fi ling of the 

petition or the removal of the child from the home. 

Th e precise deadline for this hearing depends on State 

law. Ideally, it should occur on the fi rst day following 

the fi ling of the petition, upon removal of the child, 

or as soon as possible thereafter. 

Th e initial hearing is the most critical stage in the child 

abuse and neglect court process. Many important 

decisions are made and actions taken that chart the 

course for the remainder of the proceeding. At this 

hearing, the relationships between those involved 

in the process also are established, and the tone is 

set for their ongoing interactions. Too often, these 

hearings are brief and perfunctory, but to the extent 

that suffi cient time is devoted to them to address the 

relevant issues thoroughly, initial hearings facilitate 

and expedite the resolution of the case.22 From a 

caseworker’s perspective, being ill-prepared, having 

incomplete information, or having a judge unfamiliar 
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 27

with family court proceedings typically lead to a poor 

initial hearing. Having thorough documentation, 

service plans, and an established positive relationship 

with the judge frequently lead to a good initial 

hearing.

Th e main purpose of the initial hearing is to determine 

whether the child should be placed in substitute care 

or remain with or be returned to the parents pending 

further proceedings. Th e critical issue is whether inhome services or other measures can be put in place 

to ensure the child’s safety. 

Parties To Be Present at Initial Hearings

Both parents, including any putative father, need to 

be notifi ed of the hearing and be present. Extended 

family members who could become placement options 

also need to be identifi ed as a part of this process. 

Issuing domestic violence protective, restraining, 

or similar orders directed to alleged abusers may be 

considered as an alternative to removing the child. 

Th e child also should be present at the hearing unless 

it would be detrimental to the child’s well-being. As 

an alternative, the judge may decide to meet with 

the child in chambers. Much can be learned from 

observing the interactions between a child and parent 

or other relatives, even in an artifi cial and stressful 

setting. In addition, the judge and others in the 

case who will not have ongoing contact with the 

child can meet, observe, and interact. Th is has the 

benefi ts of humanizing the process, emphasizing that 

the child is more than another name on another fi le, 

and underscoring that the child has real needs that 

require prompt resolution. Some courts welcome or 

even require a regularly updated photo of the child 

for the fi le.

Counsel should have been appointed for the parents at 

the time the petition was fi led and should be present 

in advance of the hearing to talk with them and to 

prepare their presentation to the court. Th e GAL 

or CASA and any attorney for the child also should 

have been appointed and be prepared to proceed in 

advance of the initial hearing. Courts needs to have 

policies and procedures in place to ensure that these 

appointments are made and that the initial hearing is 

scheduled and conducted expeditiously. 

Issues Addressed at the Initial Hearing

In addition to assessing the child’s safety and making a 

placement decision, the court must make a reasonable 

eff orts determination. Many courts require the fi ling 

of a reasonable eff orts affi davit detailing the eff orts 

that were made. Whether it is required or not, 

CPS caseworkers should be prepared to inform the 

court, preferably in writing, of the eff orts they made 

to avoid removal and placement of the child or to 

explain the diffi cult or unusual circumstances that 

precluded the need to make such eff orts.23 Guidance 

for reasonable eff orts and safety requirements for 

foster care placements are laid out in the U.S. Code 

as part of the State plan requirements of Title IV-E of 

the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15)).

Other issues that need to be addressed at the initial 

hearing include:

Th e verifi cation of any immediate needs the child 

or parents may have and determination of how 

they can be met;

Th e appointment of counsel for the parents and 

of a GAL, CASA, or attorney for the child, if not 

previously made;

Th e determination of whether the Indian Child 

Welfare Act is applicable; 

•

•

•

For information about the appropriate lengths 

for hearings in the juvenile court process, refer 

to the National Council of Juvenile and Family 

Court Judges’ Adoption and Permanency Guidelines: 

Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect 

Cases, and Resource Guidelines: Improving Court 

Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases at http://

www.pppncjfcj.org/html/publications.html.
 28 The Juvenile Court Process

Th e determination of paternity of any putative 

father;

Th e assessment of the need for mental health, 

substance abuse, medical, or other diagnostic tests 

for the parents and the child (sometimes these 

assessments cannot be initiated until after there 

has been an adjudication of child maltreatment);

Th e identifi cation and location of any absent 

parent or family member who is a potential 

placement option or source of emotional or 

fi nancial support for the child or family; 

Th e resolution of child support;

Th e provision of relevant records including 

criminal, medical, educational, and substance 

abuse or mental health treatment for parents and 

the child;

Th e timing of visitation with parents and siblings 

if the child is placed outside the home;

Th e appropriateness of the case for mediation if 

that service is available;

Th e discovery (pretrial process that allows each 

party to obtain information relevant to the case 

from the other parties); 

Th e determination of the next court date.

Th e initial hearing should establish a supportive 

atmosphere in which parents are treated with dignity 

and respect. It is a process that should focus on 

understanding the problems the case presents and 

solving them as quickly as possible so the family can 

be reunited safely. 

Th e judge also should explain to the parents:

Th eir rights;

Th e course that the case will take, including 

possible outcomes ranging from dismissal to 

termination of parental rights (TPR); 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Th e roles and responsibilities of each of the other 

participants; 

What will happen before the next hearing; 

Th e court’s expectations of the parents. 

Th e judge should promote a cooperative, problemsolving approach to resolving the case and control 

any confl ict or hostility between the parties.24 To 

the extent that the initial hearing may not conform 

to the process outlined above, CPS caseworkers are 

encouraged to do what they can to fi ll in the gaps for 

parents and to incorporate these approaches in their 

interactions with all participants. (See Chapter 7, 

Going to Court, for a discussion of judges’ expectations 

for CPS caseworkers and how to work eff ectively with 

others.) 

PRETRIAL CONFERENCES

Some courts use pretrial conferences, also known as 

settlement conferences, in child maltreatment cases. 

Th ese conferences are opportunities for the parents, 

their attorneys, and the child’s advocates to discuss 

a settlement in the form of stipulated, or agreed to, 

facts that would make a trial unnecessary. In courts 

where there are no formal pretrial conferences, these 

settlement negotiations often occur among attorneys 

by phone or at the courtroom and as late as right 

before the scheduled adjudication. Th e judge may 

or may not participate, depending on the jurisdiction 

and the nature of the case, and some judges will 

initiate such negotiations themselves. 

Negotiated settlements can save time and money for 

courts, attorneys, parents, witnesses, and CPS. Th ey 

also may avoid the trauma and acrimony that often 

result from contested adjudications. Additionally, they 

can expedite the development and implementation 

of the case plan, the terms of which are frequently 

included in the settlement. 

It is important, however, that provable allegations 

of signifi cant child maltreatment not be negotiated 

•

•

•
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 29

away. CPS caseworkers need to participate in 

settlement discussions to ensure that the terms of 

the stipulations accurately refl ect the seriousness of 

the maltreatment. A stipulation that the child was 

neglected, for example, provides no information about 

what actually happened. To support the development 

of an appropriate case plan, the critical facts of a case 

need to be included in the stipulations. Th ese facts 

also enable participants in future proceedings to know 

exactly what issues necessitated court action and to 

measure progress. 

Settlement discussions should include the child’s 

advocates. Th e advocates and the CPS caseworker 

should ensure that the child’s safety and needs are 

refl ected in the settlement. Th e court should require 

the recommendations of the child’s GAL or CASA 

before it approves the agreement. Parents must not 

be coerced or be enticed to admit facts that they deny. 

Before accepting any settlement, the court must ask 

that the parents be certain that they have entered into 

the agreement freely and voluntarily and with a full 

understanding of the potential consequences and 

rights they have waived by doing so. 

DISCOVERY 

Discovery is a pretrial process that allows each party 

to obtain information relevant to the case from 

the other parties. It is intended to avoid “trial by 

ambush,” to narrow the contested issues, and to 

expedite settlement. 

Mediation

An increasing number of juvenile courts across the country are using mediation and other nonadversarial 

dispute resolution methods, such as family group conferencing, to settle child maltreatment and TPR 

cases. Th e mediation process usually is called “dependency mediation” and is similar in many ways to 

settlement conferences, except that there is a skilled and trained mediator facilitating the discussion. 

Family group conferencing also utilizes a facilitator, but tries to involve the child’s extended family more 

fully and encourages family members to craft their own plans for the support of the child and parent. 

When settlement conferences and mediation fail to produce agreement on the entire case, they nevertheless 

may produce agreement on some issues and at least shorten the time necessary for the adjudication.25

Discovery in child maltreatment cases usually involves 

the parents’ and child’s attorneys asking CPS for its 

records. In most States, they are entitled to those 

records. While details of the initial and investigative 

reports are revealed, the name of the reporter is not. 

CPS may not be able to look at certain records from 

other sources, such as mental health evaluations or 

substance abuse treatment records that carry their 

own confi dentiality protections. Such records, 

however, usually can be obtained by other means. 

Records from a private practitioner may be obtained 

through a subpoena duces tecum (an order requiring a 

person to produce for the court specifi ed documents 

or records). State agency records can be obtained by 

submitting a Freedom of Information Act request. 

Other forms of discovery also are available in some 

States and jurisdictions. Th ese include:

Interrogatories or written questions that need to 

be answered under oath within a specifi ed time 

frame;

Requests for admissions that are deemed admitted 

if not denied under oath by a specifi c date;

Depositions or transcribed oral examinations 

under oath. 

THE ADJUDICATION HEARING

If the case is not settled by agreement of the parties, 

it will go to adjudication. Once the petition is fi led, 

•

•

•
 30 The Juvenile Court Process

the court schedules an adjudication hearing (also 

known as the “fact-fi nding hearing” or “jurisdictional 

hearing”). At the adjudication hearing, the court 

decides whether CPS can prove the allegations in 

its petition. Th e CPS attorney will present evidence 

through the testimony of the CPS caseworker, law 

enforcement offi cers, or other witnesses, including 

any experts. Documents such as medical records or 

photographs also may be entered into evidence. Th e 

attorneys for the parents and the child will have the 

right to question or to cross-examine the witnesses 

and to present evidence. Th e parents may testify, as 

may other family members or neighbors who have 

knowledge of the facts alleged in the petition or of 

the care the parents provided their children. 

Parent Testimony

Because child maltreatment cases in juvenile court 

are civil as opposed to criminal, the parents do not 

enjoy the right against self-incrimination contained 

in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

Th erefore, they can be called to testify by CPS, the 

other parent, or the GAL. Th ey still can “take the 

Fifth,” however, and refuse to testify on the grounds 

that their answers may incriminate them. 

In a civil case, a refusal to testify can be weighed 

against the witness. Th is issue surfaces when a 

parent is charged with a crime arising from the same 

underlying facts as the child maltreatment case in 

juvenile court. Criminal prosecutions, particularly 

complex ones like child sexual abuse, usually are 

not resolved until after the adjudication of the child 

maltreatment case. Th us, a parent who is called to 

testify in a juvenile court maltreatment case and who 

is facing criminal charges may refuse to testify to 

avoid having her testimony used against her in the 

subsequent criminal prosecution. Th e parent’s lawyer 

may not call her to testify for the same reason. In 

some courts, parents may be granted “immunity” 

whereby judges can order that the statements by the 

parents in juvenile court cannot be used against them 

in other court proceedings. For more on immunity, 

see Chapter 2, Th e Court System and Child Protection.

Burden of Proof

CPS holds the burden of proof, and its attorney 

needs to present enough evidence to convince the 

judge that the maltreatment of the child alleged in 

the petition occurred. Th e burden of proof is either 

the greater weight (or preponderance) of the evidence 

or clear and convincing evidence, depending on the 

State. In determining whether the burden of proof 

has been met, the judge will take into account the 

quantity, quality, credibility, and convincing force of 

the evidence.

If the judge determines that CPS has met its 

burden, that determination justifi es continuing CPS 

intervention and further court involvement. On the 

other hand, if the judge determines that the evidence 

presented by CPS fails to satisfy the burden of proof, 

the case will be dismissed, and CPS will have no 

authority to continue its involvement with the family 

without the family’s consent. 

Order

At the conclusion of an adjudication in favor of 

CPS (whether it is by agreement or after a contested 

hearing), the judge needs to enter an order fi nding 

specifi c facts regarding the child’s maltreatment and 

the problems that must be resolved before the child 

can return home safely. Other issues to be addressed 

include whether CPS has made reasonable eff orts 

to avoid placement or to achieve reunifi cation, the 

child’s placement, all incomplete or unresolved issues 

from the initial hearing, and the disposition hearing 

date.

THE DISPOSITION HEARING

At the disposition hearing, the court decides whether 

the child needs help from the court and, if so, what 

services will be ordered. For example, the court 

may enter an order that mandates counseling and 

rehabilitative services. Th e court also may enter orders 

providing for out-of-home placements or visitation 
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 31

schedules or for controlling the conduct of the 

parent. It also can order CPS to conduct follow-up 

visits with the family to ensure the child’s protection. 

Essentially, the disposition hearing determines what 

will be required to resolve the problems that led to 

CPS intervention. 

Th e rules of evidence are relaxed in disposition hearings, 

and they are generally less formal than adjudications, 

although witnesses sometimes testify and are crossexamined. While the disposition hearing is sometimes 

held on the same day as the adjudication hearing, the 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges 

recommends that the disposition hearing be separate 

and follow the adjudication within 30 days.26

Court Report

CPS must prepare a disposition court report and 

present it to the court, the counsel for all parties, and 

any GAL or CASA at least 7 calendar days prior to 

the hearing or by the time specifi ed in any local court 

rules. Th e court report should: 

Outline the history of CPS involvement with the 

child and family including identifi cation of the 

current placement as well as all prior placements; 

Specify the reasonable eff orts made to avoid 

placement and, if the child was placed, to achieve 

reunifi cation; 

Identify and evaluate placement options; 

Update the status of any unresolved issues from 

the initial or adjudication hearings; 

Attach the case plan and any relevant evaluations, 

assessments, or reports (medical, psychological, 

psychiatric, developmental, or educational) 

related to the child or parents; 

Make other appropriate recommendations for 

court action.

•

•

•

•

•

•

Th e GAL or CASA also should prepare and distribute 

a court report in the same manner, addressing the 

same issues.

Th e Case Plan

Before the disposition hearing, CPS should confer 

with the parents and develop with them a case 

plan that identifi es the problems that led to CPS 

involvement with the family and are specifi ed in the 

adjudication order.27 Th e case plan will state the goal 

for the child’s permanent placement. When the goal 

is reunifi cation, which it usually is at this stage of the 

proceedings, the case plan will:

Identify the actions to be taken and the behavioral 

improvements to be achieved by the parents;

Specify the services to be provided by CPS to 

support the parents in eliminating or in alleviating 

the identifi ed problems;

Set forth the time frame for completion of each 

component of the case plan; 

Articulate objective, measurable criteria for 

determining whether the necessary improvements 

have been achieved;

Identify any special needs of the child and the 

proposed strategies and services for addressing 

those needs. 

If inadequacies in parenting must be addressed, 

the case plan should identify the specifi c problem 

behavior, spell out how the behavior must change, 

and suggest some way of determining whether 

the desired change has been accomplished. For 

example, if a parent disciplines a 6-month-old 

infant for continuing to cry after being told to stop, 

the desired change would be that the parent learns 

about developmentally appropriate behavior and can 

demonstrate reasonable expectations of behavior by a 

child of that age. Th e mere requirement that a parent 

complete a parenting course would not be suffi cient 

•

•

•

•

•
 32 The Juvenile Court Process

because course completion does not necessarily result 

in improved parenting skills.

Case plans should be tailored to the facts and 

circumstances of each case. A template for the case 

plan is useful, but “boilerplate” statements of needs 

and services to meet those needs are not acceptable.

In some States, TPR is a dispositional option, used only 

in the most severe and unresolvable circumstances, 

such as when adoption is clearly the long-term plan 

for the child’s placement. More commonly, a plan to 

pursue TPR and adoption will involve separate court 

proceedings. 

In some States, the court must approve the case plan. 

In all States, the plan must be discussed and refi ned 

at the disposition hearing, and any disagreements 

regarding its terms must be resolved. Th e case plan is 

the blueprint for permanency. 

Th e Placement Decision

Placement is the key issue at the disposition hearing. 

Th e child can be: 

Left with or returned to the parents, usually 

under CPS supervision; 

Kept in an existing placement; 

Moved to a new placement; 

Placed in substitute care for the fi rst time if 

removal was not ordered previously. 

Th e option that the court chooses will depend on 

the circumstances of the case, principally the risk of 

harm to the child in the home and the possibilities 

for reducing that risk to a safe level. Th e options for 

placement will depend on the needs of the child and 

include:

Either or both parents;

Th e extended family or kinship care;

Foster care;

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

A group home or institutional care.28

As a part of its reasonable eff orts inquiry, the court 

needs to scrutinize carefully any CPS recommendation 

that the child be placed outside the home. Th e 

caseworker making that recommendation always 

should be prepared to discuss why the child cannot be 

maintained safely in the home through the provision 

of in-home services, a restraining order prohibiting 

contact by the abusive parent, close supervision, or 

other means. If the recommendation is foster care, 

the caseworker also should be prepared to say why it 

is preferable to placement with any available family 

member.

Both CPS and the court should take care to ensure 

that the placement is supportive of the CPS plan 

for reunifi cation of the child with the family and 

is otherwise appropriate to the needs of the child. 

Where feasible, sibling groups should be placed 

together. Ideally, the child’s ethnic heritage, cultural 

identity, language, religion, or special diet, if any, 

should be accommodated without causing any delay 

in the child’s placement. Th e placement should be 

in close geographic proximity to the child’s school, 

family, and any siblings who may be placed elsewhere, 

if possible.

REVIEW HEARINGS

Review hearings are the next stage of a continuing 

process that begins with the initial hearing and 

continues through adjudication and disposition. 

Th e review hearing is an opportunity to evaluate the 

progress that has been made toward completing the 

case plan and any court orders and to revise the plan 

as needed. If no progress has been made, and none 

seems likely, it is a chance to change the goal of the 

plan completely. Review hearings should guide the 

case to permanency for the child. Unless a permanent 

placement is accomplished on or before the date of 

the permanency hearing, the court must continue to 

review the case periodically.

•
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 33

Review Hearing Report

CPS caseworkers must prepare a court report for 

each review hearing that includes or is accompanied 

by a reasonable eff orts affi davit detailing what has 

been done to achieve the permanency plan. Like the 

disposition report, the report should be delivered to 

the court, the counsel for all parties, and any GAL 

or CASA at least 7 calendar days prior to the hearing 

or by the time specifi ed in any local court rules. Th e 

GAL or CASA also needs to prepare and distribute a 

court report in the same manner. Th e court report 

should update the disposition hearing report and also 

should include:

Whether the case plan is on target; 

Whether the child’s physical, emotional, and 

mental health needs are being met;

Whether progress has been made toward achieving 

the case plan’s objectives;

What reasonable eff orts were made to achieve 

reunifi cation;

Whether the child should be returned home and, 

if not, why; 

What remains to be accomplished before 

reunifi cation can occur; 

What timetable has been established for returning 

the child home; 

Whether and how the case plan should be 

modifi ed. 

Th ese inquiries are the essential issues to be addressed 

at the review hearing. Th e court also should consider 

any lingering issues from previous hearings or orders; 

modify child support, visitation, and other matters as 

needed; and set the date for the next hearing, if one 

is necessary. 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Timing of Review Hearings

Federal law, through Title IV-E of the Social Security 

Act (42 U.S.C. 675(5)(B)), requires that States make 

provision for cases to be reviewed at least every 6 

months after the child is placed in substitute care. 

Many States’ laws also require court reviews, sometimes 

more frequently than Federal law dictates. Th e review 

requirement of the Adoption Assistance and Child 

Welfare Act (P.L. 96–272) also can be satisfi ed by 

internal CPS teams or citizen review boards. 

Th e National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges encourages judges to schedule reviews more 

frequently than the law requires.29 Th ey may do so to 

expedite resolution of the case, to address an unresolved 

issue, to monitor parent or agency compliance with 

a court directive, or to respond to a party’s motion. 

Th ese extra reviews can be burdensome to the CPS 

caseworker and other participants, but they also 

can aid in moving the case toward resolution more 

quickly. CPS caseworkers who establish a reputation 

for making diligent eff orts to implement case plans, 

for supporting the parents and child, and for pursuing 

permanency expeditiously will earn the trust and 

confi dence of the judge. For these caseworkers, 

additional reviews are less likely to be scheduled. For 

more information on this topic, see Appendix D, 

Guidelines for Child Protective Services Caseworkers for 

Permanency and Review Hearings.

THE PERMANENCY HEARING

Review hearings are intended primarily to monitor 

compliance with the case plan, adjust the plan as 

necessary, and ensure that the case is progressing 

toward resolution. Th e permanency hearing is 

fundamentally diff erent as it is the point at which a 

defi nitive decision is made about the child’s permanent 

placement. ASFA requires that the permanency 

hearing occur no later than 12 months from the date 

the child is considered to have entered foster care.30
 34 The Juvenile Court Process

Th e Placement Decision

Th e options for permanent placement include:

Returning the child home;

Returning the child home by a specifi c date (no 

more than 3 months later), provided the court 

fi nds from the evidence that the parents are 

making signifi cant progress toward completing 

the case plan;

Terminating parental rights, if necessary, and 

permitting adoption by a relative, foster parent, 

or other nonrelative;

Granting legal guardianship; 

Permanently placing the child with a relative, 

foster parent, or other nonrelative; 

Providing another specifi ed permanent living 

arrangement if the court documents and fi nds 

that there is a compelling reason why it would 

not be in the best interests of the child to proceed 

with one of the other options.31

In making the determination about the permanent 

placement of the child, the court must weigh which 

option is in the child’s best interest.32 In some 

cases, concurrent planning may be pursued. Under 

concurrent planning, an alternative, permanent 

placement is developed at the same time as family 

reunifi cation is attempted. With this approach, 

the child can be moved quickly to a stable home if 

reunifi cation with the birth family cannot take place.

Permanency Hearing Reports

To prevent miscommunication between the agencies 

and the courts, CPS caseworkers should submit a 

detailed report to the court discussing the preferred 

permanent placement option, the reasons for that 

preference, and each of the potential alternatives. 

Th is report should be distributed at least 7 calendar 

days in advance of the permanency hearing and 

•

•

•

•

•

•

in the same manner and to the same people as the 

disposition and review hearing reports. Th e report 

should be accompanied by a reasonable eff orts report 

in affi davit form to aid the court in its reasonable 

eff orts determination. 

Timing of Permanency Hearings

In some cases, the permanency hearing is the last 

stage of child maltreatment litigation. It determines 

whether the fi nal plan will be to reunite the child 

and parent or to pursue an alternative, permanent 

home. It is a more formal hearing than reviews. If it 

is contested, witnesses may be called to testify and to 

be cross-examined. Some cases, however, may never 

have a permanency hearing because the children are 

reunited with their families after brief stays in foster 

care, while other cases proceed directly to the TPR 

hearing.

Th e permanency hearing usually is held after 1 

year. However, if it becomes readily apparent earlier 

that a reunifi cation plan will not be successful, the 

permanency hearing should be scheduled as soon as 

possible. 

As presented in Exhibit 4-2, ASFA specifi es 

circumstances under which reunifi cation should not 

be the goal and in which reasonable eff orts to reunify 

are, therefore, not necessary. ASFA also allows States 

to specify additional aggravated circumstances.34 Th e 

agency’s lawyers should ensure that CPS caseworkers 

are aware of what those are in their respective States. 

Whenever the court fi nds aggravated circumstances, 

ASFA requires that a permanency hearing be held 

within 30 days.

TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

Th e 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 

protects the fundamental liberty interest of natural 

parents in the care, custody, and management of 

their children. Th is protection does not disappear 

simply because they have not been model parents or 
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 35

have lost custody of a child temporarily.35 Because 

the stakes are so high, TPR hearings are the most 

formal, longest, and frequently appealed of all child 

maltreatment proceedings. TPR hearings also may 

be called “permanent commitment,” “severance,” 

or “guardianship with the power to consent to 

adoption.” 

Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights

Th e grounds for TPR are specifi ed in the statutes 

of each State, and CPS caseworkers are advised to 

familiarize themselves with these. ASFA requires that 

fi ling for TPR must be instituted when:

A child of any age has been in foster care for 15 

of the most recent 22 months, unless exceptions 

apply;

Th e child is an abandoned infant;

Th e parent has committed, aided, or attempted 

the murder or voluntary manslaughter of a sibling 

of the child; 

Th e parent has committed a felony assault 

resulting in serious bodily injury to the child or a 

sibling of the child.

•

•

•

•

Most TPR proceedings arising from child abuse and 

neglect are initiated by CPS, but in some States, the 

GAL also can petition on the child’s behalf for TPR. 

ASFA requires that if anyone other than CPS fi les for 

TPR, CPS must join in the action.36

Ending the Legal Rights and

Responsibilities of Parents

Biological parents whose parental rights are terminated 

as a result of child maltreatment have no right to 

have contact with the child, knowledge of the child’s 

whereabouts, pictures, or information regarding the 

child. In addition to losing legal rights to the child, 

parents whose rights have been terminated generally 

have no further responsibilities to the child, except 

to pay child support that is past due. Because of the 

seriousness and fi nality of the consequences, TPR has 

been called the “death penalty” of family law. 

Th ere are exceptions. Children who are old enough 

to remember and to know how to contact their 

parents may choose to do so. Some children are never 

adopted and remain in foster care; others are returned 

to foster care because of a disrupted adoption or 

because they were abused or neglected by an adoptive 

or other surrogate parent. In these situations, the 

original parents may be the best placement option 

if their circumstances have improved to the point 

Exhibit 4-2

Circumstances Under Which Reunifi cation Is Not Attempted

ASFA provides that under some circumstances reunifi cation should not be the goal:

A parent has aided, attempted, conspired, solicited, or committed the murder or voluntary manslaughter 

of another of his or her children;

A parent has committed a felony assault resulting in serious bodily injury to the child or another of the 

parent’s children;

A fi nal decision is being made regarding an involuntary TPR to a sibling; 

Other circumstances under which eff orts to preserve or to reunify the family are inconsistent with the 

child’s permanency plan, which holds the child’s health and safety as paramount.33

•

•

•

•
 36 The Juvenile Court Process

that they pose less risk of harm to the children and 

if the children are older and better able to protect 

themselves.

Termination of Parental Rights

Petitions and Service

Drafted by the CPS attorney, TPR petitions will 

allege facts that, if proven, would satisfy the grounds 

for termination in State law. In many States, TPR is a 

separate action from the child maltreatment case and 

sometimes must be fi led in a diff erent court. When 

it is a separate action, the complaint or petition and 

summons should be served on each of the parents. 

Every eff ort should be made to locate both parents 

and to serve them personally. Th e burden of locating 

parents likely will fall on the CPS caseworker, which 

can be a diffi cult and time-consuming process, 

particularly if one or both parents has disappeared 

while the child maltreatment proceeding was pending 

or if one of the parents was never located and served 

at the start of that case. 

Each State has a process for providing notice to the 

parents, or “constructive service,” if a parent cannot 

be located after diligent eff orts. Constructive service 

can be posting a notice in a legal newspaper or in 

the courthouse. Although it almost never results 

in actual notice, it takes time and may involve 

some expense. One option is to access the Federal 

Parent Locator Service (FPLS) of the local Federal 

Child Support Offi ce.37 (For more information on 

FPLS, see Chapter 6, Domestic Relations Cases and 

Other Court Proceedings.) Other sources that may 

yield results are State Department of Motor Vehicles 

records, State and local prison system records, phone 

directories, and various online search engines. 

Agencies are encouraged to develop a routine practice 

for completing this process, including using form 

affi davits to document their eff orts.

Failure to make legally suffi cient service can become 

grounds for dismissal of the termination petition or 

for reversal on appeal and consequently can disrupt 

the child’s placement. In States where TPR is a 

dispositional alternative, service is a less complicated 

process, provided that each parent was served with 

the petition in the underlying child maltreatment 

action. It may be suffi cient to mail the notice to 

the respondent’s last known address. Notice of the 

proceeding and its time and location still should be 

served, but the process is less formal and technical. 

Termination of Parental Rights Trials

TPR cases rely heavily on what happened in the 

underlying child abuse and neglect cases. In some 

States, some of the fi ndings of the court in child abuse 

or neglect cases may be admissible as evidence to prove 

aspects of the termination case.38 Most importantly, 

a trial will focus on what the parents did or did not 

do since CPS became involved and on what CPS did 

to support the parents’ eff orts to regain custody of 

the child. Th ere are appellate laws in almost every 

State related to TPR cases, and reversals and remands 

for retrial frequently are based on perceived CPS 

shortcomings. Caseworkers who anticipate testifying 

in TPR trials need to be thoroughly familiar with the 

history of the case, including the details of everything 

CPS off ered to do or did for the parents and how the 

parents responded. 

TPR cases take longer than other child maltreatment 

proceedings, but predicting how long is largely 

guesswork. Scheduling and concluding them, 

therefore, is a chronic problem in most courts. 

Frequently, they are tried piecemeal for a few hours or 

half days at a time. Each rescheduling of successive 

sessions of the trial requires fi nding a date and time 

that is satisfactory for all essential participants. Such 

an approach often delays conclusion of the case and 

permanency for the child for months. Some courts 

have addressed this problem by establishing “long 

cause” calendars for cases that do not fi t into the 

normal, relatively short scheduling blocks of the 

juvenile court. Others courts may set aside large 

blocks of time on future calendars in anticipation of 

having protracted TPR trials. CPS can urge courts to 

adopt these or other scheduling practices that permit 
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 37

termination cases to be tried from beginning to end 

on consecutive days. 

Mediation

Mediation also can be an eff ective alternative to 

formal termination proceedings. In courts where it is 

an option, it often results in voluntary relinquishment 

of the child by the parents. Rather than focusing on 

parents’ failures or inadequacies, mediation focuses 

on the child’s needs and how they can best be met, 

and it off ers parents an opportunity to make a selfsacrifi cing choice to give their child a safe and stable 

future. Most often, it is successful in States that allow 

“open adoptions” or “adoptions with contact” or that 

otherwise permit parents to receive information about 

their child, including letters and photographs, or 

even limited personal contact. Such agreements may 

not be enforceable depending on State law, but even 

where they are not, parents may choose to trust the 

good will of prospective adoptive parents, particularly 

if their identities are known, and commit to honoring 

a continuing contact agreement. 

Burden of Proof and Best Interest Issues 

TPR usually involves two issues. First, CPS must prove 

by “clear and convincing evidence” that one or more 

of the grounds for termination exist.39 Note that this 

is a higher burden of proof than is required in many 

States to prove child abuse and neglect. Th e “clear 

and convincing evidence” is also a higher burden of 

proof for TPR than what existed prior to the Santosky 

v. Kramer decision upholding due process under the 

14th Amendment. In this case, the Supreme Court 

found that a “fair preponderance of evidence” is 

not suffi cient to terminate parental rights, and that 

“before a State may sever completely and irrevocably 

the rights of parents in their natural child, due process 

requires that the State support its allegations by at 

least clear and convincing evidence.”40 

If the court fi nds that CPS has met the burden 

of proof with respect to at least one ground for 

termination, it will proceed to the second issue—

whether termination is in the best interest of the 

child. CPS can enhance the prospects for a favorable 

decision by preparing a report weighing the pros and 

cons of termination from the child’s point of view and 

by being prepared to testify regarding the best interest 

issue. Th e prospect of a safe, stable, and permanent 

home is a strong selling point when contrasted with 

the likelihood that the child cannot return home 

safely within any reasonable period of time. 

Some courts insist on a showing of adoptability 

before termination will be ordered, although the 

basic goal and premise of ASFA is that all children 

are adoptable. It obviously is more diffi cult to fi nd 

adoptive homes for some children than for others, but 

if children are not “cleared for adoption,” meaning 

that their parents’ rights have not been terminated, 

adoption agencies may not actively pursue adoptive 

placements. If agencies cannot place them, they will 

not be adopted. 

ADOPTIONS

Children placed for adoption by CPS are entitled to 

a timely placement with an adoptive family. When 

parents’ rights have been terminated, their child’s 

involvement with juvenile court does not end at the 

TPR hearing. CPS caseworkers should continue 

to participate in post-hearing activities to ensure 

that CPS is complying with ASFA requirements, 

incorporating Federal adoption legislation into 

practice, and accessing a variety of adoption subsidies 

and post-adoption services for eligible children.

Post-termination Reviews

Many post-termination reviews, or post-permanency 

hearings, will focus on whether CPS has made 

reasonable eff orts to recruit an adoptive placement. 

Th e reasonable eff orts inquiry might question whether 

the agency has an eff ective recruitment program for 

adoptive parents and whether its adoption program 

is adequately and expertly staff ed, knowledgeable 
 38 The Juvenile Court Process

about subsidies and interstate placements, and able to 

provide appropriate post-adoption services. In cases 

involving special needs children, CPS may be asked 

whether it is utilizing the specialized agencies that 

serve these populations. Caseworkers will want to be 

prepared to respond to such inquiries.

Th e Multi-Ethnic Placement Act

Another issue that may arise at hearings to review 

eff orts to place children available for adoption is 

whether the agency is complying with the MultiEthnic Placement Act (MEPA) of 1994, as amended 

by the Inter-Ethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996, 

laws that prohibit discrimination in foster care and 

adoption. Th ese acts provide that States may not 

“...deny to any person the opportunity to become 

an adoptive or foster parent on the basis of the race, 

color, or national origin of the person or of the child 

involved; or...delay or deny the placement of a child 

for adoption or into foster care on the basis of the 

race, color or national origin of the adoptive or foster 

parent or the child involved....” 41

MEPA primarily addresses considerations in fi nding 

out-of-home placements. During court proceedings 

regarding placements, the judge may ask about 

compliance with this and other pertinent laws, 

particularly if there is an aggrieved party contesting the 

placement. Th erefore, caseworkers must be prepared 

to document compliance so it can be submitted in the 

court documents. MEPA also requires that special 

eff orts be made to recruit minority foster and adoptive 

homes. 

Th e Interstate Compact on Adoption 

and Medical Assistance

Th e Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical 

Assistance (ICAMA) addresses medical and other 

post-adoption services, as well as payment for those 

services, for the ongoing needs of children who are 

adopted across State lines. Not all States are signatories 

to ICAMA. Th ose that are have a designated ICAMA 

administrator who can be an invaluable source of 

assistance to caseworkers in ensuring post-adoption 

services for children placed across State lines.

ICAMA is important since ASFA requires State child 

welfare plans to: 

Specify that the State will not deny or delay 

the placement of a child for adoption when 

an approved family is available outside of the 

court jurisdiction that has the responsibility for 

handling the case of the child;

Contain assurances that the State will develop 

plans for the eff ective use of cross-jurisdictional 

resources to facilitate timely adoptive or 

permanent placements for waiting children.42

Interstate placements also need to comply with the 

Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. 

(See Chapter 3, Th e Interplay Between Child 

Maltreatment Legislation and Caseworker Practice, 

for more information.) Again, the caseworker needs 

to provide full documentation for court records 

that ICAMA was adhered to before the adoption or 

placement is legalized; otherwise, the home State may 

not pay for this assistance.

 Adoption Assistance Subsidies

Parents adopting children who are “IV-E eligible” are 

entitled to receive a subsidy. According to amendments 

to the Social Security Act, a child is IV-E eligible if the 

family from which the child was removed was eligible 

for Aid to Families with Dependent Children, as the 

program existed on July 16, 1996, and the child is 

classifi ed as having “special needs.” (See below for 

more information about special needs. A child 

classifi ed as having special needs also is IV-E eligible if 

receiving Supplemental Security Income (42 U.S.C. 

673(2)).43

Special needs are defi ned diff erently by each State and 

may include:

A sibling group of two or more;

•

•

•
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 39

An ethnic background that is non-Caucasian;

Any child age 6 or older;

A documented physical, mental, or developmental 

disability or disorder, or an emotional disturbance 

or behavior problem;

An identifi ed or reasonably identifi able risk 

of developing a physical or developmental 

disability, mental disability or disorder, emotional 

disturbance, or behavioral problem that is related 

to the child’s history of abuse or neglect, genetic 

factors, or other environmental traumas; 

Psychological attachment to the foster caregiver 

due to placement of at least 1 year, such that 

placement with another family would not be in 

the child’s best interests.

Caseworkers will need to know and be able to apply the 

defi nition of special needs to children in their States. 

States have discretion to determine the amount of the 

subsidy, but it cannot be greater than the amount that 

a family would have received if the child was in foster 

care. Th ey can pay more if the additional amount 

can be supported through State or local funding. Th e 

State can make subsidy payments to a family until 

the adopted child is 18, but can extend assistance to 

age 21 for children who are disabled physically or 

mentally. All special needs children who are IV-E 

eligible, and most who are not, also are eligible for 

Medicaid. States are required to provide the same 

subsidies for special needs children who are not IV-E 

eligible as they provide for those who are, except that 

for children who are not IV-E eligible: 

Eligibility can be limited based on family 

income;

All funding must be from State or local sources. 

Caseworkers need to be able to inform prospective 

adoptive parents of the fi nancial assistance and 

medical insurance to which the child will be entitled. 

Additionally, the courts often will ask if the caseworkers 

are aware of all available assistance and whether it has 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

been provided to the adoptive parents or special needs 

children. Th erefore, caseworkers should document 

all eff orts to help adoptive parents secure appropriate 

fi nancial assistance and insurance. 

Post-adoption Services

Adequate fi nancial and health care support of children 

is critical to the ultimate success of an adoption. Th e 

same is true of post-adoption services, which may 

include providing information and referrals, parent 

training, education and support groups, individual 

and family counseling, respite care, and homebased or residential treatment services. Th e details 

of the fi nancial support and other services adoptive 

parents will receive or have available to them must be 

put in writing, along with information about what 

they can do if their circumstances change or other 

unanticipated issues arise. Th e court will require 

documentation to ascertain that, in addition to 

receiving adoption assistance, provisions have been 

made for post-adoption services, as well as a followup schedule to ensure that the adoptive parents 

have received such services. Th is documentation is 

particularly important in cases where the adoption 

is disrupted. CPS caseworkers also will want to be 

prepared to respond to any inquiry from the court 

as to whether the subsidy and other post-adoption 

supports are suffi cient to ensure reasonably that the 

adoption will be a permanent placement. 

APPEALS

Parents and CPS have the right to appeal some 

decisions of the juvenile court in child abuse and 

neglect and TPR cases. At the very least, the right to 

appeal attaches at the conclusion of any adjudication, 

disposition, or TPR trial. Some States may allow 

appeal from other trial court orders or decisions, but 

generally, only fi nal decisions are appealed or accepted 

for appellate review. 

Appellate courts decide cases based on the written 

record, or a videotape in some locations, from the 
 40 The Juvenile Court Process

trial court. Th ey examine the record and determine 

whether:

Th e trial judge abused his or her discretion in 

fi nding the facts; 

Th e facts support the judge’s conclusions of the 

law;

Th e judge correctly applied the law to the facts. 

Although the child is the subject of the litigation, 

the child is not a “party” and, depending on the laws 

of that State, may not have an independent right to 

appeal. In States that have intermediate appellate 

courts, appeals most likely will be addressed to these 

courts. In other States, the appeal will be made 

directly to the State Supreme Court. 

•

•

•

Th e appellate process often is extremely slow. Orders, 

transcripts, and appellate briefs need to be prepared, 

fi led, and selected for submission to the appellate 

court. Appellate judges should confer, make a 

tentative decision, and identify one member to write 

the opinion. Negotiations over the decision can take 

considerable time in cases where there are signifi cant 

diff erences of opinion. It is not uncommon for this 

process to take more than a year from the time of 

the trial court’s decision until an appellate opinion is 

published. Meanwhile, the child, parents, and foster 

or adoptive parents are in limbo. Some State appellate 

courts have attempted to correct this problem by 

prioritizing the completion of cases.44
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 41

Conduct that rises to the level of child abuse 

or neglect may constitute a crime, depending 

on State law and the circumstances of the case; not 

all criminal acts, however, are prosecuted. Some 

prosecutors are less zealous than others, or they may 

believe that all but the most serious of intra-family 

off enses are best addressed in the juvenile court. 

Other reasons to forgo prosecution are that it may 

interfere with rehabilitating families or be traumatic 

for the children, particularly if they have to testify. 

Cases typically prosecuted include sex off enses or 

those that result in the death of, or serious injury to, 

a child. 

Child protective services (CPS) caseworkers may 

have information about the family that is critical to 

the criminal court proceeding. Caseworkers always 

should determine whether either parent or any 

potential caretaker in a child abuse and neglect case has 

a criminal record or pending criminal charges. Th is 

information can inform a caseworker’s assessment of 

potential risk to the child and enhance case planning 

and service coordination activities. 

While the criminal court process may vary across 

jurisdictions, key stages include:

Arrest, bail, and other conditions of release; 

Preliminary hearings;

Discovery;

•

•

•

Plea bargaining;

Trial.

ARREST, BAIL, AND OTHER

CONDITIONS OF RELEASE

Criminal prosecutions most commonly begin with 

an arrest. Defendants then are brought before a 

judicial offi cer (a judge, magistrate, or commissioner) 

who informs them of the charges against them and 

determines the conditions of their release pending 

trial. 

Th e defendant will be notifi ed of the conditions 

that must be met to be released from police custody 

before the trial. Defendants with stable residence and 

employment histories and no signifi cant prior records 

often are released on their own recognizance or with a 

written promise to appear at subsequent court dates. 

For defendants who seem less reliable, a cash bond may 

be required. Defendants can post the full amount of 

the bond in cash or property or secure a bondsman for 

a percentage of that amount. If the defendant fl ees, 

the bondsman is obligated to pay the full amount of 

the bond. Th e judge also has the discretion to impose 

other conditions of release, including the defendant 

having no contact with the child or other parent or 

not returning to the residence. 

•

•

CHAPTER 5

The Criminal Court

 Process
 42 The Criminal Court Process

CPS caseworkers can assist with protecting the child 

and the non-off ending parent by reporting to the 

prosecutor any violation of a “no contact” or “stay 

away” condition. In such cases, the caseworker can 

encourage the prosecutor to ask the criminal court 

judge to revoke the defendant’s bond and return him 

to jail. 

PRELIMINARY HEARINGS

Th e purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine 

whether there is probable cause to believe that the 

defendant committed the alleged off ense and that 

he should be tried on that charge. If the judge fi nds 

no probable cause, the case will be dismissed. If the 

judge fi nds probable cause, the case will be transferred 

to the trial court for resolution. 

Witnesses sometimes are called to testify and are 

cross-examined at preliminary hearings. Th e CPS 

caseworker or the child may be among them. As a 

general rule, CPS caseworkers should discourage 

having the child testify, except possibly in cases 

where there is no other way to establish probable 

cause. Because they may be asked to recount painful 

memories in a public and contentious environment, 

children may fi nd testifying in court to be traumatic 

and uncomfortable. (See Chapter 7, Going to Court, 

for more information on children’s testimony.)

In some States, evidence of criminal conduct by 

the defendant is presented at a preliminary hearing 

to a grand jury instead of a judge. Th e grand jury 

then determines whether the evidence is suffi cient to 

constitute probable cause. If so, the grand jury will 

issue an indictment that also puts the case before the 

trial court. Only the prosecutor and State’s witnesses, 

usually the investigating law enforcement offi cer, 

appear before the grand jury. It is unlikely that either 

the CPS caseworker or a child would be asked to 

testify. Neither the defendant nor the defense attorney 

has the right to be present at that proceeding.

DISCOVERY

Discovery refers to the process of obtaining 

information about the charge from the opposing party 

and, at times, other sources. It is less accessible and less 

extensively used in criminal cases than in civil actions, 

including child abuse and neglect proceedings, due 

to more stringent legal requirements. Defendants in 

some States, however, may be entitled to access CPS 

records, particularly if they contain information or 

evidence that may be helpful to their defense. Th e 

identity of reporters of child maltreatment, however, 

still may be withheld.

PLEA BARGAINING

Plea bargaining is to the criminal process what 

settlements are to the juvenile court process. Th ese 

negotiated resolutions conclude the majority of both 

types of cases. Without them, courts could not reach 

all the cases to be tried on a timely basis.

Plea bargaining, which results in avoiding trial, has 

the added benefi t in child abuse and neglect cases of 

eliminating the need for the child to testify and of 

speeding the resolution of the case, both of which 

relieve the child’s anxiety. Nevertheless, there also 

may be negative consequences to a plea bargain. 

Depending on the sentence, the child victim may 

feel betrayed, disbelieved, or unsafe. In addition, the 

public may perceive that child maltreatment is not 

taken as seriously as other crimes.

TRIAL

If no plea bargain is reached, the case goes to trial. In 

criminal trials, the rules of evidence are applied strictly, 

and the prosecutor has a greater burden of proof. In 

order to convict, the jurors must unanimously fi nd 

“beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant 

committed the alleged off ense. Th is is a much higher 

burden of proof than the “clear and convincing 
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 43

evidence” standard in termination of parental rights 

trials in some States’ child abuse and neglect actions. 

It is higher still than the “preponderance or greater 

weight of the evidence” standard in civil cases generally 

and in child abuse and neglect cases in some States.

CPS caseworkers should know if any criminal charges 

were fi led stemming from the facts and circumstances 

related to their child abuse and neglect cases. Th e 

caseworker will want to establish and to maintain 

contact with the prosecutor responsible for those 

charges to know when events in the case are scheduled, 

whether the child may be called as a witness, or the terms 

of any plea off er. Th e prosecutor needs to be informed 

of the status of the child abuse and neglect case, the 

case plan, and how the prosecution can benefi t from 

that plan. To ensure that provisions important to the 

child and the case plan are considered, the caseworker 

should ask to participate in any bond hearing or plea 

negotiations and in the sentencing process. However, 

the criminal court judge may operate independently 

of the juvenile court and may give little or no weight 

to what the caseworker requests. 

Th e criminal court case may be concluded well after 

the disposition hearing in the child abuse and neglect 

case, and its outcome can be inconsistent with the 

case plan and the best resolution of the child abuse 

and neglect case. Th e opposite also can be true, and 

the criminal sentence can augment and enhance the 

case plan and the prospects for a positive outcome. 

In communities where the same prosecutor represents 

the public interest in both criminal and child abuse 

and neglect cases, there is greater likelihood of a 

coordinated approach to resolving both matters. In 

communities where diff erent offi ces are responsible 

for the two types of cases, the CPS caseworker should 

do as much as possible to ensure that the outcome 

in criminal court complements and supports the case 

plan in the juvenile case. 

Th e desired court outcomes might vary from case 

to case. For example, in a case where the mother’s 

boyfriend has been abusive to her and the child, the 

caseworker may advocate that he be incarcerated for 

the maximum period possible. On the other hand, if 

he is an important fi gure in the child’s life, has been 

participating successfully in a batterers’ intervention 

program, is the principal breadwinner for the family, 

and the plan is reunifi cation of all family members, 

then a lengthy sentence would be contrary to the 

case plan. A suspended sentence and probation, 

with conditions consistent with the case plan, could 

enhance prospects for the plan’s success. Th is scenario 

would not impose a fi ne or other fi nancial burdens 

that would interfere with the defendant’s ability to 

support the family. 

Frequently, a parent or other caretaker in a child 

abuse and neglect case will be on probation for some 

unrelated criminal off ense (e.g., a drug charge) and 

be required as a condition of probation to complete 

a drug treatment program successfully. Th e threat 

of incarceration can be a powerful motivator for 

overcoming a substance abuse habit or for changing 

other behaviors. Th e caseworker will want to establish 

and to maintain contact with the probation offi cer to 

stay abreast of the defendant’s compliance with the 

conditions of probation. Th is level of coordination of 

the two processes is uncommon, but positive results 

can be realized when the CPS caseworker establishes 

a good working relationship with the probation 

offi cer.

Communicating with the prosecutor and the probation 

offi cer in criminal cases involving the parents or other 

caretakers of children who have been maltreated is 

an important role for CPS caseworkers and other 

involved service providers. Sharing information and 

coordinating agency eff orts with what happens in 

criminal court to achieve a safe, permanent home for 

children can produce benefi cial results in a CPS case. 

Working with the Courts in Child Protection 45

Families involved with child protective services 

(CPS) often face multiple problems and complex 

challenges, some of which require court involvement. 

Matters involving child maltreatment or juvenile 

delinquency typically are resolved in juvenile court. 

Other issues aff ecting families frequently are addressed 

in other court venues. CPS caseworkers who work 

with families struggling with divorce, domestic 

violence, and mental health problems may fi nd these 

families involved in other court processes. As well 

as understanding the juvenile court process, CPS 

caseworkers also should be familiar with other court 

hearings that aff ect families and case practice. 

Th is chapter provides an overview of three types of 

court hearings that may involve CPS families—

custody and divorce, domestic violence, and mental 

health hearings. Th e chapter also discusses suits 

against CPS caseworkers and agencies and Federal 

class actions against agencies.

CUSTODY AND DIVORCE HEARINGS

Allegations of child abuse or neglect may arise in 

custody and divorce cases, which result from the 

separation of married partners or the estrangement of 

unmarried parents. Th ese also are known in some 

places as matrimonial or domestic relations cases. 

Actions between spouses may include claims for 

the division of marital property, spousal support 

and, when the couple has minor children, custody, 

visitation, and child support. Actions between 

unmarried parents often are referred to as paternity 

cases and involve the issues of paternity, custody, and 

child support.

CPS Involvement in Custody Cases

Domestic relations, paternity, and domestic violence 

cases are civil actions, and unlike child abuse and 

neglect cases, they take place between private 

individuals. CPS may become involved, however, 

if allegations of child abuse or neglect are made 

against a parent or someone living in the parent’s 

home. In these circumstances, CPS has the challenge 

of determining whether to substantiate a complaint 

made in the context of what often is an acrimonious 

battle between parents over their child. Th ere is a 

temptation, therefore, to discount these complaints. 

CPS must be careful, however, to conduct a thorough 

investigation that considers the context and objectively 

evaluates other facts. Retaining a neutral, welltrained, experienced, and widely respected custody 

evaluator may be useful.45

If abuse or neglect is substantiated, deciding whether 

to try the case in the domestic relations or the juvenile 

court can be an issue. CPS should not fi le a petition 

alleging child abuse or neglect if the nonabusive 

parent is committed to protecting the child and if the 

court adopts an access and visitation plan that will 

CHAPTER 6

Domestic Relations

Cases and Other Court 

Proceedings
 46 Domestic Relations Cases and Other Court Proceedings

keep the child safe. However, if CPS doubts that the 

parent or the court will protect the child from harm, 

it may choose to fi le a petition in juvenile court. In 

most States, the jurisdiction of the juvenile court to 

determine whether a child is abused or neglected will 

take precedence over a custody determination by the 

domestic relations court. Custody and visitation 

issues can be relegated to domestic relations or juvenile 

court upon showing that circumstances have changed 

substantially in ways that aff ect the child. 

Motions to change custody or visitation frequently 

include allegations of child abuse as a basis for the 

motion. CPS needs to address these allegations as 

if they were new cases. For example, when a father 

is charged with a sex off ense against his child and 

there is a pending custody proceeding, the domestic 

relations court, the criminal court, or both usually 

will order either no visitation or supervised visitation. 

If the father is acquitted or the charge is dismissed in 

criminal court, he may come to the domestic relations 

court requesting unsupervised visitation on that basis. 

Th e court’s decision about custody and visitation, 

however, is independent of the criminal process. Th e 

domestic relations court judge must hear evidence 

and decide whether the child was sexually abused by 

the father and, if so, what to do about visitation. 

Caseworkers should keep in mind that the burden of 

proof in criminal cases is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” 

a much higher standard than the “preponderance of 

or greater weight of the evidence” standard in custody 

cases. Criminal charges are dismissed for a variety of 

reasons including the age of the child, the trauma to 

the child testifying, or insuffi cient credible evidence 

to prove the charge. A dismissal or an acquittal on 

those charges is not necessarily a determination that 

the defendant was innocent of the charge. 

In this scenario, if the domestic relations court allows 

visitation that, in the judgment of CPS, will result 

in abuse of the child, CPS can fi le a child abuse and 

neglect petition in juvenile court, which also would 

hear the evidence and make an independent decision 

as to whether the father had sexually abused the 

child. If it is determined that he did, the juvenile 

court could order either more restricted visitation or 

no visitation. 

Family Courts

Th e complex relationships among diff erent courts and 

potentially confl icting decisions can cause confusion 

among practitioners and family members. Th ese 

issues are some of the driving force behind the rising 

popularity and implementation of family courts. (See 

Chapter 2, Th e Court System and Child Protection, for 

a description of family courts.) In a model family 

court, the same judge would hear the domestic 

relations, the domestic violence, and the child abuse 

and neglect cases. Family courts can off er multiple 

benefi ts:

Minimizing the potential for confl icting orders 

and outcomes;

Improving coordination among the court 

interventions;

Reducing the number of court appearances;

Enhancing the judge’s familiarity with the issues 

and the parties;

Bringing about a more successful end result. 

While most courts are not organized, equipped, or 

legally able to achieve the “one family-one judge 

model,” many are moving as far as possible in that 

direction. For example, some courts are making 

benefi cial services, such as those listed below, more 

readily available and are committed to resolving 

family confl icts with minimal negative impact on the 

children. 

Case Management and Services

Domestic relations courts can provide essential case 

management and services to families appearing before 

them. While not the case in every State, well-resourced 

domestic relations courts use case managers to: 

•

•

•

•

•
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 47

Ensure that discovery, motions, requests for 

temporary relief (e.g., spousal or child support), 

or other pretrial issues are addressed and resolved 

on schedule; 

Monitor the completion of mandatory actions, 

such as parent education or mediation; 

Keep the case on track for a timely, fi nal 

resolution;

Identify and facilitate the delivery of services to 

children and parties (whether they are available 

through the court or elsewhere). 

Th e following are services off ered by some domestic 

relations courts:

Mediation—a process focusing on how parents 

will share responsibility for their children in 

the future. Facilitated by a trained mediator, 

mediation can be eff ective in resolving custody 

disputes without a trial.

Custody evaluations—evaluative services for 

parents and children that can be useful to the court 

in making custody and visitation determinations. 

Th ese services sometimes are publicly funded and 

other times available only from private providers 

at the expense of the litigants. 

Guardians ad Litem (GAL)—lawyers appointed 

by some courts for the children in custody and 

visitation cases, particularly if there are allegations 

of maltreatment or domestic violence, or if the 

confl ict between the parents is unusually high. 

Th ese GALs typically are not associated with the 

GAL or CASA Program in the juvenile court.

Parent education programs—courses for 

separating parents that can help them understand 

how their children may be aff ected by the 

separation and what they can do to minimize 

adverse eff ects. 

Supervised visitation and exchange services—

programs that off er safe, comfortable settings and 

trained professionals to protect a child’s safety 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

during parental visits. In some programs, the 

supervisor will coach a parent on how to engage 

the child or on how to interact more appropriately 

with the child or with the other parent. Th ey 

often will involve the use of intermediaries to 

transfer the child between the parents. 

Parenting coordination—a relatively new 

service, typically used in high-confl ict cases, that 

employs a mental health professional to support 

and to assist parents in implementing a parenting 

agreement or court order. A parenting coordinator 

can help parents settle their diff erences and can 

enable them to avoid the time, emotional trauma, 

and expense of returning repeatedly to court.46

Th e above services also may be benefi cial in some 

child abuse and neglect cases. CPS caseworkers will 

want to know how to access them, particularly when 

parents or family members are vying for custody or 

visitation of a child in a maltreatment case.

Child Support

Many children in child abuse and neglect proceedings 

have unmet economic needs. Most live with one 

or neither of their biological parents, and of those, 

many do not receive any child support. CPS should, 

therefore, place a priority on locating biological 

parents, establishing paternity (if necessary), and 

pursuing child support and medical insurance from an 

absent parent. In fact, reasonable eff orts requirements 

mandate that CPS do so. 

Establishment of paternity and establishment and 

enforcement of child support and medical insurance 

obligations for foster children are by law the 

responsibility of Child Support Enforcement (CSE).47

Every community has access to a CSE offi ce, and in 

many places, they are co-located with, and operated 

by, the same agency as CPS. Caseworkers who are 

attempting to keep a family together need to help the 

family access CSE services. 

Some courts establish paternity during child abuse 

and neglect proceedings, often at the initial hearing 

•
 48 Domestic Relations Cases and Other Court Proceedings

or the adjudication, provided the putative father 

is willing to consent to the entry of a judgment of 

paternity. When a putative father denies paternity 

or is not willing to acknowledge it formally, the 

case must be referred immediately to CSE. Genetic 

testing will be done, and in almost all cases, the results 

of that testing will be conclusive. CSE can initiate 

paternity establishment for putative fathers living in 

other States when requested to do so by CPS. 

Support payments made by the parents reduce CPS’s 

(or a relative’s) costs for providing for the child. Th e 

amount of child support owed by an absent parent 

is determined in every State by the application of a 

child support guideline or formula. Th e guidelines 

are based on the assumption that one parent pays 

support to the other. Additionally, parents whose 

children were already receiving child support and 

have been placed in foster care often have diffi culty 

regaining custody for fi nancial reasons. Th ey may 

need housing, furnishings, security and utility 

deposits, or other services. Th e amount of their child 

support payments should not preclude them from 

having the funds necessary to achieve reunifi cation. 

In these circumstances, caseworkers may want to 

request that a reduction of the child support payments 

be considered. For the same reason, consideration 

must be given to suspending repayment of past public 

assistance or arrearages. 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HEARINGS

While children should not be removed unnecessarily, 

neither should they be left in environments that 

jeopardize their safety. Th is has been a particularly 

problematic issue in cases where children are exposed 

to domestic violence. As CPS caseworkers become 

increasingly aware of the high co-occurrence of 

domestic violence and child maltreatment and 

of the potential emotional impact of exposure to 

domestic violence on children, more communities 

are fi ling child maltreatment petitions in such cases 

and requesting removal of the children.49 Research 

indicates that children exposed to domestic abuse are 

more likely to experience physical abuse or neglect 

than children living in nonviolent homes.50 Studies 

estimate that there are adult and child victims in 

30 to 60 percent of families experiencing domestic 

violence, and for adult victims who experience severe 

Federal Parent Locator Service

Th e Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) is an automated information system maintained by the Federal 

Offi ce of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). FPLS is a vast database that includes Social Security 

numbers, names of employers, and information on income and personal assets. It is used by CSE to locate 

persons who may be the father of a child or a parent who has a child support obligation. Th e Adoption 

and Safe Families Act (P.L. 105–89) requires that the resources of FPLS also be available to CPS for 

locating parents in its cases.48 FPLS is an invaluable resource for caseworkers who need to fi nd and serve a 

putative father or absent parent.

Some courts have developed working agreements or protocols with CSE and CPS to facilitate the 

establishment of paternity, as well as the establishment and enforcement of support obligations, and to 

speed access to FPLS. Th ese strategies may include locating OCSE staff and computers near the juvenile 

court to serve the parent and to help identify the paternity and child support needs of the children and 

families in that court. Judges have to ensure that all has been done to locate the missing parent, not only 

for the enforcement of child support, but also for placement options or for termination of parental rights. 

Th erefore, the courts may require documentation from the caseworker regarding utilization of this service. 

For more information about FPLS, visit http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/newhire.
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 49

forms of domestic abuse, their children are in danger 

of suff ering serious physical harm.51

CPS caseworkers should recognize that “[c]hildhood 

exposure to adult domestic violence should not 

automatically be defi ned as maltreatment....” 

Instead, “[w]hat’s needed...are empirical and 

practice-based criteria for deciding whether or not a 

child is at a heightened risk of harm” before placing 

an undue burden on the victim by removing the 

child.52 Once established, these criteria must be 

developed into eff ective screening and assessment 

instruments for use in the fi eld. In addition, there 

is a dire need to develop greater expertise within 

child protection agencies about domestic violence, to 

collaborate with domestic violence programs, and to 

provide alternative forms of voluntary, communitybased services for exposed children and their families, 

including specialized parenting and intervention 

programs for the perpetrator.53

Th e process for fi ling actions for protection against 

domestic violence is designed to accommodate 

persons who do not have an attorney. Complaint 

forms are available, no fi ling fee is required, and 

most jurisdictions aff ord relatively prompt access 

to a judicial offi cer at any hour of the day or night. 

Litigants often request, and are able to obtain 

immediately, an ex parte order granting eviction of the 

alleged abusers from the parties’ residence or other 

protective relief. Additionally, in best case scenarios, 

the time from fi ling to fi nal hearing and conclusion 

of the case can be brief, ranging from a few days to 

a few weeks at most. For these reasons, claims for 

protection against domestic violence usually are 

fi led as separate actions. Exhibit 6-1 provides more 

information about protection orders. 

CPS caseworkers with cases in which family violence 

is a signifi cant problem will want to consider the 

effi cacy of a protection order. Th is may involve 

encouraging the victim to take the actions necessary 

to obtain the order, or in some jurisdictions, CPS may 

request a protective order in the child maltreatment 

case. A victim should not be compelled, however, to 

choose between obtaining or abiding by an order and 

having the child removed by CPS. It is important to 

respect the victim’s opinion of what would enhance 

the children’s safety or would place them at greater 

risk. Protection orders can contribute to the safety of 

adult and child victims of domestic violence, but they 

do not ensure safety. Th ose orders often are violated, 

sometimes resulting in serious injury or even the 

death of the parent or children. Domestic violence 

victims’ advocates can provide CPS caseworkers 

with recommendations to engage adult victims in 

the protection and safety of themselves and their 

children.

MENTAL HEALTH HEARINGS

Some children in foster care are committed 

involuntarily or are admitted voluntarily to mental 

health treatment facilities. Th e CPS caseworker 

should work with a supervisor and a mental health 

professional in deciding whether to pursue such a 

placement and likely will be the person to accompany 

and to admit the child to the facility. Th e caseworker 

also will need to attend the hearing and present CPS’s 

position regarding the child’s need for continued 

treatment. It is unlikely that a CPS lawyer will be 

present although there may be a prosecutor or a 

lawyer for the facility. Th e caseworker will want to 

communicate with facility staff to learn the child’s 

diagnosis and recommendations for treatment and 

immediately begin work with staff on a discharge 

plan that will meet the child’s needs. Every eff ort 

must be made to avoid extending confi nement in the 

facility because of a lack of appropriate alternative 

placement.

Some State laws require court approval for the 

voluntary admission of minors to mental health 

For more information on domestic violence and 

child maltreatment, see the User Manual Series

publication Child Protection in Families Aff ected 

by Domestic Violence at http://www.childwelfare.

gov/pubs/usermanuals/domesticviolence/.
 50 Domestic Relations Cases and Other Court Proceedings

treatment facilities or for the involuntary commitment 

of minors or adults. Whether the law applies to a 

particular placement usually depends on whether it 

is a locked facility, such as a psychiatric hospital or 

residential treatment program. Voluntary admissions 

to mental health treatment facilities are made by a 

parent, guardian, or CPS for a child. Th e court must 

determine whether the child is mentally ill and in 

need of further treatment. Some States also require 

that a child not be placed in such facilities if better 

alternatives are available. Many children object 

to being admitted, and, from their perspective, the 

admission is involuntary. While caseworkers need 

to respect the child’s feelings and concerns, they 

also need to explain the reason for admittance, such 

as the child being a danger to herself (e.g., suicidal 

tendencies) or to others. Otherwise, the caseworker 

should continue to fi nd the least restrictive facility that 

meets the child’s mental health needs. Additionally, 

the court must decide whether the child is mentally 

ill or poses a danger. 

Exhibit 6-1

Domestic Violence Protective Orders

Claims for protection against domestic violence sometimes are brought in conjunction with a domestic 

relations case, but more often they are fi led separately. Th ese are variously known as protective orders, 

restraining orders, or orders of protection. Th ese orders are available in every State and may require that 

the abusive partner: 

Be evicted from the parties’ residence, not return there, or not go to where the victim works;

Refrain from abusing the victim;

Have no contact with the victim;

Participate in substance abuse treatment or a batterers’ intervention program;

Pay support.

Th e order also may include protection for the children and may award custody of the children and child 

support. Not all of these remedies are available in every State, but statutes usually authorize the court to 

impose any additional terms or conditions it deems necessary for the victim’s protection. In most States, 

orders granting relief in domestic violence cases are limited in duration from 1 to 5 years. 

Federal law also makes possession of a fi rearm illegal for anyone who is subject to an active protective 

order that meets specifi ed criteria. Some States and judges go further and order defendants against whom 

a protective order is issued to surrender all weapons to a law enforcement agency and to not purchase 

or possess any fi rearm as long as the order remains in eff ect. Possessing a fi rearm also is illegal for any 

individual who has ever been convicted of certain domestic violence crimes.54

Domestic violence protection or restraining orders should be logged immediately into a State’s central 

registry as well as the National Crime Information Center Protection Order File, which can be accessed by 

any law enforcement offi cer. Th ese orders are enforceable across State lines.55 Violation of the order is a 

separate criminal off ense in most States and will result in immediate arrest of defendants who are caught 

violating it. If the defendants are not caught, but there is probable cause to believe they violated an order, 

a warrant for their arrests can be issued. Alternatively, violations can subject the off enders to being found 

in contempt of court and punished by fi nes or incarceration.

•

•

•

•

•
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 51

Statutes governing voluntary admissions and 

involuntary commitments are intended to protect the 

liberty interests of patients. Th ey help ensure that the 

decision to deprive them of their freedom is reviewed 

independently and objectively and that they will not 

be held against their will unless a court fi nds that 

there is a legally suffi cient basis for doing so.

In some States, involuntary commitment and 

voluntary admissions are the only vehicles for forcibly 

placing a child in a mental health treatment facility. 

In others, juvenile court judges can order that children 

be admitted to such facilities as the disposition for a 

delinquent or status off ense. 

CONFIDENTIALITY OF COURT RECORDS

Th e Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act 

(CAPTA) of 1974 required that records of child abuse 

complaints and investigations be confi dential and that 

court proceedings be closed to the public. CAPTA 

was reauthorized and amended by Congress, most 

recently as part of the Keeping Children and Families 

Safe Act of 2003 (P.L. 108–36). Th is amendment 

to CAPTA changed the confi dentiality requirements 

so States now must share confi dential information 

with any Federal, State, or local government entity or 

agency with a legal responsibility to protect children. 

In addition, States now can conduct court proceedings 

at which child abuse and neglect determinations are 

being made more open without jeopardizing eligibility 

for CAPTA funds.56

SUITS AGAINST CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES

CASEWORKERS AND AGENCIES

If CPS negligently fails to investigate or to intervene 

to protect a child when there is reason to believe the 

child is abused or neglected, and the child is harmed 

as a result, the child may be able to sue for damages 

through a GAL or a “next friend,” the legal term 

for an adult who fi les suit on the child’s behalf. A 

suit also can be fi led for maltreatment that occurs in 

out-of-home care through CPS negligence or willful 

misconduct. An example is the physical or sexual 

abuse of a child by a foster parent.

Th e defendants in suits for damages are likely to be 

the CPS caseworker, the caseworker’s supervisor, the 

agency director, and the county or State. It is diffi cult 

to generalize about the liability of caseworkers because 

the law on liability is defi ned largely by appellate 

decisions and is State-specifi c. CPS caseworkers will 

want to know:

What the law regarding their liability is in the 

State where they work; 

Whether they have any immunity from liability 

and, if so, the extent of that immunity; 

Whether CPS insures them for liability and the 

extent of that protection; 

Whether CPS or any insurance carrier will 

provide legal representation for a caseworker who 

is sued. 

Caseworkers should request this information from 

their agency which is frequently named as corespondent in a suit. Th e National Center for Field 

Consultation can provide guidance on coping with 

child welfare litigation. Additional information on 

child welfare litigation is available at http://www.

cwla.org/consultation/litigation.htm, by e-mailing 

ncfc@cwla.org, or by calling (202) 942–0287. 

CLASS ACTIONS AGAINST AGENCIES

Under some circumstances, a group of individuals 

who are similarly situated may bring a class action 

against CPS for violations of Federal law or of the 

U.S. Constitution. Th ese actions usually address 

inadequacies in agency services, staffi ng, or practices. 

Although individual claims for monetary damages 

may accompany the claim for class relief, the remedy 

usually sought is a declaratory judgment or an 

injunction. A declaratory judgment is a statement 

by the court about what the law requires of CPS. An 

•

•

•

•
 52 Domestic Relations Cases and Other Court Proceedings

injunction is a directive or order requiring CPS to 

take certain actions or forbidding it from engaging in 

specifi ed actions. 

A number of such lawsuits have been fi led in recent 

years. Most have been settled by agreement of the 

parties, known as a “consent decree.” Th e relief 

generally has involved a commitment by CPS to 

improve practice and service delivery in specifi ed ways. 

In most cases, the court has appointed a receiver or, 

more commonly, a review panel to monitor and to 

assist implementation of the consent decree. 

Th e type of court that hears the case determines who 

is aff ected by the decision. State court appellate 

decisions have the force of law only in the States in 

which they are issued. U.S. District Court decisions 

apply only in the district in which they are issued, 

and U.S. Court of Appeals (Circuit Courts) decisions 

apply only in the States of that circuit. U.S. Supreme 

Court decisions, however, have national reach. 

Appellate courts of all types often cite decisions from 

other State or Federal courts to support their own 

rulings in similar cases.

Example of Class Action Lawsuit

One notable example of a class action lawsuit is Nicholson v. Williams in New York City. Unlike most 

other class action suits, it went to trial, and the result was an injunction against the city’s Administration 

for Children Services (ACS). Th e injunction prohibited ACS from removing “...a child from the custody 

of the mother without a court order solely because the mother is a victim of domestic violence except in 

cases where the child is in such imminent danger to life or health that he or she must be removed and there 

is not reasonably suffi cient time to obtain a court order.” Th e injunction also required that petitions not 

be fi led against a mother solely because she “engaged” in domestic violence in the presence of the children 

or refused to accept services unless the petition alleges with specifi city how the child has been harmed. 

Due to the lawsuit, petitions are required to describe specifi cally any acts of domestic violence alleged 

and any harm suff ered by the child as a result of such acts. Additionally, ACS was required to develop 

new materials and training regarding cases in which domestic violence is an issue, to employ domestic 

violence specialists, and to conduct a safety conference within 72 hours of the removal of any child from a 

mother who is a victim of domestic violence and has not otherwise abused or neglected the child.57
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 53

Most child protective services (CPS) caseworkers 

are prepared to interview family members, to 

conduct home visits, to document cases, and to work 

with other social service providers. However, there is 

one component of casework practice that leaves some 

caseworkers anxious and ill-equipped—preparing for 

and conducting themselves in court. Simply knowing 

the diff erent types of court hearings and mastering 

legal terminology do not demonstrate a caseworker’s 

competence in juvenile court. Skillful courtroom 

presentation, well-documented court reports, and 

a collaborative style also are necessary to maximize 

constructive family, agency, and court outcomes. 

Th is chapter presents practical guidelines to help CPS 

caseworkers prepare themselves for going to court, to 

help them work with children who also may be called 

to testify, and to improve their working relationships 

with the judges. 

THE RULES OF EVIDENCE

Th e rules of evidence determine what information 

can be introduced in court and for what purposes. 

Th ey are intended to ensure that the court’s decisions 

are based on reliable information. 

Types of Evidence

Evidence takes diff erent forms, specifi cally: 

Direct evidence is based on personal knowledge, 

such as the testimony of an eyewitness; 

Demonstrative evidence includes items such as 

documents, photographs, or x-rays; 

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence 

from which an inference can be drawn, such as a 

child with an oddly shaped bruise on her back. 

For example, a CPS caseworker’s record might contain 

the following types of evidence:

Th e log kept by a teacher of the days the child 

came to school with noticeable bruises;

Documentation that a neighbor heard the child’s 

screams;

Th e record of the physician who examined the 

child reporting that she had multiple bruises 

of diff erent ages and severity on her back and 

buttocks;

Photographs of the bruises taken by police; 

Documentation that the child told the CPS 

caseworker that she lives alone with her mother 

and that her mother hits her with a belt;

Th e belt.

In court, the child’s testimony would be direct 

evidence. Th e teacher’s log, the photographs, and the 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

CHAPTER 7

Going to Court
 54 Going to Court

belt would be demonstrative evidence. Living alone 

with her mother, coupled with the screams and the 

bruises, would be circumstantial evidence identifying 

the mother as the abuser.

All evidence must be both material and relevant to 

be admitted. To be material, evidence must have 

a logical connection to an issue in the case. To be 

relevant, evidence must increase the likelihood that a 

particular fact is true. 

Th e more caseworkers know about the rules of 

evidence, the better they can prepare for a case. 

Th e burden of proof for the particular stage of the 

proceeding or type of case determines how much 

evidence is enough. Th e judge or jury will decide 

whether the credible evidence presented satisfi es the 

burden of proof. (See Chapter 4, Th e Juvenile Court 

Process, for a discussion on adjudication and the 

burden of proof.) 

Th e Hearsay Rule and Exceptions

Th e hearsay rule excludes evidence that is unreliable. 

Hearsay is defi ned as an out-of-court statement made 

by someone other than the witness, which is off ered for 

the truth of that statement. For example, the hearsay 

rule would prevent a caseworker from testifying that a 

neighbor told the caseworker that she saw the mother 

hit the child with a belt. For that information to be 

admitted, the neighbor would have to testify in court. 

Th e rule, however, does not exclude out-of-court 

statements that are not off ered for the truth of what 

was said. For example, a statement by the neighbor 

that she heard the mother yell, “I’m going to kill you,” 

just before the child’s screams would be admitted not 

for the truth of the statement but to show that the 

mother said it. Th e neighbor would not be testifying 

as to whether the mother actually attempted to kill or 

to abuse the child, only that she made the statement.

Th ere are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule 

that admit evidence that otherwise would be hearsay. 

Th ese exceptions are based on the existence of other 

indications that the statements are reliable. Exceptions 

that are particularly relevant to child abuse and neglect 

cases include:

Admissions. Th e mother said to the CPS 

caseworker, “I know I hit her too hard, but I will 

not do it again.” Th e caseworker would be allowed 

to testify to what the mother said, even though it 

is an out-of-court statement off ered for its truth, 

because it was also the admission of a party. Such 

an admission is thought to be reliable because it 

was against the mother’s interest to make it. 

Excited utterances. An out-of-court statement 

that is made spontaneously under extreme 

emotional excitement also may be admissible 

as an exception to the hearsay rule. An excited 

utterance is viewed as trustworthy because the 

speaker’s excitement at the time it was made is 

thought to prevent him or her from refl ecting long 

enough to fabricate the statement. Th e length 

of time between the event and the statement is a 

critical factor in determining the admissibility of 

such statements. 

Regularly kept records. Records are hearsay 

because they contain second-hand information, 

but their contents will be considered reliable and, 

therefore, admissible when they are kept regularly, 

systematically, and routinely. Th e regularity of 

the record-keeping process by persons with a duty 

to supply accurate data ensures trustworthiness. 

Th e foundation for the admission of records is 

established by the testimony of the person who 

made the record or the custodian of the records. 

Th is exception may be applied to medical 

records, police reports, school records, and CPS 

fi les. Caseworkers must be careful to record 

accurately the statements of others and their own 

observations. Th e record must be as factual as 

possible. 

Th ere are other exceptions to the hearsay rule, but 

they are used less commonly in child maltreatment 

cases.

•

•

•
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 55

EXPERT TESTIMONY

Expert testimony is opinion testimony about a 

subject that is outside the judge or jury’s knowledge 

or experience. Th e witness needs to show that she 

is qualifi ed to testify as an expert on a particular 

subject. Th ese qualifi cations may be based on 

experience; education and training; professional 

accomplishments, recognition, and memberships; 

prior testimony as an expert; or familiarity with the 

relevant professional literature. After each party has 

the opportunity to question the witness, the judge 

will decide whether the witness may testify as an 

expert and on what specifi c subject. Expert witnesses 

are common in child maltreatment cases. Examples 

of expert witnesses include: 

Medical doctors who have expertise in the causes 

of physical injuries or conditions, such as spiral 

fractures, Shaken Baby Syndrome, failure to 

thrive, or Munchausen syndrome by proxy; 

Mental health professionals who can diagnose 

mental illness or can explain issues of bonding 

and attachment; 

Domestic violence specialists who have the 

expertise to explain the debilitating eff ects on 

a child of witnessing the physical abuse of a 

parent; 

Specialists in child sexual abuse or substance 

abuse. 

To be admitted into evidence, the expert’s opinion 

needs to be relevant, which means that it needs to 

increase the likelihood that a particular fact is true 

or that a particular condition exists. Th e expert’s 

testimony also needs to have a sound scientifi c basis. 

Application of these rules can be complicated. It is the 

CPS attorney’s responsibility to identify the need for 

expert testimony, to prepare the witness to testify, and 

to demonstrate in court that the witness is qualifi ed 

and that the testimony is admissible.58 

•

•

•

•

COURT REPORTS

Court reports aff ord caseworkers some of the best 

opportunities to communicate information to the 

court and to infl uence its decision. If CPS or the 

court has a standard format for such documents, the 

caseworker will need to use that. Some formats may 

be ineff ective vehicles, however, for quickly imparting 

critical information. Poorly organized reports frustrate 

judges and other participants and are less likely to be 

infl uential. Caseworkers should consider adding a 

cover page that summarizes key decisions to be made 

and the CPS position with respect to each of them, 

including references by title and page number to any 

attached documentation. References to documents 

in the court’s fi le should be noted by the title and date 

of fi ling. 

Case plans and reasonable eff orts reports also are 

valuable for conveying information to the court. As 

with the court report, they should be comprehensive, 

concise, and written as directly and clearly as possible. 

If the document is an updated version of an earlier 

one, the new material should be highlighted. Th e 

goal is to present the material in a manner that is 

easily understood. In addition, it should be simple 

to locate any supporting documentation. Judges will 

appreciate receiving reports that satisfy these criteria 

and will be able to understand more clearly CPS 

positions and the reasons for them. 

Th e content of the court report will depend on the 

type of hearing for which it is presented and the 

status of the case. (See Chapter 4, Th e Juvenile Court 

Process, for further information on the issues to be 

addressed at various hearings over the course of a 

child maltreatment case.)

TESTIFYING

Speaking to the court and other participants in a case 

is another excellent opportunity to communicate 

information that may aff ect the court’s decision. 
 56 Going to Court

Relatively few child maltreatment cases are adjudicated 

by trial, but when one is tried, the caseworker 

invariably will be called to testify or to give answers 

under oath. Caseworkers also may be called to give 

formal testimony at other stages of the court process, 

particularly the permanency hearing, and usually at 

any trial related to the termination of parental rights. 

More commonly, caseworkers will have the 

opportunity to testify informally regarding case plans, 

the child’s well-being, reasonable eff orts, visitation, 

parental performance, and needed services at each 

hearing in the case. Th is testimony is not under oath 

and usually is delivered from the CPS counsel table 

rather than from the witness stand. 

Preparation for Testimony

Before every hearing, the caseworker should review 

the case and be prepared to answer questions about it. 

Th e nature of the hearing will determine the types of 

questions that may be asked. In order to prepare to 

testify, the caseworker should: 

Become thoroughly familiar with the facts of the 

case and with the case fi le;

Meet with the CPS attorney to discuss the case 

and the particulars of the testimony, especially 

any troublesome aspects;

Identify key facts or points that the attorney will 

want to elicit;

Discuss with the attorney the expected crossexamination questions;

Outline the history of the case, including 

important dates and events;

Summarize the services off ered, the response, and 

the outcomes; 

Prepare to answer questions about reasonable 

eff orts;

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Talk with any previous caseworkers about their 

involvement with the family. 

Th e caseworker also should prepare a description of 

his professional experience and qualifi cations. 

Guidelines for Testifying 

During direct examination, the attorney calls the 

caseworker to be a witness and asks questions. 

Generally, the rules for direct examination require 

open-ended questions (e.g., “What did you see?” or 

“What happened next?”). Leading questions that 

suggest the answer or questions calling for a “yes” or 

“no” answer usually are not permitted (e.g., “Didn’t 

the mother tell you that she hit the child with a 

belt?”). When testifying, caseworkers should:

Be confi dent and self-assured;

Listen carefully to the question and answer it 

directly; 

Ask that a question be repeated if it is diffi cult 

to hear or understand, but not make a habit of 

doing so; 

State facts, not opinions or conclusions 

(e.g., instead of saying that the mother was 

uncooperative and rude, state exactly what she 

said or did);

State whether an answer is unknown or cannot 

be recalled;

Speak clearly, distinctly, and loudly enough to be 

heard;

Make eye contact with the questioner and the 

judge; 

Refer to the case fi le only as necessary in order to 

recall information.

When an attorney objects to a question or moves to 

strike an answer, the caseworker should wait until the 

judge rules on the motion before speaking. If the 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 57

judge overrules the objection, then the caseworker 

should answer the question. If the judge sustains the 

objection, then the caseworker should not answer the 

question; the attorney will ask another one.

Cross-examination is questioning by attorneys other 

than the one who called the caseworker as a witness. 

Th e purpose of cross-examination is to expose 

weaknesses, errors, inconsistencies, biases, or other 

defi ciencies in the testimony of the witness. Th e 

attorney also may focus on the caseworker’s lack of 

experience or qualifi cations and will try to show that 

the caseworker did not do a thorough investigation 

or exercised poor judgment. Cross-examination can 

be unpleasant, but it is important that caseworkers 

not take it personally and remain outwardly calm, 

confi dent, and respectful. If a caseworker becomes 

hostile or defensive, the judge may discount the 

testimony. 

Leading questions are permitted on cross-examination. 

Lawyers often will ask such questions, insist they be 

answered “yes” or ‘“no,” and before the witness can 

explain, ask another question. When a “yes” or “no” 

requires an explanation, the witness can ask permission 

to explain the answer. 

EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS 

Ex parte communications are verbal or written 

communications addressed to the judge in a case by 

one party outside the presence of another party without 

copying the other party. Th ey are strictly prohibited.59

Th e prohibition extends to representatives of a party, 

including CPS caseworkers. Th us, caseworkers must 

never attempt to communicate privately with any 

judge about an open case; however, communications 

that are not case-specifi c, such as those suggested 

in Chapter 8, Working with the Courts, are not 

prohibited. 

CHILDREN’S TESTIMONY

Th e courtroom can be an intimidating and 

traumatizing environment for most people, but 

especially for children, many of whom may be 

terrifi ed by the prospect of testifying. Th ey may 

become anxious or distraught. Some even freeze 

and are unable to respond to simple, preliminary 

questions. Younger children are more likely to have 

these types of reactions. Older children also are at 

risk of emotional trauma because they are more likely 

to be cross-examined aggressively by attorneys. For 

these reasons, children should not be called to testify, 

particularly against parents or relatives, unless the 

children’s testimony is essential to proving critical 

allegations of the petitions or if the children want and 

need to testify for their own emotional well-being. 

Th e Decision To Call a Child To Testify

Most child abuse or neglect cases can be proved by 

the testimony of other witnesses or by demonstrative 

or documentary evidence. In some cases, however, 

the child’s testimony may be the only evidence. Th is 

is especially true of some sexual abuse cases. 

Th e decision to call a child to testify should be made 

by CPS and its attorney, in consultation with the 

advocates and any therapists for the child. Th ey need 

to weigh carefully the potential benefi ts of the child’s 

testimony against the potential harm, both to the 

child from testifying and to the child, other family 

members, and the community if the charge is not 

proven. 

Some CPS attorneys may not be sensitive to how a 

child can be aff ected by testifying. Consequently, the 

CPS caseworker (perhaps with the child’s advocate and 

therapist) should be prepared to assert any concerns 

when deciding whether to call the child as a witness. 

It is critical that children never be put in a position of 

giving testimony against a parent or other caretaker 

unless they can be safeguarded against retaliation.
 58 Going to Court

Every witness needs to be competent, which means 

that the witness must know the diff erence between 

the truth and a lie; appreciate the necessity of telling 

the truth; and be capable of observing, remembering, 

and describing events about which the witness will 

testify. Th is is a component of the voir dire process, 

a preliminary examination to determine competency 

of a witness or absence of bias of a juror. Under 

Federal law and that of many States, all witnesses 

are presumed competent, but some States have more 

restrictive requirements. If the issue is raised, the 

lawyers and judge may question the child to determine 

competency. 

Younger children are more likely to not be allowed 

to testify due to lack of competency. Th us, age is a 

signifi cant factor in determining whether to call a child 

as a witness. Th e reliability and credibility of children’s 

testimony has been the subject of much research, some 

of it contradictory. It can be summarized by saying 

that younger children are able to recall events less 

accurately and are more susceptible to suggestion.60 A 

recommended approach for assessing children’s ability 

to tell the truth is presented in Exhibit 7-1.

Credibility of a Child’s Testimony

Decisions about children’s credibility will depend 

mostly on their demeanor and the convincing force 

of their testimony. Other factors considered include 

whether the child’s testimony is consistent with earlier 

statements or with any other credible evidence. Th e 

court also will be interested to know if there is any 

indication that the child has been coached or that 

the story is the result of intentional or unintentional 

infl uence by a parent, CPS, law enforcement, medical 

professionals, or others. 

Care must be taken by all interviewers never to ask 

leading questions regarding possible abuse or neglect. 

Leading questions are those that suggest an answer, 

for example, “Didn’t he grab your mother by the neck 

with his hands and choke her?” as opposed to “What 

did he do?” Any indication that the child’s testimony 

may be the result of such suggestive questioning will 

undermine its credibility. 

Likewise, repeated questioning of the child by the same 

or multiple persons, including professionals, about 

any abuse or neglect also will undermine credibility. 

CPS should have specially trained interviewers for 

children. CPS administrators are encouraged to 

develop protocols with police, prosecutors, medical 

personnel, and mental health treatment providers 

that minimize the number of interviews to which a 

child is subjected. Ideally, there should be only one 

interview, and it should occur in a safe, child-friendly 

environment. Th e interview should be videotaped to 

reduce the likelihood of subsequent interviews and 

to demonstrate that the interview was conducted 

appropriately. 

Supporting Child Witnesses in the Courtroom

Supportive measures for young witnesses in child 

maltreatment proceedings might include videotaping 

depositions or allowing the child to speak to the judge 

in chambers, a common practice in child custody 

cases. Some States have relaxed hearsay rules for the 

statements of child witnesses and are more lenient 

in allowing leading questions of children.61 When 

a child needs to testify, the CPS caseworker must 

decide whether utilizing one of these measures would 

benefi t the child and facilitate the testimony. If so, 

the caseworker should confer with the CPS attorney 

Th e National Children’s Advocacy Center

Th e National Children’s Advocacy Center supports a network of community-based facilities that use a 

multidisciplinary team approach to respond to child abuse. Th e center is a resource for information about 

how to best conduct interviews of child victims and how to establish a model program. See Appendix 

B, Resource Listings of Selected National Organizations Concerned With Child Maltreatment, for more 

information on the National Children’s Advocacy Center, or go to http://www.nationalcac.org. 
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 59

in advance of the trial to fi le the necessary motions, 

to develop the required supporting evidence, and to 

make arrangements for whatever equipment may be 

required if the motion is granted. 

Taking frequent breaks and making the setting less 

formal are other measures a court can take to make 

children more comfortable in the courtroom and to 

facilitate their testimony. Th e judges can come off the 

bench, sit at the same level as the children and other 

participants, or not wear judicial robes. Some casual 

conversation with children can help relax them, as 

will excluding unnecessary participants from the 

courtroom. Permitting very young children to sit on 

the lap of a support person while testifying is another 

possibility. Some judges will take or authorize these 

Exhibit 7-1

Assessing Younger Children’s Ability or Willingness To Tell the Truth

• Begin the inquiry by establishing a rapport with the child. For example, ask about her age or favorite 

activity. Use this information to guide the inquiry.

• Ask the child the following:

What does it mean to tell the truth?

Why do you tell the truth? Is it important to tell the truth? Why?

What happens when you tell the truth?

What is a lie?

What have you told a lie about or when have you not told the truth?

What happens when you lie or do not tell the truth?

Are there times when it is OK to lie or not tell the truth? When?

• Using information provided by the child, ask questions and reframe the child’s comments to assess her 

ability to discern the diff erence between a truth or a lie, as well as her willingness to tell the truth or to 

correct inaccurate information.

For example, if the child said she was 5 years old, begin the inquiry with “So, you’re 7 years old?” 

Assess if the child will correct the inaccurate statement. If the child agrees, respond by saying, 

“Oh, I thought you told me earlier that you were 5 years old?” Frequently, children will confi rm 

their original answer. 

In this situation, ask the child if the statement that she is 7 years old is a lie or the truth. Explain 

to the child that if information is not correct, you want them to provide the truth or correct 

answer and that they must be sure to do this in any situation, including court testimony.

Another example would be, if the interviewer is wearing black shoes, to ask the child, “If I told you 

my shoes were yellow, would that be the truth or a lie?” Alternatively, “If I told you that my shoes 

were black, would that be the truth or a lie?”

• Proceed with similar questions or statements that will help with the assessment. 

• Conclude the inquiry by praising the child for his participation and affi rmative answers. Stress the 

importance of telling the truth in court.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

•

•

–
 60 Going to Court

measures on their own initiative, while others may 

need to be asked or encouraged to do so. 

A child witness should not enter the courtroom until 

it is time to testify and should be prepared in advance 

for that moment and what will happen after. Th ere 

will be people present in the courtroom whom the 

child has never seen, often including an armed bailiff . 

Th e child will be the center of attention, which may 

create or heighten anxiety or fear. CPS caseworkers 

(or the CPS agency attorney) should do what they 

can to prepare the child for this experience. At 

minimum, preparation should include visiting the 

courtroom when it is not in use, practicing being 

sworn in, sitting in the witness stand and answering 

questions (unrelated to the case), speaking into the 

microphone, and seeing the view from the bench. 

Tell the child who will be present, and point out 

where each of those individuals will sit. 

Th e CPS caseworker or attorney should familiarize 

the child with the court process, including:

Explaining that diff erent lawyers will ask questions 

and giving examples; 

Describing objections and explaining how the 

child should wait until the judge rules on them;

Explaining the terms “sustained” and 

“overruled;” 

Role playing the competency inquiry (without 

telling the child the answers); 

Arranging for the child to meet with the CPS 

attorney (if this meeting has not yet occurred) 

and assisting the attorney and child so that they 

may interact comfortably. 

While it is inappropriate to remind a child what 

to say or otherwise attempt to infl uence the child’s 

testimony, it may be appropriate for the caseworker 

and attorney to review with the child any videotaped, 

audiotaped, or written statement that may have been 

made. 

•

•

•

•

•

Th e advocates are particularly helpful allies in cases 

where children will testify. Th e GAL or CASA often 

may have a closer personal relationship with the child 

than others involved in the case and be in a better 

position to facilitate the child’s ability to testify 

eff ectively. 

Standards for Testifying by Alternative Means

Many States have passed laws regarding child 

witnesses in the courtroom. Th ese laws focus 

primarily on protecting a child from having to testify 

in the presence of the alleged abuser. One protective 

measure is the use of closed-circuit television in which 

the child’s testimony is broadcast into the courtroom 

where the judge, jury, and defendant can see and hear 

what the child says. Th e lawyers are present with the 

child, and the defendant’s lawyers can cross-examine 

the child while communicating privately with their 

client. Th is approach will be deemed constitutional 

regarding the right to face one’s accuser, provided 

there is suffi cient evidence for the judge to fi nd that 

the child would be signifi cantly traumatized by the 

presence of the defendant and, thus, unable to testify.62

Expert testimony may be necessary to establish the 

basis for a request to protect a child in this way.

Th e most signifi cant recent development regarding 

the testimony of child witnesses is the adoption of 

the Uniform Child Witness Testimony by Alternative 

Methods Act, drafted by the National Conference of 

Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and approved 

and recommended for enactment in all States.63 In 

2003, the American Bar Association approved the 

law. At the time of this manual’s publication, three 

States had adopted it, and two more had legislation 

pending.64 Th e Act applies to children under 13 

years of age and to both criminal (including juvenile 

delinquency) and noncriminal proceedings. It 

establishes standards for determining whether a child 

witness may testify by alternative means.65

Th e Act also prescribes the content of the court’s 

order and requires a full and fair opportunity to crossexamine the child witness. It does not dictate the 
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 61

alternative methods for receiving a child’s testimony, 

but strongly suggests that only two current practices 

are likely to satisfy all provisions of the Act: closedcircuit television and courtroom arrangements that 

avoid direct confrontation between a witness and a 

particular party or the fi nder of fact.67 See Exhibit 

7-2 for more information about the Act. 

JUDGES’ EXPECTATIONS OF CHILD PROTECTIVE

SERVICES CASEWORKERS

Judges and CPS caseworkers generally do not 

have routine, direct contact with one another. 

Communication typically occurs in the courtroom and 

often is transmitted via CPS or the parents’ attorneys. 

Judges may ask a question or make a request directly 

to caseworkers, but there is limited opportunity for 

Exhibit 7-2

Child Testimony

In noncriminal proceedings, such as child maltreatment cases, standards for child testimony are less 

rigorous. Th ese diff erences are best demonstrated by reference to Section 5 of the Uniform Child Witness 

Testimony by Alternative Methods Act, entitled Standards for Determining Whether Child Witness May 

Testify by Alternative Method, which states: 

(a) In a criminal proceeding, the presiding offi cer may allow a child witness to testify by an alternative 

method only in the following situations: 

1. Th e child may testify otherwise than in an open forum in the presence and full view of the fi nder 

of fact if the presiding offi cer fi nds by clear and convincing evidence that the child would suff er 

serious emotional trauma that would substantially impair the child’s ability to communicate 

with the fi nder of fact if required to testify in the open forum.

2. Th e child may testify other than face-to-face with the defendant if the presiding offi cer fi nds by 

clear and convincing evidence that the child would suff er serious emotional trauma that would 

substantially impair the child’s ability to communicate with the fi nder of fact if required to be 

confronted face-to-face by the defendant.

(b) In a noncriminal proceeding, the presiding offi cer may allow a child witness to testify by an 

alternative method if the presiding offi cer fi nds by a preponderance of the evidence that allowing the 

child to testify by an alternative method is necessary to serve the best interests of the child or enable 

the child to communicate with the fi nder of fact. In making this fi nding, the presiding offi cer shall 

consider:

1. Th e nature of the proceeding; 

2. Th e age and maturity of the child;

3. Th e relationship of the child to the parties in the proceeding; 

a. Th e nature and degree of emotional trauma that the child may suff er in testifying; 

Any other relevant factor, such as developmental delays.66
 62 Going to Court

caseworkers to become familiar with them. Many 

judges, however, are receptive to enhancing their 

relationships and to ensuring a positive experience 

for individuals who appear in their courtroom. CPS 

caseworkers can improve these relationships through 

improved awareness of courtroom rules, procedures, 

expectations, and the personalities of those involved.

Judges expect that CPS caseworkers will successfully:

Engage clients in the court process;

Work eff ectively with others;

Arrive on time;

Know the law and follow court rules;

Prepare appropriate court orders.

Fulfi lling these expectations, as described below, will 

help improve caseworkers’ court experiences.

Engaging Clients in the Court Process

Th e foundation for eff ective casework is the

relationship between the caseworker and the 

client. Some clients are less appealing than others 

or are more diffi cult to engage. Some caseworkers’ 

experiences or personalities equip them to perform 

this aspect of the work better than others. Regardless 

of these variables, engaging clients at the outset is 

one of the keys to successful outcomes and requires 

sincerely communicating concern for them and their 

children as well as a desire that the family be together. 

Caseworkers should be empathetic and sensitive 

to clients’ feelings and needs and should take an 

approach that identifi es the specifi c strengths of each 

client and that tailors interventions to those strengths. 

Caseworkers also should engage parents as a means of 

encouraging, motivating, and inspiring them to take 

the necessary steps to retain or to regain custody of 

their children. Caseworkers who experience the most 

success with families are the ones who work most 

eff ectively with parents. Insightful judges recognize 

this quality in caseworkers and value the results it 

produces.

•

•

•

•

•

Communication with the clients must be direct, 

honest, and unambiguous to avoid any 

misunderstanding of important information, 

including conveying possible case outcomes. Before 

the hearing, an explanation of the court process will 

give the parents some idea of what to expect. After 

the hearing, the caseworker should help parents 

understand key decisions, reinforce the outcome and 

expectations, and answer questions. Parents often leave 

the courtroom not knowing what happened or why, 

what will happen next, or what is expected of them. 

It is easy for those who are familiar with the court 

hearings, the terminology, and the consequences of a 

judge’s decisions to forget how foreign the experience 

may be to others. 

Most States require case and service plans to be 

incorporated into the court records for the judge 

to determine if they meet requirements regarding 

services and reunifi cation eff orts. In fact, discussion of 

the agency’s actions and the parents’ progress toward 

their goals comprises the largest part of the hearings. 

During testimony and in the documents, caseworkers 

should focus on the most serious issues that must be 

resolved to achieve reunifi cation. (See Chapter 4, Th e 

Juvenile Court Process, for more information about 

developing case plans.) Since the judge often will ask 

how the caseworker dealt with these issues, it should 

be documented that the caseworker: 

Made clear what the client needs to change and 

how; 

Identifi ed and built on the clients’ strengths and 

those of the extended family;

Off ered whatever services and resources were 

needed;

Rewarded the clients’ successes and encouraged 

further progress;

Advocated for the client with CPS supervisors, 

service providers, and the court; 

•

•

•

•

•
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 63

Took care not to demand more of clients than was 

realistically possible due to limitations of time, 

transportation, resources, other responsibilities, 

or innate abilities. 

Working Eff ectively With Others

Another critical skill for caseworkers is the ability 

to establish good working relationships with others, 

including service providers, throughout the legal 

process. Some communities have multidisciplinary 

team meetings to discuss cases, particularly complex 

ones, which may involve experts who have no direct 

involvement with the case. Other communities 

commonly have “staffi ngs” at which all service 

providers and those involved in the court process 

meet to discuss a case and to strategize ways to address 

the needs presented. 

Whether or not these structures are in place, resolving 

child maltreatment cases successfully almost invariably 

involves a team approach, with the caseworker both 

the coach and a key member of the team. Success 

often will depend on the caseworker’s collaboration 

skills or ability to cooperate with the other team 

members, particularly the child’s advocates and the 

parents’ attorneys. Working eff ectively means:

Treating the other team members with respect;

Involving them in identifying the issues the case 

presents;

Th inking collectively about how to resolve those 

issues;

Sharing information;

Communicating about new developments as 

they arise. 

Establishing good working relationships within the 

team is more likely to result in positive case outcomes. 

As working relationships become more eff ective, 

confl icts will be less likely, and future interactions 

in other cases will be more constructive. Judges 

appreciate the eff orts of caseworkers who facilitate 

•

•

•

•

•

•

constructive interactions and who achieve consensus 

about the course of cases. 

In some cases, service providers may have to testify 

about the services and the families; therefore, it 

is important for caseworkers to establish good 

relationships with them. Judges may have questions 

for the caseworker about the service providers, so 

caseworkers will want to make personal contacts 

with them to understand what they do, whom they 

serve, and their criteria for providing services and to 

determine the quality of their work. Service providers 

also should be participants in team discussions about 

the case. 

Similarly, a good relationship between CPS and 

the public mental health agency is important. 

Unfortunately, this relationship can be acrimonious 

in many communities. If CPS depends on the mental 

health agency to perform evaluations or to provide 

treatment or placements, including hospitalization, 

CPS should take the initiative to establish a good 

working relationship between the two agencies. 

Defi ning each agency’s responsibilities, setting 

timelines for completion of evaluations or other tasks, 

and establishing lines of communication for sharing 

information are just a few of the issues that need to be 

addressed. Discussion of these issues should involve 

the heads of each agency and the court. Individual 

caseworkers, however, can contribute to this process 

by identifying problems that arise between the 

agencies in specifi c cases and documenting how 

those problems aff ected the child or CPS’s ability to 

comply with timelines established by the Adoption 

and Safe Families Act (ASFA) (P.L. 105–89). Sharing 

that information with supervisors might lead to the 

initiation of a process to improve communication 

and cooperation between the agencies. In the 

absence of such a process, the relationship between 

the caseworker and a mental health counterpart can 

produce good results, even in a fl awed system. Th e 

ability to access quality services on a timely basis 

distinguishes caseworkers in the eyes of judges.
 64 Going to Court

Arriving on Time

Some judges are habitually late, while others are 

always on time. All of them, however, will expect 

timeliness from caseworkers in the performance of 

their duties, including:

Attending court hearings;

Filing court reports;

Following up on the requirements of court 

orders;

Transferring cases between caseworkers;

Keeping cases on track for resolution within the 

ASFA timelines. 

Knowing the Law and Following Court Rules

Agency and court practices and procedures in child 

maltreatment cases must comply with Federal and 

State laws. It is essential, therefore, that caseworkers 

have good knowledge and understanding of the key 

principles, mandates, and purposes of these laws. 

Many courts have rules governing the fi ling of court 

reports, discovery, distribution of experts’ evaluations, 

continuances or postponements, notice of placement 

changes, notice of hearings, and conduct of hearings. 

Caseworkers will be expected to know these rules and 

•

•

•

•

•

to abide by them. Th ey also should expect others in 

the process to do likewise and, when they do not, 

should notify the CPS attorney. 

Preparing Court Orders

Court orders in child maltreatment cases should 

be prepared at the conclusion of the hearings, then 

distributed to the parties and other participants. Th ey 

are more accurate and complete if written or dictated 

while the court’s decisions and directives are fresh in 

the minds of all participants. Any disagreements or 

misunderstandings can be resolved immediately, and 

the parents can depart with a written statement of the 

court’s expectations of them and of CPS. 

Orders need to be clear and easy to understand. Th e 

use of forms is essential, and a clerk, a lawyer, or the 

judge can complete them. For ease of understanding 

and distribution of suffi cient copies, it is preferable 

that they be prepared on a computer and printer 

in the courtroom. Objections to this approach are 

based on the time it takes to discuss and prepare the 

orders. Nevertheless, it will save time that often is 

spent debating and clarifying what the court ordered. 

Lack of technology may be an impediment in some 

courts, so this approach to order preparation is not 

yet common. Where it is implemented, it contributes 

signifi cantly to improved understanding and 

outcomes. CPS can encourage courts, and perhaps 

assist them with necessary hardware, to implement 

this practice. 
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 65

J

ust as judges have power to initiate improvements 

in court practice and performance, they also can be 

formidable roadblocks to such improvements. Some 

judges may be intentional in their determination to 

continue operating in familiar ways; others simply 

may be unaware of alternatives, their power to make 

changes, or the resources that are available to inform 

and to support eff orts to improve court operations. 

Th e ability of child protective services (CPS) and of 

individual caseworkers to improve the court process 

depends on their understanding judges and knowing 

how to work with them, to support them, and to 

provide them with the information and tools they 

need to do their job better. Th is chapter deals with 

measures agencies and individual caseworkers can 

pursue. 

UNDERSTANDING JUDGES

Almost all judges are lawyers. Most are politicians 

who had to win election or were appointed through a 

process that was at least partly political. Judges vary 

widely in terms of their values, experience, intelligence, 

skills, knowledge, work ethic, receptivity to change, 

and personalities, but like other lawyers, many tend to 

be analytical thinkers. Judges focus on facts and look 

for cases that are presented, or problems addressed, in 

logical progression. Th ey expect witnesses to answer 

questions directly, and they want people who testify 

or make oral presentations to “get to the point” and to 

express themselves succinctly. Most are practical and 

decisive, and nearly all are impatient to some degree, 

particularly with delays, poor performance, dramatic 

behavior, and excessive detail. 

Judges’ personalities are revealed over time, as are 

their work habits, knowledge, skills, commitment to 

doing the work well, and their proclivities regarding 

particular issues or circumstances. Caseworkers who 

appear regularly in the juvenile court will learn quickly 

which judges are the easiest and hardest to work with 

and which ones are most likely to be receptive to 

improving court practice.

In some States, judges are elected or appointed to 

the juvenile court bench and sit only in that court. 

In most States, however, the juvenile court is part 

of a larger court system. In these jurisdictions, 

judges occasionally may remain in the juvenile court 

assignment for extended periods of time, but the 

most common practice is for judges to be assigned 

to that court on a periodic rotation. Th e length of 

the assignment may vary from as little as 1 day to 

as much as a few years. Generally, 3 to 5 years is 

considered optimal because it takes time to learn 

about the laws governing the court’s proceedings; the 

complexities and dynamics of child maltreatment; 

the availability and quality of the services, resources, 

and interventions at the court’s disposal; the 

administrative responsibilities of the role; and the 

myriad professionals who appear before the court.68

CHAPTER 8

Working with the Courts
 66 Working with the Courts

Th is is particularly true for the majority of judges who 

had no juvenile court experience as lawyers. 

Ideally, judges and judicial offi cers will be assigned 

to the juvenile court only after substantial training 

on the unique responsibilities of a judge in that 

court, the problems and needs of the court’s clientele, 

and the human services systems on which it relies. 

Court improvements are less likely to occur without 

the leadership and the support of a knowledgeable 

and experienced judge. Indeed, some States have 

extensive training programs for both new and 

experienced juvenile court judges and formal 

certifi cation procedures to ensure that they are wellprepared for the diffi cult work of that court. Much 

of the knowledge that juvenile court judges acquire, 

however, is gained by sitting in the juvenile court on a 

consistent basis over a signifi cant period of time. 

WHAT CASEWORKERS CAN DO TO EFFECT

CHANGE IN THE COURT

CPS caseworkers who practice in a court that has 

good judicial leadership are encouraged to fi nd ways 

to participate in the collaborative eff orts underway 

in the work of that court. Doing so will enhance 

their knowledge and enrich their work experience. 

Of course, some judges are friendlier and more 

approachable than others, and some will be more 

receptive to suggestions than others. Judges are 

more likely to respond to an individual caseworker’s 

suggestion if the caseworker has established credibility 

and earned the judge’s respect by the quality of her 

performance in individual cases. Some judges also may 

respond more favorably if approached by a caseworker 

who is accompanied by a child’s advocate or a parent’s 

attorney, so the caseworker is not suspected of seeking 

favored treatment. 

Interacting and Building Positive Working 

Relationships With Judges 

In taking steps to build positive working relationships 

with judges, CPS caseworkers can:

Introduce themselves to the judge at each court 

appearance or other encounter;

Speak and write as clearly and plainly as 

possible; 

Be concise and to the point; 

Learn as much as possible about the judge’s 

tendencies, personality, and likes and dislikes and 

be guided by that knowledge; 

Determine the history of the judge’s interactions 

with CPS and how it may aff ect the judge’s 

handling of particular issues or dealings with 

caseworkers; 

Build relationships with clerks, bailiff s, and court 

reporters; 

•

•

•

•

•

•

Judicial Training Programs

Numerous training programs for juvenile court judges who hear child maltreatment cases are available at 

various locations through the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) and other 

legal, judicial, and social services organizations. Judges who are interested in improving court practices 

and their own knowledge and skills can be referred to those organizations or to a nearby lead judge in one 

of the 25 NCJFCJ model court sites across the country. NCJFCJ, the National Center for State Courts, 

the American Bar Association’s Center on Children and the Law, the National Association of Counsel for 

Children, and the Youth Law Center also are excellent sources of information about child maltreatment 

litigation. (See Appendix B, Resource Listings of Selected National Organizations Concerned With Child 

Maltreatment, for more information on these organizations.)
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 67

Follow local practices and protocols regarding 

appropriate dress for the courtroom, for addressing 

the court, and for approaching the bench; 

Be polite and respectful, but when the opportunity 

presents itself, do not hesitate to assert strongly 

held opinions about what the judge should order 

or decide in regard to a case; 

Not display emotion, especially anger or disdain, 

if the judge makes a decision with which CPS or 

the caseworker disagrees.

Eff ecting Change in the Court

Judges often are perceived as omnipotent, and the 

idea that CPS, much less an individual caseworker, 

could infl uence them to change practice may seem 

fanciful. Indeed, some judges are impervious to 

change, regardless of the source of the suggestion 

or the pressure to do so. Many others, however, 

understand that good outcomes in child maltreatment 

cases require the cooperative eff orts of CPS, service 

providers, and the court. In several urban and 

small communities, judges meet regularly with CPS 

representatives to improve procedures, policies, and 

practices, and to enhance services. Th e State Court 

Improvement Program and the National Council of 

Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) Model 

Court Project have contributed to this development. 

(See Chapter 9, Court Improvement and Best Practices, 

for more information on these important initiatives.)

For those child maltreatment courts that lack strong 

judicial leadership, the following list off ers suggestions 

for informing and motivating promising juvenile 

court judges to take leadership in constructive ways:

Provide information about particular “best 

practices” that could constitute signifi cant 

improvement in how the court operates. Off er to 

help plan and implement the practice locally or 

to set up a meeting of stakeholders to discuss it.

Invite the judge to make a presentation at a 

training for CPS caseworkers on a topic that the 

•

•

•

•

•

judge knows well. Preparing a presentation can 

be a good learning experience, particularly if the 

judge is provided with good resource materials 

for that purpose.

Recognize the judge’s accomplishments in some 

way that does not appear to be currying favor 

but, instead, may be motivational. Joining with 

child and parent advocates for this purpose would 

lessen any appearance of impropriety. A Child 

Abuse Prevention Month event might be a good 

opportunity to honor a judge. 

Devise a strategy for motivating the judge to 

endorse the development of a mission and goals 

statement by a multidisciplinary group if the 

court has none. Do the same if the court has no 

rules that govern procedures or if they need to be 

updated. 

Suggest the development of model templates 

for court reports, reports on reasonable eff orts, 

mental health assessment referrals, child support 

referrals, and other common forms.

Invite a judge on a ride-along to observe the 

realities of being a CPS caseworker on the 

frontline. Th e judge should not be assigned to a 

case resulting from anyone or anything observed 

during the ride-along.

Make the judge aware of caseload demands, time 

constraints, and resource and service defi cits.

Ask judges to support CPS’s budget request in 

States where judges are not precluded from such 

activities.

Suggest a training event and secure the judge’s 

endorsement. Invite the judge to help plan it, 

and elicit the judge’s suggestions for topics. Ask 

the judge to make a presentation, and involve a 

multidisciplinary group to design the training, 

secure presenters, and arrange for a site. NCJFCJ 

and the American Bar Association (ABA) Center 

on Children and the Law (and its National Child 

Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
 68 Working with the Courts

Issues at http://www.abanet.org/child/rclji/

home.html) are able to provide quality training 

on a variety of topics at no charge to State or local 

forums.

Encourage State judicial educators to address 

topics of particular importance at their periodic 

judicial training events and then encourage a 

local judge to attend.

Keep informed of local, State, and national grant 

opportunities. Th e State Court Improvement 

Program is perhaps the best such opportunity. 

Collaborating on a grant application can be a 

very good learning experience that promotes 

understanding and strengthens working 

relationships, even if a grant is not awarded.

Suggest that an ad hoc, multidisciplinary 

committee be formed to consider implementation 

of some of the recommendations of:

Emerging Practices in the Prevention of 

Child Abuse and Neglect at http://www.

childwelfare.gov/preventing/programs/

whatworks/report/index.cfm;

Adoption and Permanency Guidelines: 

Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and 

Neglect Cases at www.ncjfcj.org or http://

www.pppncjfcj.org; 

Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice 

in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases at http://

www.pppncjfcj.org/html/publications.

html.

About the Pew Commission on Children in 

Foster Care at http://pewfostercare.org/

about.

Promote the creation of a multidisciplinary child 

abuse and neglect committee that can identify 

problems and devise and implement solutions.

Identify needed, but insuffi cient or nonexistent, 

services and enlist the judge’s assistance in 

securing or developing them. Examples might be 

a visitation center, a program for child observers 

•

•

•

–

–

–

–

•

•

of domestic violence, or a parenting course 

specifi cally for fathers with a history of violence 

toward their child’s mother. 

Provide the court with periodic reports on the 

status of its cases. 

Some of these suggestions may be undertaken 

by individual caseworkers; others may require 

involvement by CPS lawyers or administrators, 

depending on the size of the community and the 

culture of the court and CPS. 

CPS caseworkers also may direct judges to valuable 

resources. For example, they can provide the judge 

with literature regarding judicial training from the 

NCJFCJ, the ABA Center on Children and the 

Law, the National Center for State Courts, and the 

National Association of Counsel for Children. 

Similarly, caseworkers may refer judges who 

are interested in improving court practices and 

enhancing their own knowledge and skills to the 

above-referenced organizations for publications and 

technical assistance. Th ey also can be referred for 

technical assistance to a nearby lead judge in one of 

the 25 model court sites across the country or to a 

State Court Improvement Project judge who has 

eff ectively addressed particular issues. Other valuable 

sources of training, information, and technical 

assistance sponsored by the Children’s Bureau are 

the eight National Resource Centers, including one 

on legal and judicial issues, two clearinghouses, and 

four Technical Assistance Support Systems. (See 

Appendix B, Resource Listings of Selected National 

Organizations Concerned with Child Maltreatment, for 

more information on these organizations.) 

Working With Problem Judges

Unfortunately, there are judges who are verbally 

abusive; unreasonably demanding; habitually late 

starting court, preparing orders, or reading reports; 

biased; or incompetent. If a pattern of any of these 

behaviors or some other signifi cant defi cit is identifi ed 

in multiple cases by more than one caseworker, 

•
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 69

the caseworker or CPS should not feel powerless. 

Caseworkers should request assistance from CPS 

administrators and attorneys when confronting 

challenging judges. Actions that can be taken to 

address such problem behaviors include:

Asking the CPS attorney, supervisor, or 

administrator to speak to the judge on behalf 

of CPS or the caseworkers or to fi le a complaint 

with the State’s Judicial Standards Commission, 

depending on the nature of the problem 

behavior;

•

Speaking out in any reappointment, retention, 

or re-election process in which the judge must 

participate, as well as identifying and encouraging 

alternative candidates. Joining with children’s 

advocates or parents’ attorneys would make these 

suggested actions more credible than if they come 

just from CPS.69 

Th ere is the risk with each of these strategies, 

however, that nothing will change and that the judge 

will be vindictive toward CPS or the caseworkers. 

Legitimate complaints must nevertheless be voiced 

because it is quite common for problem judges to be 

reassigned or not to be retained or re-elected when 

well-documented grievances are made known to 

authorities or the public. 

•

Working with the Courts in Child Protection 71

An integrated and comprehensive approach to 

the complex problems of families involved 

with child protective services (CPS) and the courts 

is critical to achieving safety and permanency for 

children. Evolving Federal child welfare legislation 

has prompted CPS and the courts to implement 

innovative policy and programmatic changes. Th us, 

the pioneering eff orts of court and child advocates 

have created a variety of inventive practices focused 

on accomplishing positive outcomes for families. 

Th is chapter provides an overview of the Child and 

Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) and the courts 

and information about best practices and model 

court programs existing throughout the country. It 

also provides information about the importance of 

judicial leadership in improving court practice.

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEWS AND

THE COURTS

Th e Federal CFSR process is a results-oriented, 

comprehensive monitoring and review system designed 

to assist States in improving safety, permanency, and 

well-being outcomes for children and families who 

come into contact with the nation’s public child 

welfare systems.70 Fiscal sanctions may result from 

failure to meet the measures of the CFSRs, but it is 

the State’s desire to improve practice and outcomes 

for the nation’s most vulnerable children that has 

motivated States to work on comprehensive Program 

Improvement Plans (PIP) to correct the weaknesses 

and gaps identifi ed in the CFSR.71

Although CPS and related child welfare agencies are 

the primary focus of the CFSR and PIP, there is a 

clear need for collaboration with the courts for the 

following reasons:

CPS performance depends, in part, on its 

relationship with the courts and on court 

performance; 

CPS can use the legal system to learn how 

to overcome legal barriers that diminish its 

performance; 

CPS and the courts have mutual goals for 

achieving child welfare outcomes, especially in 

the area of achieving permanency; 

Court reform requires CPS and other key 

stakeholders’ involvement;

CPS has an interest in ensuring that the courts 

carry out PIP goals.72

Th e CSFRs evaluate CPS performance based partly 

on how well it works with the courts and other 

agencies to achieve child welfare outcomes, such 

as the time in care until adoption or reunifi cation. 

CPS collaboration with the courts also may help 

overcome or mitigate court-related barriers to 

achieving CFSR outcomes. For instance, courts may 

provide CPS with strategies to work with Federal and 

•

•

•

•

•

CHAPTER 9

Court Improvement

and Best Practices
 72 Court Improvement and Best Practices

State confi dentiality requirements in order to obtain 

complete information about an abused child’s family, 

which may result in an improved safety outcome for 

the child.73 Th e roles of CPS and the courts and their 

methods for achieving these mutual goals are most 

effi cient and productive when a uniform, long-range 

plan and a cooperative relationship are established.74 

Additionally, each State’s Court Improvement Program 

(CIP) (discussed later in the chapter) is expected to 

help achieve PIP goals.75 Th e juvenile and family 

courts cannot eff ectively perform their child welfare 

responsibilities in isolation; CPS participation is an 

essential part of court reform. Specifi c improvements, 

such as strengthening case management and 

information systems for recording a child’s court and 

placement history, require collaboration.76

Using the CFSRs as a catalyst, CPS can either initiate 

or improve upon an already existing collaborative 

relationship with the State juvenile and family courts 

in several ways, including: 

Research other States’ CFSR processes, including 

how they collaborate with their legal system to 

improve their CFSR performance;

Consider all legal and judicial issues suggested by 

the CFSR performance indicators, which can be 

prepared with the aid of the State’s legal system; 

Invite the juvenile and family court judges and 

legal professionals to participate in meetings to 

plan and to organize the State’s CFSR process;

Explain the importance of the CFSR to juvenile 

and family court judges and legal professionals 

and persuade them to participate in the CFSR 

process;

Include juvenile and family court judges and legal 

professionals in PIP development;

•

•

•

•

•

Explain to the court, legislature, and caseworkers 

what resources are required for successful 

development and implementation of the PIP.77

Once CPS and the courts begin working together, 

they can tackle systemic problems aff ecting child 

safety, well-being, and permanency more effi ciently. 

Th e agency can suggest improvements that may help 

courts make better decisions for children, such as:

Improving agency court reports and testimony;

Upgrading legal representation of the agency;

Assisting judges to implement the Adoption and 

Safe Families Act (ASFA) and its regulations;

Helping courts obtain better performance data or 

providing them with helpful data;

Getting caseworkers to attend court hearings 

more consistently;

Working together to improve court resources;

Improving State law to ensure better and timelier 

services for families, thereby making it easier for 

judges to deliver timely decisions.78 

Th ese changes could help eliminate barriers the courts 

face, such as insuffi cient information, the length of 

time needed to resolve permanency issues, slow 

progress in cases, and obstacles to timely termination 

of parental rights. Th eir implementation can aid 

both the courts and the agencies in achieving better 

outcomes for children and families.79 For more on 

how and why agencies should work with the courts, 

see Appendix E, Legal and Judicial Issues Suggested 

by the Child and Family Services Review Performance 

Indicators.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 73

Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care

Th e Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care was established to develop recommendations to improve 

outcomes for children in the foster care system. Of primary importance are expediting the movement 

of children from foster care into safe, permanent, and nurturing families and preventing unnecessary 

placements in foster care.80 Th e Commission recognized that while dependency courts and child welfare 

agencies both work to protect children, too often they work in isolation. To address these problems, 

the Commission released a set of recommendations focused on reforming Federal fi nancing and court 

oversight of foster care, including court and agency collaboration.81

Several key recommendations highlighted the need for eff ective collaboration to promote the protection 

and well-being of children:

Th e U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should require that the State IV-E plans, 

PIPs, and CIPs demonstrate eff ective collaboration;

HHS should require States to establish commissions on children in foster care, ideally co-directed by the 

State’s child welfare agency director and Chief Justice;

Congress should appropriate $10 million to train court personnel, a portion of which should be used for 

joint training of child welfare agency staff and court personnel;

Local and State courts and agencies should collaborate and plan for the collection and sharing of all 

relevant data and information that can aid in making better decisions and creating better outcomes for 

children.82

Th e Commission’s report states, “Collaboration should recognize that the children and families involved 

with the child welfare system are often simultaneously engaged with other community agencies and 

services—schools, health care, mental health, child care, and others. Children and families are better 

served when these multiple community partners come together on their behalf.” 83 Following their 

release, a number of national and State child welfare organizations and judicial entities issued resolutions 

supporting the recommendations. Th ese organizations and entities included the National Council of 

Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State 

Court Administrators, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, the Judicial Council of 

California, and the Texas Supreme Court Task Force on Foster Care.84 

•

•

•

•

For additional information about CFSRs, go to the Children’s Bureau website at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/

programs/cb/cwrp/index.htm. For more information about CPS and court collaboration related to CFSRs, 

visit the National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues at http://www.abanet.org/

child/courtimp.html and http://www.abanet.org/child/rclji/online.html. 
 74 Court Improvement and Best Practices

New CIP Grants87

In the Defi cit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), Congress expanded the CIP to authorize two new grants. 

Th e new grants include: 

A data collection and analysis grant to help ensure that foster children’s needs for safety, permanency, and 

well-being are met in a timely and complete manner; 

A grant for training judges, attorneys, and other legal personnel in child welfare cases and conducting 

cross-training with child welfare agency staff and contractors. 

Th ese new grants are authorized for $10 million each for fi ve years. 

Th e DRA also establishes the following important new collaboration requirements for both State courts 

and child welfare agencies: 

Th e law requires State court applicants to include in their applications for all three CIP grants a 

demonstration of meaningful and ongoing collaboration among the courts in the State, the State child 

welfare agency (or any other agency with which the State contracts to administer Titles IV-B or IV-E), 

and, where applicable, Indian Tribes. 

Th e law adds a Title IV-B State plan requirement for the State or Tribal child welfare agency to 

demonstrate substantial, ongoing, and meaningful collaboration with State courts in the development 

and implementation of its State plans under Titles IV-B and IV-E, as well as PIPs developed as a result 

of the Child and Family Services and IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Reviews. 

•

•

•

•

BEST PRACTICES

Legislative changes and CPS and judicial eff orts 

are actualized through the daily practices of court 

personnel and CPS caseworkers. Th ese practices need 

to incorporate proven methods that are responsive to 

the individual and multiple needs of families who are 

linked to diff erent and complex systems. Many judges 

and others in the courts recognize the importance of 

collaborating with other systems to implement creative 

approaches that best serve families. Th e following are 

initiatives and legislation designed to promote the use 

of best practices in this area. 

Th e State CIP

Th e State CIP provides grants to State courts “...to 

conduct assessments of their foster care and adoption 

laws and judicial processes and to develop and 

implement a plan for system improvement.”85 Th e 

CIP was fi rst authorized as part of the Omnibus 

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103–66, 

sections 13711–13712) and was fi rst reauthorized 

by ASFA (P.L. 105–89) of 1997 without substantial 

programmatic changes. Th e CIP is a Federal grant 

program designed to improve the quality of court 

proceedings in handling child abuse and neglect 

cases. Federal funding goes to the highest court of 

each State, which administers the funds and directs 

the project. Each State has wide discretion on how to 

use CIP funds, but they must be used to improve the 

litigation process for abused and neglected children. 

Th e program was reauthorized again in 2002 by the 

Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 

2001 (P.L. 107–133). Th is reauthorization expanded 

the program’s scope to include the implementation of 

a PIP, as necessary, in response to fi ndings identifi ed 

in a CFSR. Th rough CIP, all State court systems are 

required to participate in the implementation of a 

CFSR PIP when a State court system is involved.86
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 75

Tribal Courts

Prior to the passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978, private, State, and Federal agencies 

typically removed abused and neglected Indian children from their families and Tribal communities. 

Often, these children were placed without considering the cultural and other eff ects this would have on 

them.89 State courts often ignored the sovereign authority of Tribal courts with regard to these children. 

With ICWA, child welfare proceedings involving Indian children are treated diff erently from other child 

welfare cases. If the child lives on a reservation, the case must be decided by the Tribal courts of the child’s 

Tribe instead of by State courts. Many cases involving Indian children who do not live on a reservation 

can be transferred to Tribal courts. Th ese children, however, must be enrolled as a member of an Indian 

Tribe or be eligible for membership and have a biological parent who is a Tribe member.

When foster care placements or termination of parental rights proceedings for Indian children are brought 

before the State courts, those children, their Native American custodians, and their Tribes have the right 

to become involved, enabling the cases to be transferred to Indian Tribal courts. Th e children’s parents, 

Indian custodians, and the Tribes also are entitled to a notice of the State court action, so they can appear 

and respond to the charges or intervene and request a transfer, if appropriate.

In 1990, Congress enacted the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Act (P.L. 101–630). 

Among other things, it authorizes Federal funds to be used by the Bureau of Indian Aff airs for a variety 

of purposes, including to help Tribes establish CPS programs and develop multidisciplinary child abuse 

investigation and prosecution teams.90

Th e Model Courts Project

Th e Permanency Planning for Children Department 

(PPCD) of NCJFCJ established the Child Victims 

Act Model Court Project in 1992 with funding 

from the Offi ce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention.88 Th ere are 25 model courts across the 

country, including those in New York, Los Angeles, 

and Chicago, as well as smaller communities such as 

Zuni, New Mexico, the site of a Tribal court. Th ese 

courts and their community partners, including 

CPS, work with PPCD and each other to improve 

court practice in child abuse and neglect cases. Th ey 

identify barriers to permanency and other successful 

outcomes for children in their court and social services 

systems and develop and implement strategies for 

overcoming those barriers. Annual status reports 

outlining the goals and accomplishments of each of 

these communities are available from PPCD at http://

www.ncjfcj.org/content/view/81/145/ and are an 

excellent starting point for identifying successful 

resolutions of problems encountered by judges and 

CPS personnel. 

Th e Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act

In FY 2001, Congress enacted the Strengthening Abuse 

and Neglect Courts Act (SANCA) (P.L. 106–314) and 

funded it for the fi rst time in FY 2002. Th e purpose of 

SANCA is to award grants to State and local courts to 

enable them to develop and to implement automated 

data collection and case-tracking systems so that they 

can eventually use such systems to evaluate court 

performance. To date, grants have been made to six 

States (Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, New Jersey, 

and Oregon) to pilot the implementation of suggested 

performance measures developed by the American 

Bar Association, NCJFCJ, and the National Center 

for State Courts. (See http://www.ncsconline.org/

WC/Publications/KIS_FamJusSANCAProject.pdf

for an overview.) Th e Act makes fi nancial resources 

available to qualifying courts “...for the purpose 
 76 Court Improvement and Best Practices

of developing, implementing and maintaining 

automated information systems that enable the 

nation’s abuse and neglect courts to eff ectively and 

effi ciently meet the intended goals of the Adoption and 

Safe Families Act.” Courts that apply must have “...a 

demonstrated history of collaborative planning and 

court improvement...” and “must have full support 

from [their] collaborative partners,” including CPS.91

Th e Toolkit Project

In FY 2003, the Children’s Bureau funded a project 

to help courts develop a viable approach to engaging 

in continuous quality improvement with regard to 

the handling of dependency cases. Th e American 

Bar Association, the National Center for State 

Courts, and the NCJFCJ are working together to 

help courts improve their performance by addressing 

the two most critical and challenging areas of court 

reform: court performance measurement and judicial 

workload. Utilizing a guide and toolkit recently 

developed by these organizations under a grant from 

the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the groups 

are providing targeted technical assistance to help 

six project courts achieve increased accountability 

and better performance. Th e fi nal products of this 

project will be an updated guidebook and toolkit that 

will provide revised instrumentation and procedures 

based on lessons learned during the implementation 

study, as well as a report on the implementation of 

a time-study and workload assessment at the local 

court level. 

JUDICIAL LEADERSHIP

Strong judicial leadership is essential to successful 

implementation of reforms and improvements in 

how CPS and the courts process child maltreatment 

cases. Communities that have embraced ASFA and 

accomplished timely permanency for abused and 

neglected children have, without exception, benefi ted 

from judicial leadership. While judges alone cannot 

initiate change, their support and leadership are 

critical to reforming court practice. 

Many communities across the country are fortunate 

to have judicial leaders in juvenile court who are 

committed to optimizing the ability of CPS and the 

courts to address eff ectively the needs of abused and 

neglected children and their families. Communities 

with model courts and strong State CIPs are good 

examples.

Like all eff ective leaders, judges must have a vision 

for what can and should be accomplished. For child 

abuse and neglect cases, that vision will include the 

timely achievement of safe, permanent homes for the 

children. Th e vision and how it is communicated by 

the words and actions of the judge and others who 

share it can motivate juvenile court practitioners and 

can provide meaning and value to their work. Areas 

in which judges’ leadership can be exercised include 

court operations, interactions with other stakeholders, 

and advocacy for abused and neglected children.

Examples of Court Reform Projects

For examples of successful projects, see NCJFCJs’ Technical Assistance Bulletin, State Court Improvement 

Projects “Bragging Rights” at http://www.ncjfcj.org/images/stories/dept/ppcd/pdf/braggingrights.pdf

and the National Court Improvement Progress Report and Catalog maintained by the National Child 

Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues at http://www.abanet.org/child/cipcatalog/home.

html. 
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 77

Court Operations 

Th rough the hearing and management of cases, judges 

set a standard for court operations, which includes 

the judges’:

Knowledge and skill in hearing, monitoring, and 

resolving individual cases; 

Commitment to timely proceedings and 

decisions; 

Enforcement of rules; 

Participation in training opportunities; 

Style of interacting with families and 

professionals. 

Th is is important because good administrative 

leadership of court operations ensures that: 

Th e court has rules of procedure to guide 

practitioners; 

Petitions and other pleadings and documents are 

maintained in an orderly and accessible way; 

Cases are scheduled and decided on a timely 

basis, before the same judge, and at intervals 

that minimize waiting and inconvenience to 

participants; 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Continuances are rare; 

Decisions and orders are entered and distributed 

promptly. 

Interactions With Other Stakeholders 

Judicial leaders “...must encourage and promote 

collaboration and mutual respect among all 

participants in the child welfare system...,” and 

“...should regularly convene representatives from [it] 

to improve operations of the system.”92 All eff ective 

juvenile courts are characterized by successful 

partnerships with CPS and with other community 

and system stakeholders. Judges meet regularly with 

these partners and work cooperatively with them 

to identify and resolve systemic problems, to plan 

training events, to strategize about new services to 

fulfi ll unmet needs, to address resource and funding 

issues, to improve service delivery and court processes, 

and to share their successes. Th ese collaborative 

eff orts create “...a synergy in which the contributions 

of the various partners enhance and magnify their 

individual eff ects.”93

Advocacy for Abused and Neglected Children 

Judicial leaders from the juvenile court should take an 

active role in educating policymakers and the public 

about the needs of child maltreatment victims. Th is 

•

•

Court Management Information Systems

Eff ective administrative leadership includes maintaining an information system that tracks individual 

and aggregate case data. For more information about the need for courts to have good management 

information systems for child abuse and neglect cases, as well as suggestions for improving existing 

capabilities and developing and implementing new systems, see:

Information Management: A Critical Component of Good Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases; 

Model Court Approaches to Information Technology: A Dependency Court Data System Implementation 

Guide. 

Both are published by the PPCD of the NCJFCJ and are available at http://www.pppncjfcj.org.

•

•
 78 Court Improvement and Best Practices

includes new or expanded resources and services that 

are necessary to meet those needs, the importance of 

the work being done in the juvenile court, and the 

statutory changes necessary to enhance that work. 

Because of their position within the child welfare 

community, judges experienced in child maltreatment 

cases can be particularly eff ective in bringing about 

useful changes.

CONCLUSION

Navigating the juvenile court process in child 

abuse and neglect cases can be an overwhelming 

experience for CPS caseworkers and the families 

they serve. However, a solid understanding of 

applicable child maltreatment legislation, various 

court proceedings, and court expectations will help 

CPS caseworkers enhance their case practice and 

outcomes. Furthermore, juvenile and family courts 

throughout the country are increasingly aware that 

innovative court practices and partnerships with CPS 

and community service providers are instrumental 

to achieving safety, permanency, and well-being for 

children and families. 
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 79

1

 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges. (2003, October). Child Victims Act Model 

Court Initiative [On-line]. Available: http://www.

pppncjfcj.org/html/childvic.html.

2

 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and Families (ACF). 

(1999). Blending perspectives and building common 

ground. A report to Congress on substance abuse and 

child protection [On-line]. Available: http://aspe.hhs.

gov/sp/subabuse99/subabuse.htm.

3

 Harrell, A., & Goodman, A. (1999). Review of 

specialized family drug courts: Key issues handling child 

abuse and neglect cases [On-line]. Available: http://

www.ncjrs.org/pdffi les1/nij/grants/179281.pdf.

4

 U. S. Department of Justice, Offi ce of Justice 

Programs (OJP). (1998). Juvenile and family drug 

courts: An overview (p. 3). Washington, DC: Author.

5

 U. S. Department of Justice, OJP. (1998).

6

 Huddleston, C. W, Freeman-Wilson, K., & Boone, 

D. L. (2004). Painting the current picture: A national 

report card on drug courts and other problem solving 

courts in the United States [On-line]. Available: http://

www.ndci.org/publications/paintingcurrentpicture.

pdf.

7

 Cooper, C., & Bartlett, S. (1998). Juvenile and family 

drug courts: Profi le of program characteristics and 

implementation issues [On-line]. Available: http://

www.ncjrs.org/html/bja/familydrug/welcome.html.

8

 Goldman, J., & Salus, M. K. (2003). A coordinated 

response to child abuse and neglect: Th e foundation for 

practice [On-line]. Available: http://www.childwelfare.

gov/pubs/usermanuals/foundation/index.cfm.

9 Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. 

Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Prince v. 

Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).

10 Prince, 321 U.S. at 166.

11 Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 62 (2000); Quilloin 

v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978); Smith v. 

Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 862–

63 (1977).

12 Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 

26–32 (1981).

13 Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, 

Pub. L. No. 108–36, Title I, Section 114(b) (2003).

14 Kempe, C. H., Silverman, F., Steele, B., Droegmuller, 

W., & Silver, H. (1962). Th e battered-child 

syndrome. Journal of the American Medical 

Association, 181, 107–112.

15 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974, 

Pub. L. No. 93–247, 42 U.S.C. 5101, et seq. (1998).

16 Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, 

Pub. L. No. 108–36, Title I, Section 114(b) (2003).

17 Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, 

Pub. L. No. 108–36, Title I, Section 114(b) (2003).

18 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges. (2003a). Indian Child Welfare Act checklists for 

juvenile and family court judges. Reno, NV: Author; 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges. (2003b). Native American resource directory 

for juvenile and family court judges. Technical 

Assistance Bulletin, 7(4), 5.

19 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges. (2000a). Permanency planning and the 

permanency hearing. In Adoptions and permanency 

Endnotes
 80 Endnotes

guidelines: Improving court practice in child abuse and 

neglect cases (pp. 9–22). Reno, NV: Author.

20 DePanfi lis, D., & Salus, M. K. (2003). Child 

protective services: A guide for caseworkers [On-line]. 

Available: http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/

usermanuals/cps/index.cfm.

21 Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 596 (2nd Cir. 

1999); Nicholson v. Williams, 181 F. Supp. 2d 182 

(E.D.N.Y. 2002).

22 Hardin, M. (1992). Judicial implementation of 

permanency planning reform: One court that works.

Washington, DC: American Bar Association, Center 

on Children and the Law; Hardin, M., Rubin, H. T., 

& Ratterman-Baker, D. (1995). A second court that 

works: Judicial implementation of permanency planning 

reforms. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 

Center on Children and the Law; National Council 

of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (1995). Resource 

guidelines: Improving court practice in child abuse and 

neglect cases. Reno, NV: Author.

23 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15) (1999).

24 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges. (1995).

25 Chandler, S., & Giovannucci, M. (2004). Family 

group conferencing: Transforming traditional child 

welfare policy and practice. Family Court Review, 

42(2), 216–231. 

26 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges. (1995).

27 Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 

105–89, § 101 (1997).

28 Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 

105–89, § 107 (1997).

29 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges. (1995).

30 Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 

105–89, § 103 (1997).

31 Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 

105–89, § 302 (1997).

32 Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2003). 

Determining the best interests of the child: Summary 

of state laws [On-line]. Available: http://www.

childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/

best_interestall.pdf.

33 Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 

105–89, § 101 (1997).

34 Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 

105–89, § 101 (1997). 

35 FindLaw. (n.d.). U.S. Supreme Court, Santosky v. 

Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) [On-line]. Available: 

http://caselaw.lp.fi ndlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court

=US&vol=455&invol=745.

36 Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. 

No. 105–89, § 103 (1997); 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(3) 

(1997).

37 Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 

105–89, § 105 (1997).

38 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges. (1995).

39 Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2004). 

Grounds for involuntary termination of parental rights

[On-line]. Available: http://www.childwelfare.gov/

systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/groundterminall.

pdf.

40 Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).

41 Th e Multi-Ethnic Placement Act of 1994, Pub. L. 

No. 103–382, 42 U.S.C. § 5115a (1994); Th e InterEthnic Adoption Provisions of 1996, Pub. L. No. 

104–188 (1996).

42 Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 

105–89, § 202 (1997).

43 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on 

Ways and Means. (2004). 2004 Green Book [Online]. Available: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/

Documents.asp?section=813.

44 Keith, A. L., & Flango, C. R. (2002). Iowa Court 

Rules, Appeals in Termination Cases, Rules 6.5–6.154. 

Retrieved July 1, 2003, from LexisNexis database. 

45 Kuehnle, K. (1996). Assessing allegations of child 

sexual abuse. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resources 

Press; Gould, J. W., & Martindale, D. A. (in press). 

Child maltreatment and child custody. New York, NY: 

Guildford Press; Bow, J. N., Quinell, F. A., Saroff , 

M., & Assemany, A. (2002). Assessment of sexual 

abuse allegations in child custody cases. Professional 

Psychology: Research & Practice, 33(6), 566–575.

46 Garrity C. B., & Baris, M. (1994). Caught in the 

middle: Protecting the children of high-confl ict divorce.

New York, NY: Lexington Press.

47 Th e Social Security Act of 1935, 42 U.S.C. Ch. 7, 

(1996).

48 National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform 
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 81

State Laws. (2002). Uniform Child Witness Testimony 

by Alternative Methods Act [On-line]. Available: 

http://www.i-lawpublishing.net/news/ucwtbama.pdf.

49 Baker, L. L., Jaff e, P. G., Berkowitz, S. J., & Berkman, 

M. (2002). Children exposed to domestic violence: A 

handbook for police trainers to increase understanding 

and improve community responses [On-line]. Available: 

http://www.lfcc.on.ca/police-us.PDF.

50 Appel, A. E., & Holden, G. W. (1998a). Th e cooccurrence of spouse and physical child abuse: A 

review and appraisal. Journal of Family Psychology, 

12(4), 578–599; Edleson, J. L. (1999). Th e overlap 

between child maltreatment and woman battering. 

Violence Against Women, 5(2), 134–154.

51 Appel, A. E., & Holden, G. W. (1998a); Appel, A. 

E., & Holden, G. W. (1998b). Co-occurring spouse 

and child abuse: Implications for CPS practice. 

APSAC Advisor, 11(1), 11–14; Barnett, O. W., 

Miller-Perrin, C. L., & Perrin, R. D. (1997). Family 

violence across the lifespan: An introduction. Th ousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage; Edleson, J. L. (1999); Hughes, H. 

M., Parkinson, D., & Vargo, M. (1989). Witnessing 

spouse abuse and experiencing physical abuse: A 

“double whammy”? Journal of Family Violence, 4(2), 

197–209.

52 Edleson, J. L. (2000). Should childhood exposure to 

adult domestic violence be defi ned as child maltreatment 

under the law? [On-line]. Available: http://www.

mincava.umn.edu/link/documents/shouldch/

shouldch.shtml.

53 Edleson, J. L. (2003). Should childhood exposure 

to adult domestic violence be defi ned as child 

maltreatment under the law? Juvenile and Family 

Justice Today, 12(2), 12–14; Baker, L. L., Jaff e, P. G., 

Berkowitz, S. J., & Berkman, M. (2002); Goodmark, 

L. (2002). Assessing and treating child victims of 

domestic violence. Child Law Practice, 21(10), 149–

153.

54 Gun Control Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90–618 

(1968); 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. (2003); Mitchell, 

D., & Carbon, S. B. (2002). Firearms and domestic 

violence: A primer for judges. Journal of the American 

Judges Association, 39(2), 32–43.

55 Th e Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2265 (1994).

56 Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, 

Pub. L. No. 108–36, Title I, Section 114(b) (2003).

57 In re Nicholson, et al. 181 F. Supp. 2d 182, 188 

(2002).

58 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 

U.S. 579 (1993); Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 

U.S. 137 (1999); General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 

U.S. 136 (1997).

59 American Bar Association. (1999a). ABA Model 

Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3B(7). Chicago, IL: 

Author.

60 Sagatun, I. J., & Edwards, L. P. (Eds.). (1995). 

Expert witnesses in child abuse cases. In Child 

abuse and the legal system (pp. 209–228). Chicago, 

IL: Nelson-Hall; Ceci, S., & Bruck, M. (1995). 

Jeopardy in the courtroom. Washington, DC: 

American Psychological Association; Poole, D., 

& Lamb, M. (1999). Investigative interviews of 

children. Washington, DC: American Psychological 

Association; Walker, A. G. (1999). Questioning of 

children: A linguistic perspective. Washington, DC: 

American Bar Association; Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. 

(2000). Why judges must insist on electronically 

preserved recordings of child interviews. Court 

Review, 2, 10–12; Crossman, A. M., Powell, M. B., 

Principe, G. F., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). Child testimony 

in custody cases: A review. Journal of Forensic 

Psychology Practice, 2(1), 1–31.

61 Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (1990).

62 Iowa v. Coy, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988); Maryland v. 

Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990).

63 National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform 

State Laws. (2002).

64 National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform 

State Laws. (2005). Child Witness Testimony by 

Alternative Methods Act [On-line]. Available: http://

www.nccusl.org/Update/ActSearchResults.aspx.

65 Iowa v. Coy, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988); Maryland v. 

Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990).

66 National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform 

State Laws. (2002).

67 National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform 

State Laws. (2002).

68 Edwards, L. P. (1992). Th e juvenile court and the role 

of the juvenile court judge. Juvenile and Family Court 

Journal, 42(2), 30–32.

69 American Bar Association. (1999b). ABA Model 

Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3B(4), 3B(5) and 

Commentary, 3B(6). Chicago, IL: Author.

70 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

ACF. (2004) General fi ndings from the Federal Child 
 82 Endnotes

and Family Services Review [On-line]. Available: 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwrp/results/

statefi ndings/genfi ndings04/genfi ndings04.pdf.

71 Hardin, M. (2002a). Child and Family Services 

Reviews (CFSRs): How judges, court administrators, 

and attorneys should be involved [On-line]. Available:

http://www.abanet.org/child/courtimp.html.

72 Hardin, M. (2002b). How and why to involve the 

courts in your Child and Family Services Review 

(CFSR): Suggestions for agency administrators [Online]. Available: http://www.abanet.org/child/

courtimp.html. 

73 Atwood, T. C., & Ravenel, V. R. (2005). Performance 

measures for courts: Th e next step in foster care 

reform. Adoption Advocate [On-line]. Available:

http://www.adoptioncouncil.org/documents/

Adoption_Advocate_Vol_No_1_06_05.pdf. 

74 Fiermonte, C., & Sidote Salyers, N. (2005). 

Improving outcomes together [On-line]. Available: 

http://jeritt.msu.edu/Documents/ABA_

Collaboration_Final_06-21-05.pdf.

75 Hardin, M. (2002b).

76 Atwood, T. C., & Ravenel, V. R. (2005). 

77 Hardin, M. (2002a); National Child Welfare 

Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues. (2005). 

Top ten ways legal professionals can help with CFSRs

[On-line]. Available: http://www.abanet.org/child/

courtimp.html. 

78 Hardin, M. (2002b).

79 Hardin, M. (2002b). 

80 Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care. 

(2005). About the Pew Commission on Children in 

Foster Care [On-line]. Available: http://pewfostercare.

org/about. 

81 Fiermonte, C., & Sidote Salyers, N. (2005). 

82 Fiermonte, C., & Sidote Salyers, N. (2005).

83 Fiermonte, C., & Sidote Salyers, N. (2005).

84 Fiermonte, C., & Sidote Salyers, N. (2005).

85 U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

ACF. (2003). Instructions for States applying for court 

improvement program funds for fi scal years 2003–2006

[On-line]. Available: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/

programs/cb/laws/pi/pi0304.htm.

86 U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

ACF. (2005). Court involvement in the Child and 

Family Services Review [On-line]. http://www.acf.hhs.

gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/policy/im/im0505.

pdf.

87 Th e Social Security Act of 1935, 42 U.S.C. 629h; Th e 

Defi cit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-171, 

Title VII, Section 7401 (2005); Th e Social Security 

Act of 1935, 42 U.S.C. Title IV-E and Title IV-B; 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

ACF. (2006). Instructions for state courts applying for 

new Court Improvement Program funds for fi scal years 

(FYs) 2006-2010 (ACYF-CB-PI-0605). Washington, 

DC: Author; Ohl, J. E. (2006). Testimony on 

reauthorization of three Programs: Th e Mentoring of 

Children of Prisoners Program, the Promoting Safe and 

Stable Families Program, and the Court Improvement 

Program [On-line]. Available: http://www.hhs.gov/asl/

testify/t060510.html.

88 Mentaberry, M. (1999, January). Model courts serve 

abused and neglected children. OJJDP Fact Sheet. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, 

Offi ce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

(OJJDP).

89 Goldsmith, D. J. (2002). In the best interest of an 

Indian child: Th e Indian Child Welfare Act. Juvenile 

and Family Court Journal, 53(4), 9–17.

90 Feller, J. N., Davidson, H. A., Hardin, M., & 

Horowitz, R. M. (1992). Working With the courts 

in child protection [On-line]. Available: http://www.

childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/courts/index.cfm.

91 U. S. Department of Justice, OJP, OJJDP. (2003). 

Notice of solicitation for the Strengthening Abuse and 

Neglect Courts in America: Management Information 

Systems Project, 68 Fed. Reg. 14699–14705 [On-line]. 

Available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/docs/SANCA.

txt.

92 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges. (1999, October). Key principles for 

permanency planning for children. Technical 

Assistance Brief [On-line]. Available: http://

www.ncjfcj.org/images/stories/dept/ppcd/pdf/

tabriefkeyprinciples.pdf.

93 Rottman, D. B., Casey, P., & Efkeman, H. (1998, 

February). Court and community collaboration: Ends 

and means: A discussion paper [On-line]. Available: 

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/community/

endsmeansfoot.htm.
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 83

APPENDIX A

Glossary of Terms

Adjournment – the suspension of business or 

sessions, either for a fi xed time, indefi nitely, or until 

the opening of another term.

Adjudicatory Hearings – held by the juvenile and 

family court to determine whether a child has been 

maltreated or whether another legal basis exists for 

the State to intervene to protect the child.

Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) – signed 

into law November 1997 and designed to improve 

the safety of children, to promote adoption and other 

permanent homes for children who need them, and 

to support families. Th e law requires CPS agencies 

to provide more timely and focused assessment and 

intervention services to the children and families that 

are served within the CPS system. 

CASA – court-appointed special advocates (usually 

volunteers) who serve to ensure that the needs 

and interests of a child in child protection judicial 

proceedings are fully protected. 

Case Closure – the process of ending the relationship 

between the CPS worker and the family that often 

involves a mutual assessment of progress. Optimally, 

cases are closed when families have achieved their 

goals and the risk of maltreatment has been reduced 

or eliminated.

Case Plan – the casework document that outlines the 

outcomes, goals, and tasks necessary to be achieved in 

order to reduce the risk of maltreatment.

Case Planning – the stage of the CPS case process 

where the CPS caseworker develops a case plan with 

the family members. 

Caseworker Competency – demonstrated 

professional behaviors based on the knowledge, skills, 

personal qualities, and values a person holds. 

Central Registry – a centralized database containing 

information on all substantiated/founded reports 

of child maltreatment in a selected area (typically a 

State).

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act 

(CAPTA) – see Keeping Children and Families Safe 

Act.

Child Protective Services (CPS) – the designated 

social services agency (in most States) to receive 

reports, investigate, and provide intervention and 

treatment services to children and families in which 

child maltreatment has occurred. Frequently, this 

agency is located within larger public social service 

agencies, such as Departments of Social Services.

Civil Contempt – the willful failure to do something 

that a court has ordered, such as refusing to testify 

when the court has found that no privilege applies or 

refusing to pay child support when there are ample 

funds to do so. Th e usual sanction is incarceration 

for a term that lasts until the person in contempt 

complies with the court order.
 84 Appendix A—Glossary of Terms

Concurrent Planning – identifi es alternative plans 

for permanent placement of a child by addressing 

both reunifi cation and legal permanency with a new 

parent or caregiver if reunifi cation eff orts fail.

Consent Decree – a decree entered by a court that 

is determined by the parties’ agreement; a settlement 

between the parties that is subject to judicial approval 

and supervision.

Continuance – an adjournment of a case from one 

day to another or to a later hour of the same day.

Criminal Contempt – an act that obstructs justice or 

attacks the integrity of the court that is punishable by 

fi ne or imprisonment or both. Criminal contempt 

may be indirect or direct. Indirect contempt is 

contempt occurring outside the courtroom, such as a 

willful violation of a court’s order. Direct contempt 

is disruptive or disrespectful behavior that occurs in 

the presence of the judge, such as uttering an epithet 

when the judge announces an unfavorable decision. 

Cross-examination – questioning of a witness by 

attorneys other than the one who called the person 

as a witness.

Cultural Competence – a set of attitudes, behaviors, 

and policies that integrates knowledge about groups 

of people into practices and standards to enhance the 

quality of services to all cultural groups being served. 

Declaratory Judgment – a court decision which 

simply declares the rights of the parties or expresses 

the opinion of the court on a question of law without 

ordering anything to be done. 

Delinquency – the commitment of an off ense by a 

youth of what would be a crime if he or she were an 

adult.

Dependent Child – as used in statues providing for 

the care of dependent, neglected, and delinquent 

children, the term means dependent upon the public 

support; any child under the age of 18 who is destitute, 

or whose home by reason of neglect by the parents is 

an unfi t place for such child, or whose father, mother, 

guardian, or custodian does not properly provide for 

such a child.

Diff erential Response – an area of CPS reform that 

off ers greater fl exibility in responding to allegations 

of abuse and neglect. Also referred to as “dual track” 

or “multi-track” response, it permits CPS agencies to 

respond diff erentially to children’s needs for safety, 

the degree of risk present, and the family’s needs for 

services and support. See “dual track.” 

Discovery – pretrial process that allows each party 

to obtain information relevant to the case from the 

other parties.

Depositions – transcribed oral examinations under 

oath. 

Dispositional Hearings – held by the juvenile and 

family court to determine the legal resolution of cases 

after adjudication, such as whether placement of 

the child in out-of-home care is necessary, and what 

services the children and family will need to reduce 

the risk and to address the eff ects of maltreatment. 

Dual Track – term refl ecting new CPS response 

systems that typically combine a nonadversarial 

service-based assessment track for cases where children 

are not at immediate risk with a traditional CPS 

investigative track for cases where children are unsafe 

or at greater risk for maltreatment. See “diff erential 

response.”

Duces Tecum – a type of subpoena or court order that 

requires a person to produce for the court specifi ed 

documents or records.

Due Process – Th e principle that every person has 

the protection of a day in court, representation by 

an attorney, and the benefi t of procedures that are 

speedy, fair, and impartial. 

Evaluation of Family Progress – the stage of the 

CPS case process where the CPS caseworker measures 

changes in family behaviors and conditions (risk 

factors), monitors risk elimination or reduction, 

assesses strengths, and determines case closure. 
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 85

Exculpatory – evidence or testimony that exonerates 

or clears the defendant.

Ex Parte – on behalf of or involving only one party 

to a legal matter and in the absence of and usually 

without notice to the other party.

Expert Testimony – opinion testimony about a 

subject that is outside the judge’s or jury’s knowledge 

or experience, provided by a witness with established 

expertise on that subject.

Family Assessment – the stage of the child protection 

process when the CPS caseworker, community 

treatment provider, and the family reach a mutual 

understanding regarding the behaviors and conditions 

that must change to reduce or eliminate the risk of 

maltreatment, the most critical treatment needs that 

must be addressed, and the strengths on which to 

build. 

Family Drug Court – a drug court that deals with 

cases involving parental rights in which an adult is 

the litigant (i.e., any party to a lawsuit, which means 

plaintiff , defendant, petitioner, respondent, crosscomplainant and cross-defendant, but not a witness 

or attorney); the case comes before the court through 

either a criminal or civil proceeding; and the case 

arises out of the substance abuse of a parent.

Family Group Conferencing – a family meeting 

model used by CPS agencies to optimize family 

strengths in the planning process. Th is model brings 

the family, extended family, and others important 

in the family’s life (e.g., friends, clergy, neighbors) 

together to make decisions regarding how best to 

ensure safety of the family members. 

Family Unity Model – a family meeting model used 

by CPS agencies to optimize family strengths in the 

planning process. Th is model is similar to the Family 

Group Conferencing model. 

Full Disclosure – information provided to the 

family regarding the steps in the CPS intervention 

process, the requirements of CPS, the expectations of 

the family, the consequences if the family does not 

fulfi ll the expectations, and the rights of the parents 

to ensure that the family completely understands the 

process.

Guardian ad Litem – a lawyer or layperson who 

represents a child in juvenile or family court. Usually 

this person considers the “best interest” of the child 

and may perform a variety of roles, including those 

of independent investigator, advocate, advisor, and 

guardian for the child. A layperson who serves in this 

role is sometimes known as a court-appointed special 

advocate or CASA. 

Hearsay – an out-of-court statement made by 

someone other than the witness that is off ered for the 

truth of that statement.

Home Visitation Programs – prevention programs 

that off er a variety of family-focused services to 

pregnant mothers and families with new babies. 

Activities frequently encompass structured visits to 

the family’s home and may address positive parenting 

practices, nonviolent discipline techniques, child 

development, maternal and child health, available 

services, and advocacy.

Immunity – established in all child abuse laws to 

protect reporters from civil law suits and criminal 

prosecution resulting from fi ling a report of child 

abuse and neglect. 

Initial Assessment or Investigation – the stage 

of the CPS case process where the CPS caseworker 

determines the validity of the child maltreatment 

report, assesses the risk of maltreatment, determines 

if the child is safe, develops a safety plan if needed to 

assure the child’s protection, and determines services 

needed. 

Injunction – an equitable remedy in the form of a 

court order compelling a party to do or refrain from 

doing a specifi ed act.

Intake – the stage of the CPS case process where the 

CPS caseworker screens and accepts reports of child 

maltreatment. 
 86 Appendix A—Glossary of Terms

Interview Protocol – a structured format to ensure 

that all family members are seen in a planned strategy, 

that community providers collaborate, and that 

information gathering is thorough. 

Jurisdiction – the power or right to exercise 

authority.

Juvenile and Family Courts – established in most 

States to resolve confl ict and to otherwise intervene 

in the lives of families in a manner that promotes the 

best interest of children. Th ese courts specialize in 

areas such as child maltreatment, domestic violence, 

juvenile delinquency, divorce, child custody, and 

child support.

Juvenile Drug Court – a drug court that focuses on 

juvenile delinquency matters and status off enses that 

involve juveniles who are substance abusers.

Keeping Children and Families Safe Act – Th e 

Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 

(P.L. 108–36) included the reauthorization of the 

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) 

in its Title I, Sec. 111. CAPTA provides minimum 

standards for defi ning child physical abuse and neglect 

and sexual abuse that States must incorporate into 

their statutory defi nitions in order to receive Federal 

funds. CAPTA defi nes child abuse and neglect as “at 

a minimum, any recent act or failure to act on the 

part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, 

serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or 

exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents 

an imminent risk of serious harm.”

Kinship Care – formal child placement by the 

juvenile court and child welfare agency in the home 

of a child’s relative.

Liaison – the designation of a person within an 

organization who has responsibility for facilitating 

communication, collaboration, and coordination 

between agencies involved in the child protection 

system.

Litigant – a party to a lawsuit.

Mandated Reporter – individuals required by 

State statutes to report suspected child abuse and 

neglect to the proper authorities (usually CPS or law 

enforcement agencies). Mandated reporters typically 

include professionals, such as educators and other 

school personnel, health care and mental health 

professionals, social workers, childcare providers, and 

law enforcement offi cers. Some States identify all 

citizens as mandated reporters.

Multidisciplinary Team – established between 

agencies and professionals within the child protection 

system to discuss cases of child abuse and neglect 

and to aid in decisions at various stages of the CPS 

case process. Th ese teams also may be designated by 

diff erent names, including child protection teams, 

interdisciplinary teams, or case consultation teams.

Neglect – the failure to provide for a child’s basic 

needs. Neglect can be physical, educational, or 

emotional. Physical neglect can include not providing 

adequate food or clothing, appropriate medical care, 

supervision, or proper weather protection (heat or 

coats). Educational neglect includes failure to provide 

appropriate schooling, special educational needs, or 

allowing excessive truancies. Psychological neglect 

includes the lack of any emotional support and love, 

chronic inattention to the child, exposure to spouse 

abuse, or drug and alcohol abuse. 

Out-of-Home Care – childcare, foster care, or 

residential care provided by persons, organizations, 

and institutions to children who are placed outside 

their families, usually under the jurisdiction of 

juvenile or family court.

Overrule – to set aside the authority of a former 

decision; the act of court in rejecting a motion or 

objection made by a party to a lawsuit.

Parens Patriae Doctrine – originating in feudal 

England, a doctrine that vests in the State a right of 

guardianship of minors. Th is concept has gradually 

evolved into the principle that the community, in 

addition to the parent, has a strong interest in the care 

and nurturing of children. Schools, juvenile courts, 

and social service agencies all derive their authority 
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 87

from the State’s power to protect children who are 

unable to protect themselves. 

Parent or Caretaker – person responsible for the care 

of the child. 

Petitions – a document containing allegations of 

child abuse or neglect that is typically fi led by the 

CPS attorney in juvenile court.

Physical Abuse – the infl icting of a nonaccidental 

physical injury upon a child. Th is may include, 

burning, hitting, punching, shaking, kicking, beating, 

or otherwise harming a child. It may, however, 

have been the result of over-discipline or physical 

punishment that is inappropriate to the child’s age.

Preponderance of the Evidence – the burden of 

proof for civil cases in most States, including child 

maltreatment proceedings. Th e attorney for CPS or 

other petitioner must show by a preponderance of 

evidence that the abuse or neglect happened. Th is 

standard means that the evidence is more credible 

than the evidence presented by the defendant party. 

Primary Prevention – activities geared to a sample 

of the general population to prevent child abuse and 

neglect from occurring. Also referred to as “universal 

prevention.”

Protective Factors – strengths and resources that 

appear to mediate or serve as a “buff er” against risk 

factors that contribute to vulnerability to maltreatment 

or against the negative eff ects of maltreatment 

experiences.

Protocol – an interagency agreement that delineates 

joint roles and responsibilities by establishing criteria 

and procedures for working together on cases of child 

abuse and neglect.

Psychological Maltreatment – a pattern of caregiver 

behavior or extreme incidents that convey to children 

that they are worthless, fl awed, unloved, unwanted, 

endangered, or only of value to meeting another’s 

needs. Th is can include parents or caretakers using 

extreme or bizarre forms of punishment or threatening 

or terrorizing a child. Th e term “psychological 

maltreatment” is also known as emotional abuse or 

neglect, verbal abuse, or mental abuse.

Putative Father – the alleged or supposed male 

parent; the person alleged to have fathered a child 

whose parentage is at issue. 

Respondent – an answering party in a proceeding in 

juvenile or family court. 

Response Time – a determination made by CPS 

and law enforcement regarding the immediacy of the 

response needed to a report of child abuse or neglect.

Review Hearings – held by the juvenile and family 

court to review dispositions (usually every 6 months) 

and to determine the need to maintain placement in 

out-of-home care or court jurisdiction of a child.

Risk – the likelihood that a child will be maltreated 

in the future. 

Risk Assessment – to assess and measure the 

likelihood that a child will be maltreated in the future, 

frequently through the use of checklists, matrices, 

scales, and other methods of measurement. 

Risk Factors – behaviors and conditions present in 

the child, parent, or family that likely will contribute 

to child maltreatment occurring in the future. 

Safety – absence of an imminent or immediate threat 

of moderate-to-serious harm to the child.

Safety Assessment – a part of the CPS case process 

in which available information is analyzed to identify 

whether a child is in immediate danger of moderate 

or serious harm.

Safety Plan – a casework document developed when 

it is determined that the child is in imminent or 

potential risk of serious harm. In the safety plan, 

the caseworker targets the factors that are causing or 

contributing to the risk of imminent serious harm to 

the child, and identifi es, along with the family, the 

interventions that will control the safety factors and 

ensure the child’s protection.
 88 Appendix A—Glossary of Terms

Secondary Prevention – activities targeted to prevent 

breakdowns and dysfunctions among families who 

have been identifi ed as at risk for abuse and neglect. 

Service or Constructive Service – the act of delivering 

to, or informing someone of, a writ, summons, or 

other notice as prescribed by law.

Service Agreement – the casework document 

developed between the CPS caseworker and the family 

that outlines the tasks necessary to achieve goals and 

outcomes necessary for risk reduction. 

Service Provision – the stage of the CPS casework 

process when CPS and other service providers deliver 

specifi c services geared toward the reduction of risk of 

maltreatment. 

Sexual Abuse – inappropriate adolescent or adult 

sexual behavior with a child. It includes fondling 

a child’s genitals, making the child fondle the 

adult’s genitals, intercourse, incest, rape, sodomy, 

exhibitionism, sexual exploitation, or exposure to 

pornography. To be considered child abuse, these acts 

have to be committed by a person responsible for the 

care of a child (for example a baby-sitter, a parent, 

or a daycare provider) or related to the child. If a 

stranger commits these acts, it would be considered 

sexual assault and handled solely by the police and 

criminal courts.

Status Off ender – a juvenile under the jurisdiction of 

the court because of acts that would not be criminal 

if committed by an adult, but that indicate that the 

child is beyond parental control.

Status Off enses – transgressions of children that 

would not be crimes if they were legal age; primarily 

involve running away and truancy. Th e age for 

bringing such charges varies from State to State.

Substantiated – an investigation disposition 

concluding that the allegation of maltreatment or risk 

of maltreatment was supported or founded, as defi ned 

by State law or State policy. A CPS determination 

means that credible evidence exists that child abuse 

or neglect has occurred.

Suspended Sentence – a sentence that the defendant 

will not have to serve if he or she complies with the 

conditions of probation.

Sustain – to allow or uphold as valid.

Termination of Parental Rights Hearing – a legal 

proceeding to free a child from a parent’s legal custody 

so that others can adopt the child. Th e legal basis 

for termination of parental rights diff ers from State 

to State, but most States consider the failure of the 

parent to support or communicate with the child for 

a specifi ed period, parental failure to improve home 

conditions, extreme or repeated neglect or abuse, 

parental incapacity to care for the child, and/or 

extreme deterioration of the parent-child relationship. 

In making this fi nding, the court is determining that 

the parents will not be able to provide adequate care 

for the child in the future by using a standard of clear 

and convincing evidence. Th is burden of proof is 

higher than preponderance of the evidence, which is 

used in civil abuse or neglect cases where termination 

is not sought.

Tertiary Prevention – treatment eff orts geared to 

address situations where child maltreatment has 

already occurred, with the goals of preventing child 

maltreatment from occurring in the future and of 

avoiding the harmful eff ects of child maltreatment. 

Transactional Immunity – a broader form of use 

immunity that bars prosecution of a witness for 

any event or transaction described in the witness’s 

compelled testimony, regardless of the source of the 

evidence against that person. 

Treatment – the stage of the child protection case 

process when specifi c services are provided by CPS 

and other providers to reduce the risk of maltreatment, 

support families in meeting case goals, and address 

the eff ects of maltreatment. 

Universal Prevention – activities and services directed 

at the general public with the goal of stopping the 

occurrence of maltreatment before it starts. Also 

referred to as “primary prevention.” 
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 89

Unsubstantiated (not substantiated) – an 

investigation disposition that determines that there is 

not suffi cient evidence under State law or policy to 

conclude that the child has been maltreated or is at 

risk of maltreatment. A CPS determination means 

that credible evidence does not exist that child abuse 

or neglect has occurred.

Use Immunity – bars the use of a witness’s compelled 

testimony and statements from being used directly or 

indirectly against that person in a subsequent trial.

Voir Dire – the inquiry of prospective jurors to 

determine if the jurors are fi t for jury duty in a given 

case. 

Working with the Courts in Child Protection 91

APPENDIX B

Resource Listings of

Selected National

Organizations Concerned

With Child Maltreatment

Listed below are several of the many national 

organizations and groups dealing with various aspects 

of child maltreatment. Visit http://childwelfare.

gov/pubs/usermanual.cfm to view a more 

comprehensive list of resources and visit http://www.

childwelfare.gov/organizations/index.cfm to view 

an organization database. Inclusion on this list is for 

information purposes only and does not constitute 

an endorsement by the Offi ce on Child Abuse and 

Neglect or the Children’s Bureau.

CHILD WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS

American Humane Association Children’s 

Division

address: 63 Inverness Dr., East

 Englewood, CO 80112-5117

phone: (800) 227-4645

 (303) 792-9900

fax: (303) 792-5333

e-mail: children@americanhumane.org

Web site: http://www.americanhumane.org 

Conducts research, analysis, and training to help public 

and private agencies respond to child maltreatment.

American Professional Society on the Abuse of 

Children

address: P.O. Box 30669

 Charleston, SC 29417

phone: (843) 764-2905 

 (877) 40A-PSAC

fax: (803) 753-9823

e-mail: tricia-williams@ouhsc.edu

Web site: www.apsac.org

Provides professional education, promotes research to 

inform eff ective practice, and addresses public policy 

issues. Professional membership organization.

American Public Human Services Association

address: 810 First St., NE, Suite 500

 Washington, DC 20002-4267

phone: (202) 682-0100

fax: (202) 289-6555

Web site: http://www.aphsa.org

Addresses program and policy issues related to the 

administration and delivery of publicly funded human 

services. Professional membership organization.
 92 Appendix B—Resource Listings of Selected National Organizations Concerned

 With Child Maltreatment

AVANCE Family Support and Education Program

address: 118 N. Medina

 San Antonio, TX 78207

phone: (210) 270-4630

fax: (210) 270-4612

Web site: www.avance.org

Operates a national training center to share and 

disseminate information, material, and curricula 

to service providers and policy-makers interested in 

supporting high-risk Hispanic families. 

Child Welfare League of America

address: 440 First St., NW, Th ird Floor

 Washington, DC 20001-2085

phone: (202) 638-2952

fax: (202) 638-4004

Web site: http://www.cwla.org

Provides training, consultation, and technical 

assistance to child welfare professionals and agencies 

while also educating the public about emerging issues 

aff ecting children.

National Association of Counsel for Children

Address: 1825 Marion Street, Suite 242

 Denver, CO 80218

phone: (888) 828-NACC

e-mail: advocate@NACCchildlaw.org

Web site: http://www.naccchildlaw.org

Provides training and technical assistance to child 

advocates and works to improve the child welfare, 

juvenile justice and private custody systems. 

National Black Child Development Institute

address: 1101 15th St., NW, Suite 900

 Washington, DC 20005

phone: (202) 833-2220

fax: (202) 833-8222

e-mail: moreinfo@nbcdi.org

Web site: www.nbcdi.org

Operates programs and sponsors a national training 

conference through Howard University to improve 

and protect the well-being of African-American 

children.

National Center for State Courts 

address: 300 Newport Ave.

Williamsburg, VA 23185-4147

phone: (800) 616-6164

fax: (757) 564-2022

Web site: http://www.ncsconline.org

Enhances court operations with the latest technology, 

collects and interprets the latest data on court 

operations nationwide, and provides information 

on proven “best practices” for improving court 

operations.

National Children’s Advocacy Center

address: 210 Pratt Ave

 Huntsville AL 35801

phone: (256) 533-KIDS

fax: (256) 534-6883

Web site: http://www.nationalcac.org

Provides prevention, intervention, and treatment 

services to physically and sexually abused children and 

their families within a child-focused team approach.
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 93

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges

address: NCJFCJ – Permanency Planning for 

Children Department

 1041 North Virginia St.

 P.O. Box 8970

 Reno, NV 89507 

phone: (775) 784-6012 

fax: (775) 784-6628

email: admin@ncjfcj.org

Web site: http://www.pppncjfcj.org

Serves the Nation’s children and families by improving 

the courts of juvenile and family jurisdictions. Its 

mission is to better the justice system through 

education and applied research and improve the 

standards, practices, and eff ectiveness of the juvenile 

court system. NCJFCJ strives to increase awareness 

and sensitivity to children’s issues and focuses on 

providing meaningful assistance to the judges, court 

administrators, and related professionals in whose 

care the concerns of children and their families have 

been entrusted. 

National Court Appointed Special Advocate 

Association

address: North Tower, 100 West Harrison St., 

 Suite 500 

 Seattle, WA 98119-4123 

phone: (800) 628-3233

fax: (206) 270-0078

email: inquiry@nationalcasa.org

Web site: http://www.nationalcasa.org

Promotes and supports volunteer advocacy in juvenile 

courts for children alleged to be maltreated. It receives 

Federal and private funding, provides money and 

technical assistance to start and expand programs, 

promulgates performance standards, produces 

training manuals and other publications, and trains 

program leaders and volunteers. 

National Indian Child Welfare Association

address: 5100 SW Macadam Ave.,

 Suite 300

 Portland, OR 97239

phone: (503) 222-4044

fax: (503) 222-4007

e-mail: info@nicwa.org

Web site: http://www.nicwa.org

Disseminates information and provides technical 

assistance on Indian child welfare issues. Supports 

community development and advocacy eff orts to 

facilitate tribal responses to the needs of families and 

children.

Youth Law Center

address: Children’s Legal Protection Center

1010 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 310

Washington, DC 20005-4902

phone: (202) 637-0377

fax: (202) 379-1600

e-mail: info@youthlawcenter.com

Web site: http://www.youthlawcenter.com

Works to ensure that vulnerable children are provided 

with the conditions and services they need, particularly 

focusing on children living apart from their families 

in child welfare and juvenile justice systems.
 94 Appendix B—Resource Listings of Selected National Organizations Concerned

 With Child Maltreatment

NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTERS

National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal 

and Judicial Issues

address: ABA Center on Children and the Law

 740 15th St., NW

 Washington, DC 20005-1019

phone: (800) 285-2221 (Service Center)

 (202) 662-1720

fax: (202) 662-1755

e-mail: ctrchildlaw@abanet.org

Web site: http://www.abanet.org/child/rclji/home.

html

Provides technical assistance, training and consultation 

to State, local and Tribal agencies and courts to 

strengthen their knowledge of legal and judicial issues 

related to child welfare and juvenile and family courts. 

Its expertise on a wide variety of subjects includes 

court improvement, agency and court collaboration, 

termination of parental rights, non-adversarial case 

resolution, reasonable eff orts requirements, legal 

representation of children, permanent guardianship, 

confi dentiality, and other emerging child welfare 

issues.

National Resource Center for Adoption

address: 16250 Northland Drive, Suite 120 

Southfi eld, MI 48075 

phone: (248) 443-0306

fax: (248) 443-7099

e-mail: nrc@nrcadoption.org

Web site: http://www.nrcadoption.org

Develops and distributes training curricula, 

publications, and videos and sponsors three national 

conferences to improve the eff ectiveness and quality 

of adoption and post-adoption services. Th e center 

also provides training on current practices, policies, 

and issues in special needs adoption; permanency 

planning; post-adoption services; and cultural 

competence.

National Resource Center for Child Protective 

Services

address: 925 #4 Sixth Street NW

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102

phone: (505) 345-2444

fax: (505) 345-2626

e-mail: theresa.costello@actionchildprotection.

org

Web site: http://www.nrccps.org

Focuses on building State, local, and Tribal capacity 

through training and technical assistance in CPS, 

including meeting Federal requirements, strengthening 

programs, eligibility for the CAPTA grant, support to 

State Liaison Offi cers, and collaboration with other 

NRCs. 
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 95

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence: 

Child Protection and Custody

address: Family Violence Department

 National Council of Juvenile and Family 

Court Judges

 P.O. Box 8970

 Reno, NV 89507

phone: (800) 527-3223

fax: (775) 784-6160

e-mail: fvdinfo@ncjfcj.org

Web site: http://www.ncjfcj.org/dept/fvd/res_center

Promotes improved court responses to family violence 

through demonstration programs, professional 

training, technical assistance, national conferences, 

and publications.

National Resource Center for Family-Centered 

Practice and Permanency Planning

address: National Resource Center for FamilyCentered Practice and Permanency 

Planning

Hunter College School of Social Work

129 East 79th Street

New York, NY 10021

phone: (212) 452-7053

fax: (212) 452-7475

Web site: http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/

nrcfcpp/

Provides training and technical assistance and 

information services to help States through all stages 

of the CFSRs, emphasizing family-centered principles 

and practices and helping States build knowledge of 

foster care issues. Partners with the Child Welfare 

League of America and the National Indian Child 

Welfare Association to provide training, technical 

assistance, and information services.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SUPPORT SYSTEM

ORGANIZATIONS

Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical 

Assistance 

address: Association of Administrators of the 

Interstate Compact on Adoption and 

Medical Assistance

810 First St., NE, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20002

phone: (202) 682-0100

fax: (202) 289-6555

Web site: http://aaicama.aphsa.org/index.html

Provides technical and legal assistance, education 

and training, and materials on practice and policy 

issues to facilitate the administration of the Interstate 

Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance.

Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children

address: Association of Administrators of the 

Interstate Compact on the Placement of 

Children

American Public Human Services 

Association

810 First St., NE, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20002-4267

phone: (202) 682-0100

fax: (202) 289-6555

e-mail: ICPCinbox@aphsa.org

Web site: http://icpc.aphsa.org

Provides ongoing administrative, legal, and technical 

assistance to individual States that administer the 

Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, 

which is a uniform State law that establishes a 

contract among party States to ensure that children 

placed across State lines receive adequate protection 

and services.
 96 Appendix B—Resource Listings of Selected National Organizations Concerned

 With Child Maltreatment

PREVENTION ORGANIZATIONS

National Alliance of Children’s Trust and 

Prevention Funds

address: 5712 30th Ave. NE

Seattle, WA 98105

phone: 206-526-1221

fax: 206-526-0220

e-mail: trafael@juno.com 

Web site: www.ctfalliance.org

Assists State children’s trust and prevention funds to 

strengthen families and protect children from harm.

Prevent Child Abuse America

address: 200 South Michigan Ave., 

17th Floor

Chicago, IL 60604-2404

phone: (800) 835-2671 (orders)

(312) 663-3520

fax: (312) 939-8962

e-mail: mailbox@preventchildabuse.org

Web site: http://www.preventchildabuse.org

Conducts prevention activities such as public 

awareness campaigns, advocacy, networking, research, 

and publishing, and provides information and 

statistics on child abuse.

Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Plus 

address: 649 Main St., Suite B

Groveport, OH 43125

phone: (800) 858-5222 

(614) 836-8360

fax: (614) 836-8359

e-mail: sbspp@aol.com

Web site: http://www.sbsplus.com

Develops, studies, and disseminates information and 

materials designed to prevent shaken baby syndrome 

and other forms of child abuse and to increase positive 

parenting and child care.

COMMUNITY PARTNERS

Th e Center for Faith-Based and Community 

Initiatives

address: U. S. Department of Health and Human 

Services

200 Independence Ave., SW.

Washington, DC 20201

phone: 1-877-696-6775

e-mail: cfbci@hhs.gov

Web site: http://www.hhs.gov/faith/

Welcomes the participation of faith-based and 

community-based organizations as valued and 

essential partners with the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services. Funding goes to faithbased organizations through Head Start, programs 

for refugee resettlement, runaway and homeless 

youth, independent living, childcare, child support 

enforcement, and child welfare.
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 97

Family Support America

(formerly Family Resource Coalition of America)

address: 205 West Randolph Street, 

 Suite 2222

 Chicago, IL 60606

phone: (312) 338-0900

fax: (312) 338-1522

e-mail: info@familysupportamerica.org

Web site: www.familysupportamerica.org

Works to strengthen and empower families and 

communities so that they can foster the optimal 

development of children, youth, and adult family 

members.

National Exchange Club Foundation for the 

Prevention of Child Abuse

address: 3050 Central Ave.

 Toledo, OH 43606-1700

phone: (800) 924-2643

 (419) 535-3232

fax: (419) 535-1989

e-mail: info@preventchildabuse.com

Web site: http://www.nationalexchangeclub.com

Conducts local campaigns in the fi ght against child 

abuse by providing education, intervention, and 

support to families aff ected by child maltreatment. 

National Fatherhood Initiative

address: 101 Lake Forest Blvd., Suite 360 

 Gaithersburg, MD 20877

phone: (301) 948-0599

fax: (301) 948-4325

Web site: http://www.fatherhood.org

Works to improve the well-being of children by 

increasing the proportion of children growing up 

with involved, responsible, and committed fathers.

FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC

Childhelp USA

address: 15757 North 78th St.

 Scottsdale, AZ 85260

phone: (800) 4-A-CHILD

 (800) 2-A-CHILD (TDD line)

 (480) 922-8212

fax: (480) 922-7061

e-mail: help@childhelpusa.org

Web site: http://www.childhelpusa.org

Provides crisis counseling to adult survivors and child 

victims of child abuse, off enders, and parents, and 

operates a national hotline.

National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children

address: Charles B. Wang International Children’s 

Building

 699 Prince St.

 Alexandria, VA 22314-3175

phone: (800) 843-5678

 (703) 274-3900

fax: (703) 274-2220

Web site: http://www.missingkids.com

Provides assistance to parents, children, law 

enforcement, schools, and the community in 

recovering missing children and raising public 

awareness about ways to help prevent child abduction, 

molestation, and sexual exploitation.
 98 Appendix B—Resource Listings of Selected National Organizations Concerned

 With Child Maltreatment

Parents Anonymous

address: 675 West Foothill Blvd., Suite 220

 Claremont, CA 91711

phone: (909) 621-6184

fax: (909) 625-6304

e-mail: Parentsanonymous@parentsanonymous.

org 

Web site: www.parentsanonymous.org

Leads mutual support groups to help parents provide 

nurturing environments for their families.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Child Welfare Information Gateway

address: 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW

Eighth Floor

Washington, DC 20024

phone: (800) 394-3366

 (703) 385-7565 

fax: (703) 385-3206

e-mail: info@childwelfare.gov

Web site: http://www.childwelfare.gov/

Collects, stores, catalogs, and disseminates information 

on all aspects of child maltreatment, child welfare, and 

adoption to help build the capacity of professionals in 

the fi eld. A service of the Children’s Bureau. 
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 99

APPENDIX C

State Telephone Numbers

for Reporting Child Abuse

Each State designates specifi c agencies to receive and investigate reports of suspected child abuse and neglect. 

Typically, this responsibility is carried out by child protective services (CPS) within a Department of Social 

Services, Department of Human Resources, or Division of Family and Children Services. In some States, police 

departments also may receive reports of child abuse or neglect.

Many States have local or toll-free telephone numbers, listed below, for reporting suspected abuse. Th e 

reporting party must be calling from the same State where the child is allegedly being abused for most of 

the following numbers to be valid.

For States not listed, or when the reporting party resides in a diff erent State from the child, please call Childhelp, 

800-4-A-Child (800-422-4453), or your local CPS agency. States may occasionally change the telephone 

numbers listed below. To view the most current contact information, including State Web addresses, visit 

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/reslist/rl_dsp.cfm?rs_id=5&rate_chno=11-11172.

Alabama (AL)

334-242-9500

Alaska (AK)

800-478-4444

Arizona (AZ)

888-SOS-CHILD

(888-767-2445)

Arkansas (AR)

800-482-5964

Colorado (CO)

303-866-5932

Connecticut (CT)

800-842-2288

800-624-5518 (TDD)

Delaware (DE)

800-292-9582

District of Columbia (DC)

202-671-SAFE (7233)

Florida (FL)

800-96-ABUSE

(800-962-2873)

Hawaii (HI)

808-832-5300

Idaho (ID)

800-926-2588

Illinois (IL)

800-252-2873

217-524-2606

Indiana (IN)

800-800-5556

Iowa (IA)

800-362-2178

Kansas (KS)

800-922-5330

Kentucky (KY)

800-752-6200

Maine (ME)

800-452-1999

800-963-9490 (TTY)

Massachusetts (MA)

800-792-5200
 100 Appendix C—State Telephone Numbers for Reporting Child Abuse 

Mississippi (MS)

800-222-8000

601-359-4991

Missouri (MO)

800-392-3738

573-751-3448

Montana (MT)

866-820-KIDS (5437)

Nebraska (NE)

800-652-1999

Nevada (NV)

800-992-5757

775-684-4400

New Hampshire (NH)

800-894-5533

603-271-6556

New Jersey (NJ)

877-652-2873

800-835-5510 (TDD/ TTY))

New Mexico (NM)

800-797-3260

505-841-6100

New York (NY)

800-342-3720

518-474-8740

800-369-2437 (TDD)

Oklahoma (OK)

800-522-3511

Pennsylvania (PA)

800-932-0313

Puerto Rico (PR)

800-981-8333

787-749-1333

Rhode Island (RI)

800-RI-CHILD

(800-742-4453)

South Carolina (SC)

803-898-7318

South Dakota (SD)

605-773-3227

Tennessee (TN)

877-237-0004

Texas (TX)

800-252-5400

512-834-3784

Utah (UT)

800-678-9399

Vermont (VT)

800-649-5285 (after hours)

Virginia (VA)

800-552-7096

804-786-8536

Washington (WA)

866-END-HARM

(866-363-4276)

800-562-5624 (after hours)

800-624-6186 (TTY)

West Virginia (WV)

800-352-6513
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 101

APPENDIX D

Guidelines for Child

Protective Services 

Caseworkers for Permanency 

and Review Hearings

INDIVIDUALS WHO SHOULD BE PRESENT AT BOTH PERMANENCY AND REVIEW HEARINGS

• Th e judge who has monitored the case from the fi rst hearing;

• Th e child, unless inappropriate for a specifi c reason;

• Th e parent whose rights have not been relinquished or terminated;

• Th e attorney for the parent;

• Th e assigned social services caseworker;

• Th e prosecuting or agency attorney;

• For Indian children, a representative from the child’s tribe and tribal attorney, if any;

• Th e guardian ad litem for the child, whether attorney, social worker, or other paid nonattorney, 

volunteer, or Court-Appointed Special Advocate;

• Th e attorney for the child, if applicable;

• Th e foster parent, legal-risk foster parent, or adoptive parent;

• Relatives, other interested persons, and witnesses;

• Th e court reporter or suitable recording technology;

• Th e court security and other court staff .
 102 Appendix D—Guidelines for Child Protective Services Caseworkers

 for Permanency and Review Hearings

QUESTIONS FOR ALL CASES: WHAT ARE THE CHILD’S SPECIAL NEEDS?

• What is the child’s health and education status?

• What is being off ered to address the child’s cultural needs, if applicable?

• What is the child’s current placement adjustment?

• What services are being provided to the child, what progress has the child made, and what issues 

still need to be addressed?

FOR THE PERMANENCY HEARING

If Reunifi cation Is Recommended:

• How have the conditions or circumstances leading to the removal of the child been corrected?

• Why is this plan in the best interests of the child? 

• How often is visitation occurring and what is the impact on the child?

• What is the date and detailed plan for the child’s safe return home and follow-up supervision after 

family reunifi cation? 

• What are the plans to continue any necessary services to the child?

• What are the plans to continue any necessary services to the family?

• If a change of school will occur, what will be done to prepare for the transition?

If Termination of Parental Rights and Adoption Are Recommended:

• What are the facts and circumstances supporting the grounds for termination?

• What reasonable eff orts were made to reunify?

• Why is this plan in the best interests of the child?

• Has the petition been fi led and, if not, what is the date it will be fi led?

• Are there relatives who will adopt the child if termination of parental rights is granted? If so, is the 

child living with the relative? If not, why not? If there are no relatives willing and able to adopt, 

why not?

• If relative adoption is not the plan, is adoption by the foster parents the plan? If not, why not?
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 103

• If an adoptive home must be recruited, what eff orts are being made to identify potential adoptive 

homes both locally and in other jurisdictions? Are there adults with whom the child has a positive 

relationship and are they potential adopting families? 

Will Adoption With Contact Be Recommended and Why or Why Not?

• What counseling will occur to assist the child to deal with this change of plan?

• If the child is an Indian child, have Indian Child Welfare Act requirements been met?

If Permanent Guardianship or Permanent Custody Is Recommended:

• Why is this option preferable to termination of parental rights and adoption? Why is it in the best 

interests of the child?

• What reasonable eff orts were made to reunify?

• What are the facts and circumstances demonstrating the appropriateness of the individual or couple 

to serve as permanent family to the child? Is there another person who spends signifi cant time in 

the home, and if so, has that individual been interviewed for appropriateness?

• Has there been full disclosure to the family of the child’s circumstances and special needs?

• What is the plan to ensure that this will be a permanent home for the child?

• What contact will occur between the child and parents, siblings, and other family members?

• What fi nancial support will be provided by the biological parents? 

• What are the plans to continue any necessary services to the child? How will these services be 

funded after guardianship or custody has been granted?

• If the child is not already placed in this home, why not and: 

How often is visitation occurring and what is the impact on the child?

What is the date and detailed plan for the child’s placement in this home and follow-up 

supervision after placement? 

If a change of school will occur, what will be done to prepare for the transition?

If Another Plan Is Being Recommended:

• What are the compelling reasons not to proceed with reunifi cation, termination of parental rights, 

permanent guardianship, or permanent custody? What is the plan, and why is this plan in the 

child’s best interests?

• What reasonable eff orts were made to reunify the child with the parent?

• How will this plan provide stability and permanency for the child?

• What contact will occur between child and parents, siblings, and other family members?

–

–

–
 104 Appendix D—Guidelines for Child Protective Services Caseworkers

 for Permanency and Review Hearings

• What are the plans to continue any necessary services to the child?

• If the child is a teenager, what is the plan to prepare the child for independent living?

• If the child is not already placed in this home, why not and:

How often is visitation occurring and what is the impact on the child?

What is the detailed plan for the child’s placement in this home and follow-up supervision 

after placement?

If a change of school will occur, what will be done to ease the transition?

Findings and Conclusions:

• Record the persons present and whether absent parties were provided with appropriate notice; 

verifi cation that reports off ered into evidence have been provided to all parties in advance of the 

hearing.

• A fi nding as to what reasonable eff orts the agency has made to reunify the family and to fi nalize 

a permanent plan. A well-designed, appropriate case plan and meaningful case reviews should 

prevent unexpected fi ndings of “no reasonable eff orts” at this stage of a case. Should it be found 

that additional remedial steps are necessary, specifi c expectations should be set out in a detailed 

order, with a short time frame (e.g., 30 days) for holding the follow-up permanency hearing. A 

copy of the order should be forwarded to the head of the social services agency.

• A statement addressing special factors or conditions of the child that are identifi ed as special needs, 

what services are to be provided to address these needs, and who is responsible for providing the 

services.

• Th e court’s determination of the permanent plan for the child and why the plan is in the best 

interests of the child. Th e order should state the steps to be taken and time lines for accomplishing 

the permanent goal. If the plan is reunifi cation, the date for reunifi cation should be stated.

• If the plan is termination of parental rights and the petition has not yet been fi led, the order should 

state expected time frame for fi ling a petition for termination of parental rights that must be within 

30 days. If the petition has been fi led, the court should schedule pretrials, mediation, and trial 

dates.

• If the plan is termination of parental rights, and a parent wishes to relinquish parental rights at the 

permanency hearing, the court should be prepared to accept the relinquishment and include the 

relinquishment in the order.

• For any plan, next hearing date and purpose, unless all court and agency involvement is 

terminated (i.e., permanent guardianship, permanent custody, or reunifi cation without protective 

supervision).

–

–

–
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 105

FOR REVIEW HEARINGS THAT FOLLOW PERMANENCY HEARINGS OR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL

RIGHTS HEARINGS

If Reunifi cation Is the Permanent Plan:

• What progress has been made on each of the issues that prevented implementation of this plan at 

the permanency hearing?

• How often is visitation occurring and what is the impact on the child and family?

• What is the date and detailed plan for the child’s safe return home and follow-up supervision after 

family reunifi cation?

• What are the plans to continue any necessary services to the child?

• What are the plans to continue any necessary services to the family?

• If a change of school will occur, what will be done to prepare for the transition?

• If the family has not made adequate progress to enable a safe return home, what alternate permanent 

plan is recommended and what are the steps and time frames for its implementation?

If Permanent Guardianship or Permanent Custody Is the Permanent Plan:

• What progress has been made on each of the issues that prevented implementation of this plan at 

the permanency hearing?

• What contact is occurring between the child and parents, siblings, other family members and tribal 

and clan members, if applicable, and is this contact working well for the child and all involved 

individuals?

• Has there been full disclosure regarding the child’s background history and current or potential 

disabilities?

• What are the plans to continue any necessary services to the child? How will these services be 

funded after guardianship or custody has been granted?

• What is the plan for fi nancial support from the biological parents?

• Is there any reason that permanent guardianship or permanent custody should not be granted 

today?

• If suffi cient progress has not been made to enable the granting of permanent guardianship or 

permanent custody at this hearing, what alternate permanent plan is recommended and what are 

the steps and time frames for its implementation?
 106 Appendix D—Guidelines for Child Protective Services Caseworkers

 for Permanency and Review Hearings

If Relative or Foster Home Adoption Is the Permanent Plan:

• What progress in approving the relative or foster home as the adoptive home has been made since 

the termination of parental rights hearing? If it is not yet approved, why not, what remains to be 

done, and when will it be approved?

• Has there been full disclosure regarding the child’s history, and current or potential disabilities?

• If adoption with contact has been agreed upon, what contact is occurring between the child and 

parents, siblings, other family members, or tribal and clan members, if relevant, and is this contact 

working well for the child and all involved individuals?

• How soon can the adoption be fi nalized? What specifi c steps must occur and what is the time 

frame for each of the steps? 

• Has the adoption assistance agreement been negotiated? If not, why not? Have all appropriate 

subsidies been identifi ed and has all paperwork been completed with regard to these subsidies? 

Will services follow the family if they move out of State? Is the adopting family aware of the details 

of all appropriate subsidy issues?

• Has the relative or foster parent been made aware of ways to access needed services after the 

adoption is fi nalized? Has the relative or foster parent been given contacts for support groups or 

other adopting families who can serve as mentors and supports?

If an Adoptive Home Has Been Recruited Since the Last Hearing but the Child Has Not Yet Been Placed in 

the Home:

• A detailed description of the family and the neighborhood in which the family lives. Is there another 

person who spends signifi cant time in the home, and if so, has this individual been interviewed for 

appropriateness?

• If the child is an Indian child, does the home meet the placement preferences listed in the Indian 

Child Welfare Act, and if not, why not? What eff orts has the agency made to identify a placement 

under Indian Child Welfare Act? 

• Has there been full disclosure to the adopting family of the child’s circumstances, history, special 

needs, and potential disabilities? 

• Have all available subsidies been identifi ed and discussed with the adopting family?

• Is the adopting family aware of any adoption with contact agreement and are they accepting of the 

agreement? 

• What is the visitation and placement plan and its time frame? If visits have begun, how are the 

child and the adopting family adjusting?

• If the home is out of State, have all regulations regarding the Interstate Compact for the Placement 

of Children and the Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance been followed? Are 
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 107

there any known or anticipated issues relative to these compacts that may cause delays and if so, 

what is being done to resolve or avoid the delays?

• Has there been full disclosure regarding the child’s history and current or potential disabilities?

• What are the plans to continue any necessary services to the child? How will these services be 

funded after guardianship or custody has been granted?

• What is the plan for fi nancial support from the biological parents?

• Is there any reason that permanent guardianship or permanent custody should not be granted 

today?

• If suffi cient progress has not been made to enable the granting of permanent guardianship or 

permanent custody at this hearing, what alternate permanent plan is recommended and what are 

the steps and time frames for its implementation?

If the Child Has Been in the Adoptive Home Since the Last Hearing:

• What progress has been made since the last hearing toward fi nalization? When will fi nalization 

occur? What specifi c steps must occur and what are the time frames for each step? 

• Have any new problems or issues occurred since the last hearing? What is the plan to address the 

problems or issues? 

• If full disclosure regarding the child’s history and current or potential disabilities had not yet 

occurred at the last hearing, has it now occurred?

• If adoption with contact has been agreed upon, what contact is occurring between the child and 

parents, siblings or other family members, and is this contact working well for the child and all 

involved individuals?

• Has the adoption assistance agreement been negotiated? If not, why not? Have all appropriate 

subsidies been identifi ed and has all paperwork been completed with regard to these subsidies? Will 

services follow the family if they move out of state? Is the adopting family aware of the details of all 

appropriate subsidy issues?

• Has the adopting family been made aware of ways to access needed services after the adoption 

is fi nalized? Has the adopting family been given contacts for support groups or other adopting 

families who can serve as mentors and supports?

If the Agency Is Recruiting an Adoptive Home:

• What eff orts have been made since the termination of parental rights hearing or last review hearing 

to identify potential adoptive homes both locally and in other jurisdictions?

• If the child is an Indian child, what eff orts are being made to identify potential adoptive homes in 

the child’s tribal community?
 108 Appendix D—Guidelines for Child Protective Services Caseworkers

 for Permanency and Review Hearings

• What is the status of investigating adults with whom the child has or has had a positive relationship 

with regard to their potential to become adopting families? 

• On what adoption exchanges and Internet sites is the child listed? 

• How many potential families have expressed interest in the child and what is the status of 

investigating each family?

• What eff orts are being made by the agency to comply with Indian Child Welfare Act placement 

preferences, if applicable?

If Another Plan Is the Permanent Plan:

• What progress has been made since the permanency hearing and is the existing permanent plan still 

in the child’s best interests? 

• Do the compelling reasons not to proceed with reunifi cation, termination of parental rights, 

permanent guardianship, or permanent custody that existed at the permanency hearing still 

apply?

• If they do not, what is the new permanent plan and how is it in the child’s best interests? What 

are the steps and time frames that have occurred, or still need to occur to fully implement this new 

plan?

• What is the frequency and duration of contact that is occurring between the child and parents, 

siblings, other family members, tribal or clan members, or other signifi cant adults? Is this contact 

working well for the child and all involved individuals?

• What is the plan to prepare the child for independent living? 

• If a change of placement is planned: 

Why is this change necessary and in the best interests of the child?

What is the plan for pre-placement visits? Have they begun and how is the child 

responding? What is the detailed plan for the child’s placement in this home and 

follow-up supervision after placement?

If a change of school or service providers will occur, what will be done to ease the transition?

Findings and Conclusions:

• Who is present at the hearing and whether absent parties were provided with appropriate notice. 

If the child is an Indian child, the court should verify whether the child’s tribe received notice and 

was off ered an opportunity to participate. It should be verifi ed that reports provided to the court 

were made available to all parties prior to the hearing.

• A fi nding as to whether the agency has made reasonable eff orts to fi nalize a permanent home with 

detail to support the fi nding. If the child is in an adoptive home, the fi nding should indicate 

whether the agency is doing everything possible, as quickly as possible, to approve the home, 

complete all aspects of the adoption assistance agreement including subsidies and services, and 

–

–

–
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 109

move toward fi nalization. If an adoptive home must be recruited, the fi nding should indicate 

whether the agency is doing everything possible, as quickly as possible, to list the child on all 

appropriate exchanges, Internet sites, and with all appropriate private agencies, and to promptly 

screen and complete home studies on prospective adopting parents. 

• If the child is an Indian child, a fi nding as to whether the agency has complied with the placement 

preferences within the Indian Child Welfare Act, and if not, the eff orts made to comply.

• If there are any changes or adjustments to the permanent plan, a description with time lines for 

implementation and the reasons that these adjustments or changes are in the best interests of the 

child.

• If visitation issues, including agreements for adoption with contact apply, are the terms and 

schedules of visitation being complied with and are they eff ective. 

• A statement addressing special factors or conditions of the child that are identifi ed as special needs, 

what services are being provided to address the needs and how the child is progressing.

• Any specifi c orders that are to be implemented.

• Unless the permanent plan is fi nalized at the hearing, the date and time for the next review or the 

fi nalization hearing.

Source: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2000). Adoptions and permanency guidelines: Improving 

court practice in child abuse and neglect cases. Reno, NV: Author.

Working with the Courts in Child Protection 111

APPENDIX E

Legal and Judicial Issues

Suggested by the Child and

Family Services Review 

Performance Indicators

To help States consider the legal dimensions of the seven safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes and 

the seven systemic factors (including the 45 related specifi c performance indicators identifi ed by the Federal 

government), this appendix annotates the 45 performance indicators addressed in the fi rst round of reviews. 

Th at is, the 45 Federal performance indicators are listed verbatim and boldface below, while legal and judicial 

aspects of each performance area are provided as bullets. Note: Th ese bullets are meant to illustrate the kinds of 

legal practice and policy issues that may require attention to comply with each performance area. 

I. SAFETY:

1. Timeliness in initiating child abuse and neglect investigations.

• Eff ective legal help is available to overcome barriers to investigations.

• Legal advice is provided to the agency that supports the fi ling of actions in dependency court 

whenever abused and neglected children need State intervention.

• Legislation and court rules provide legal remedies allowing agencies to complete investigations 

when family members or other people familiar with the child refuse to cooperate.

• Statutes, regulations, and procedures provide clear and appropriate guidance for investigators and 

caseworkers to obtain otherwise confi dential information from substance abuse treatment providers, 

criminal justice agencies, schools, mental health providers, doctors, and other professionals.

2. Recurrence of abuse or neglect by parents.

• Courts remove children from home and enforce comprehensive judicial protective supervision.

• Courts carefully consider safety factors when deciding whether to return a child home.

• Courts exercise caution when deciding whether to terminate court jurisdiction (dismiss case).

• Judges and attorneys take time to carefully review documents and ask challenging questions 

concerning safety issues in the home.

• Adequate evidence demonstrating danger to the child is off ered in court proceedings.
 112 Appendix E—Legal and Judicial Issues Suggested by the Child and 

 Family Services Review Performance Indicators

• Judges carefully consider evidence about the child and caretakers to ensure the child will be safe.

• Domestic violence policies are well defi ned.

3. Services to protect children at home and prevent removal.

• In appropriate circumstances judges order parents to participate in services to protect the child 

instead of ordering the child removed from home.

• Adequate evidence demonstrating whether services will alleviate danger to the child is off ered in 

court proceedings.

• Laws and regulations defi ne an array of services for abused and neglected children and their families, 

to be delivered immediately in emergencies.

• Domestic violence policies are well defi ned.

4. Risk of harm to child including abuse or neglect of child while in foster care.

• Courts order removal of children from their foster homes when the agency appropriately requests 

it to avoid potential abuse or neglect. (Note that courts do not have the power in all States to block 

removal of a child from a foster home.)

• Courts monitor foster placements by insisting caseworkers and children’s legal representatives visit 

and evaluate the foster home.

• Safety clearances are done on every adult in the foster parents’ or adoptive parents’ homes.

Note: Many organizational problems may aff ect the factors listed below. Important examples are excessive 

workloads, insuffi cient training, poor hiring practices and management, and weak case management skills. 

Th ese are common problems facing caseworkers, attorneys, foster parents, child advocates, judges, and court 

staff and can weaken the legal system.

II. PERMANENCY:

5. Foster care reentry.

• Adequate time and resources are allocated for meaningful case review before sending the child 

home.

• Courts require evidence that the home is safe before authorizing the child’s return home.

• When courts allow children to remain home following adjudication of child abuse or neglect, they 

require that the case be brought back to court if the agency decides to place the child in foster care. 

Due process protections regarding subsequent removal of the child are in place.

• Courts order specifi c services and refer parents to community supports to make the return successful 

and require that parents and children complete the services.

• Courts gather enough information about the parent and child before return.
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 113

• Courts ensure visitation plans are designed to foster healthy parent-child relationships and work 

toward successful reunifi cation to avoid foster care reentry (e.g., eff orts are made to ensure visits are 

meaningful, progressively longer visits are imposed).

• Courts and agencies closely monitor cases.

• Courts carefully and thoroughly consider the evidence when deciding whether to return children 

home.

6. Stability of foster placement – too many moves of foster children into diff erent foster homes.

• Judges monitor moves while children are in foster care.

• Laws, regulations, and State policies discourage moving children between foster homes.

• Policies and practices support training for foster parents of special needs children. 

• Judges understand bonding and attachment issues and factor them into decision-making.

• Courts thoroughly review children's needs.

• Children’s counsel eff ectively represents children by:

Reviewing case plans;

Participating in case planning;

Preserving placements;

Advocating for reunifi cation services; 

Advocating for independent living services; 

Visiting and interacting with the child to independently assess whether moves are necessary.

7. Permanency goal for child. 

• Attorneys, judges, and court personnel are adequately trained in permanency planning practices.

• Permanency hearings are conducted in a timely manner and suffi cient time is allotted for 

hearings.

• Judges and attorneys understand concurrent planning and support it when appropriate.

• State laws provide appropriate grounds for legal guardianship, clear and effi cient procedures for 

establishing legal guardianships, and adequate legal protections and fi nancial supports for legal 

guardians.

• State laws provide appropriate grounds for termination of parental rights (TPR) and clear and 

effi cient procedures for TPR.

• State laws and policies provide appropriate exceptions for mandatory petitions for TPR, based on 

Federal requirements.

–

–

–

–

–

–
 114 Appendix E—Legal and Judicial Issues Suggested by the Child and 

 Family Services Review Performance Indicators

• State laws and policies provide workable procedures for determining whether to fi le or join petitions 

for the TPR. 

8. Reunifi cation, guardianship, or permanent placement with relatives.

• Courts consistently follow or enforce time limits for hearings and judicial decisions. Courts have a 

comprehensive system of time limits governing all stages of the court process.

• Adequate judicial case tracking systems are in place.

• Judges fully explore all possible placement resources.

• Judges routinely establish or approve specifi c permanency plans for foster children.

• Courts minimize delays by notifying appropriate parties, denying adjournments, ensuring diligent 

eff orts to locate missing parents at start of case, determining paternity early in case, and addressing 

other procedural problems.

• Multi-court involvement in diff erent stages of child protection cases is discouraged to avoid delays, 

loss of information, and other ineffi ciencies.

• Court practices are effi cient to minimize time to achieve reunifi cation.

• Clear, effi cient procedures exist to indefi nitely transfer custody to a non-custodial parent or relative 

in child protection proceedings.

• State laws provide appropriate grounds for legal guardianship, clear and effi cient procedures for 

establishing legal guardianships, and adequate legal protections and fi nancial supports for legal 

guardians.

• Courts consistently and thoroughly review reasonable eff orts to achieve a new permanent home for 

the child.

9. Achievement of adoption.

• Courts adequately track case progress toward adoption.

• Courts thoroughly consider the appropriateness of prospective adoptive caretakers.

• Judges fully explore all possible placement resources.

• Courts understand when TPR petitions are required and the exceptions to such requirements.

• Courts take steps to encourage or require TPR petitions, when appropriate.

• State laws provide appropriate grounds for TPR and clear and effi cient procedures for TPR.

• Suffi cient resources and court time are available to promote timely TPRs.

• Th e appellate process is streamlined to avoid TPR delays.
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 115

• Courts and attorneys inform agencies of available steps to speed appeals. 

• Courts actively oversee cases between TPR and fi nalization of adoption

• Courts minimize scheduling delays and prioritize cases when needed.

• Courts minimize delays by notifying appropriate parties, denying adjournments, ensuring diligent 

eff orts to locate missing parents at start of case, determining paternity early in case, and addressing 

other procedural problems.

• Multi-court involvement in diff erent stages of child protection cases is discouraged to avoid delays, 

loss of information, and other ineffi ciencies.

10. Permanency goal of other planned permanent living arrangement.

• “Another planned permanent living arrangement” is clearly defi ned to avoid misapplication.

• Courts carefully use this permanency option, ensuring compelling reasons exist and giving thought 

to long-term permanency planning.

• Courts order or recommend services that might allow the child to move into a more permanent 

placement.

• Courts review case plans to determine agency compliance with services and visitation for other 

planned permanent living arrangements.

• Courts operate with the understanding that independent living (foster children “aging out”) is not 

a permanency plan, but foster children are entitled to independent living services.

• Courts are familiar with available independent living services for children in the community and 

refer children to appropriate services.

• Courts are familiar with Federal legislation supporting independent living services.

• Courts ask about independent living services in most cases involving older teens in foster care.

• State laws authorize extending court jurisdiction for children who have turned 18 and specify 

appropriately.

11. Proximity of foster care placement.

• Courts request information about the proximity of the foster care placement.

• Courts do not order children placed outside their communities or counties if appropriate placement 

resources are located in close proximity.

• Courts routinely request information based on agency visits with children placed out of State.

• Statutes, court rules, and policies provide appropriate guidance concerning the proximity of foster 

care placement.
 116 Appendix E—Legal and Judicial Issues Suggested by the Child and 

 Family Services Review Performance Indicators

12. Placement with siblings.

• Courts consistently ask agencies to present specifi c reasons for failing to place siblings together.

• State statutes, court rules, and polices address the priority of placement with siblings.

• Attorneys and judges are adequately trained on the importance of maintaining sibling ties as well 

as on reasons why this might not be appropriate.

13. Visits with parents and siblings.

• Courts request information about the nature and quality of foster children’s visits, contacts, and 

relationships with parents and siblings.

• Courts address visiting, when appropriate, in court orders. 

• Attorneys request evaluations of the quality of visits with parents and siblings.

• Statutes, court rules, and policies provide clear guidance regarding visitation.

• Attorneys and judges are adequately trained on visitation issues.

14. Preserving connections.

• Attorneys request evaluations of relatives.

• Statutes, court rules, and policies provide clear guidance regarding maintaining relative ties.

• Attorneys are adequately trained on the importance and pitfalls of maintaining relative ties.

• Courts ask whether children are Native American and, if so, whether tribes have been notifi ed.

• Courts support collaboration with tribal courts on transfers of cases of Native American children 

where appropriate.

• Courts enforce placement preferences for Native American children under ICWA, including 

placement with the child’s extended family and with tribes.

15. Relative placement.

• Courts ask about possible placement with maternal and paternal relatives early and often.

• Courts ask agencies to present specifi c reasons for not placing children with relatives.

• Attorneys and judges are adequately trained on relative placement issues. 

16. Relationship of child in care with parents.

• Courts consistently ask about child’s relationship with parents while in care, including nature and 

quality of visits and other contact.

• Courts monitor visiting arrangements and their frequency where specifi ed in court orders.
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 117

• Attorneys are adequately trained regarding maintaining parent-child relationships during foster 

placements.

III. CHILD AND FAMILY WELLBEING:

17. Needs and services of child, parents, foster parents.

• Courts ensure that agencies conduct thorough assessments and provide services to meet the needs 

of the child, parents, and foster parents.

• Courts review case plans submitted to the courts by the child protection agency to see if needs are 

being met through the provision of services.

• Courts address barriers to service provision and delivery.

• Attorneys and advocates identify and address their clients’ needs and advocate appropriate 

services.

• Attorneys, advocates, and judges have suffi cient training, experience, and resources to advocate 

eff ectively for children’s service needs (e.g., special education, medical, and mental health needs).

• Judges and attorneys are suffi ciently knowledgeable about confi dentiality laws to help ensure that 

information on children’s and family’s needs is available to the court and agency.

18. Child and family involvement in case planning.

• Attorneys and advocates participate in and encourage child and family involvement in case 

planning.

• Statutes, court rules, and policies provide appropriate guidance to encourage child and family 

involvement in case planning.

19. Worker visits with the child.

• Statutes, court rules, and policies provide appropriate guidance on worker visits with parents and 

children.

• Attorneys and advocates request information about and, when appropriate, advocate for worker 

visits with the child. 

20. Worker visits with parents.

• Courts consistently review and note worker visits with parents and children.

• Statutes, court rules and policies provide appropriate guidance on and, when appropriate, advocate 

for worker visits with parents.

21. Educational needs of the child.

• Courts request information about foster children’s education from teachers, guidance counselors, 

caseworkers, and others.
 118 Appendix E—Legal and Judicial Issues Suggested by the Child and 

 Family Services Review Performance Indicators

• Court forms request education information including school records addressing the child’s academic 

performance, behavior and adjustment to school, and special educational needs.

• Judges, attorneys, and advocates consistently determine whether foster children’s education needs 

are being met.

• Policies off er guidance on minimizing disruptions in foster children’s education due to frequent 

moves.

• State laws appropriately address confi dentiality issues surrounding access to education records of 

foster children and children under protective supervision.

• Judges, attorneys, and advocates have suffi cient knowledge about the education system to intervene 

eff ectively to ensure a good education for foster children.

22. Physical health of the child.

• Courts obtain information about foster children’s medical needs.

• Court forms request physical health information, including any known medical problems, needed 

treatments, medication, and physical symptoms of abuse or neglect.

• Judges, attorneys and advocates consistently determine whether foster children’s physical health 

needs are being met.

• Courts are aware of State requirements regarding foster children’s physical health, such as those 

concerning medical examinations and immunizations.

• Courts inquire, when appropriate, whether health records have been reviewed, updated, and 

supplied to the foster care provider.

• State laws appropriately address confi dentiality issues governing access to medical information 

about abused and neglected children.

23. Mental health of the child.

• Judges, attorneys, and advocates request information from children’s therapists about foster 

children’s mental health issues.

• Court forms request mental health information.

• Courts are aware of State requirements for diagnosis and treatment regarding foster children’s 

mental health.

• Judges, attorneys, and advocates consistently determine whether foster children’s mental health 

needs are being met.

• State laws appropriately address confi dentiality issues governing access to mental health 

information.
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 119

IV. STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM:

24. State operates information system that readily can identify the status, demographic 

characteristics, location, and goals for the placement of every child who is (or within the 

preceding year was) in foster care.

• Courts have created a statewide information system or good local information systems.

• Case tracking responsibilities are clearly assigned to appropriate court staff .

• Courts and agencies have automated systems that use computers and tickler systems to manage 

cases.

• Computer data is used to measure judicial performance.

• Agency information systems include information about critical court events to help evaluate judicial 

performance in child protection cases.

• Data are shared between judicial and agency computers.

• Sophisticated procedures exist to collect and report data.

V. CASE REVIEW SYSTEM:

25. Written case plan developed jointly with parents.

• Parents’ attorneys participate in the case planning process.

• Parents’ attorneys are trained on non-adversarial models for resolving confl ict (i.e., Family Group 

Conferencing and mediation).

• Parents’ attorneys advocate for meaningful case planning for their clients.

• Judges ask about parental involvement in case planning.

26. Process for periodic review at least once every six months, by court or by administrative review.

• Court procedures and forms ask hard questions and ensure thoroughness.

• Courts and/or agencies schedule 6-month reviews in a timely manner.

• Reviews thoroughly consider whether reasonable eff orts have been made to achieve permanency, 

especially after the case goal is no longer reunifi cation.

• Courts set aside enough time to hold review hearings that thoroughly consider the individual 

circumstances of each child and family and that address each issue specifi ed by State and Federal 

law.

• If administrative reviews are held in lieu of judicial reviews, the courts take time to examine the 

reports from the reviews and address them in court proceedings.
 120 Appendix E—Legal and Judicial Issues Suggested by the Child and 

 Family Services Review Performance Indicators

27. Permanency hearings within 12 months after a child is considered to have entered foster care 

and at least once every 12 months thereafter.

• Adequate scheduling procedures for reviews are in place.

• Courts devote enough time to conduct thorough permanency hearings that address each issue 

specifi ed in State and Federal statutes and to determine an appropriate permanency plan for each 

child.

• State laws, court rules, court forms, and court procedures create a structure for permanency hearings 

that encourages timely decisions by the court and agency, even in challenging cases.

• Permanency hearings thoroughly consider whether reasonable eff orts have been made to achieve 

permanency, especially after the case goal no longer is reunifi cation.

28. Process for termination of parental rights proceedings in accordance with ASFA.

• Attorneys and judges are aware of State and Federal statutory requirements to fi le petitions for TPR 

and of the exceptions.

• Courts routinely review agency documentation of exceptions to State and Federal requirements to 

fi le petitions for TPR.

• Procedures for TPR fully protect parents’ rights without being needlessly ineffi cient.

• State laws do not require parties to reprove facts established in earlier stages of the court process in 

order to terminate parental rights.

• Grounds for TPR are complete, focused, and consistent.

• Agency procedures and policies for deciding whether to fi le are timely and balanced.

29. Process for foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers of children in foster 

care to be notifi ed of, and have an opportunity to be heard in, any review or hearing held with 

respect to the child.

• Courts consistently encourage active participation of foster parents, preadoptive parents, and 

relative caregivers in court proceedings. 

• Foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers consistently receive notice of court 

proceedings.

• Th e wording of notice forms encourages the attendance of foster parents, preadoptive parents, and 

relative caregivers in court.

• State laws and procedures specify an eff ective notifi cation method for foster parents, preadoptive 

parents, and relative caregivers and defi ne what is meant by “opportunity to be heard.”

• Courts have forms and procedures for review and permanency hearings that call for statements by 

and questioning of foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers.
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 121

• State laws and procedures clearly defi ne an eff ective notifi cation method for foster parents, 

preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers and defi ne what is meant by “opportunity to be 

heard.”

• State laws, court rules, and policies clarify and reinforce the role of foster parents, preadoptive 

parents, and relative caretakers in court.

VI. QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM:

30. Implementation of standards for services to children in foster care, to protect their health and 

safety.

• Th e agency has comprehensive standards for services to children in child protection cases and 

courts are aware of these standards.

• Agencies and courts work together to exchange information on services to children.

31. Quality assurance system in place to evaluate the quality of services, identify strengths and 

needs of service delivery system, provide relevant reports, and evaluate implementation of 

program improvement measures.

• Agencies enlist courts to help evaluate caseworkers’ performance in court.

• Courts have systematic quality assurance systems to evaluate their own performance.

VII. TRAINING:

32. Staff development and training program for all staff , including training on objectives of Title 

IV-B plan and services under Title IV-B and IV-E. To include initial training for all staff .

• Th e State agency provides copies of its Title IV-B and IV-E plans to all judges.

• Th e State agency provides to all judges and attorneys copies of lists of the services provided under 

Titles IV-B and IV-E.

• Training is provided for all new judges and attorneys concerning Title IV-B and IV-E and 

participation is mandatory.

• Comprehensive training is provided for all new judges and attorneys concerning child welfare law 

and basic social work principles and participation is mandatory.

33. Staff development and training to address ongoing skills needed to implement Title IV-B plan.

• Periodic training on child protection cases is provided for experienced judges and attorneys and 

participation is mandatory.

• Judicial and attorney training requirements for child protection cases are rigorous.

• Training on permanency planning concepts and procedures is provided to ensure timely 

permanence.
 122 Appendix E—Legal and Judicial Issues Suggested by the Child and 

 Family Services Review Performance Indicators

• Courts and agencies use appropriate cross training—addressing issues of mutual concern—and 

avoid inappropriate use of cross training in lieu of training in core legal skills and knowledge.

34. Training for prospective foster parents, adoptive parents, and staff of facilities with children 

receiving foster care or adoption assistance under Title IV-E.

• Prospective foster parents receive training on the legal aspects of permanency planning, including 

t4e stages and purposes of the legal process.

• Foster parents receive training and materials on their rights and responsibilities in child welfare 

proceedings, including the right to be heard and to participate in the case.

• Prospective adoptive parents receive training concerning their legal responsibilities and about the 

legal process of adoption.

• Foster parents, prospective adoptive parents and agency staff receive training concerning 

legal protections (e.g., procedural rights, entitlements, contractual rights) regarding adoption 

assistance.

VIII. SERVICE ARRAY:

35. State has array of services. Th e array of services assesses strengths and needs of children and 

families, determines other service needs, addresses needs of individual children and of families 

to create a safe home environment, enables children to remain at home when reasonable, and 

helps children in foster and adoptive placements achieve permanency.

• Child protection agencies inform courts of available services, who is eligible for diff erent services, 

and usual waiting periods for services.

• State laws, regulations, and budgets provide for a core of services that are consistently available to 

abused and neglected children and their families.

36. Th e services in the array (listed in response to the above item) are accessible to families and 

children in all political jurisdictions covered in the State’s Title IV-E plan.

• Contracts for services are well written and ensure availability of needed services.

• Agencies have master plans for contracts to ensure consistent availability of key services.

• State laws require other agencies to give priority to and ensure availability of services to clients 

served by the child protection agency and under court jurisdiction.

37. Th e services in the array can be individualized to meet the unique needs of children and 

families served by the agency.

• State laws and policies budget for child protection services based on documented need for such 

services.

• Agencies’ contracts for services provide fl exible services to meet material and special needs of 

children and families.
Working with the Courts in Child Protection 123

IX. AGENCY RESPONSIVENESS TO THE COMMUNITY:

38. Ongoing consultation with tribal representatives, consumers, service providers, foster care 

providers, the juvenile courts, and other public and private child and family serving agencies 

and includes the major concerns of these representatives in the goals and objectives of the Title 

IV-B plan.

• Courts regularly meet with the agency and meet with all of the child protection professionals listed 

above to work on mutual problems and improve working relationships.

• Judicial ethics clarify and encourage judicial outreach to the agency and community regarding child 

protection cases.

39. Th e agency develops, in consultation with these representatives, annual reports of progress and 

services delivered under the Title IV-B plan.

• Th e agency consults with legal system representatives concerning its annual reports, including 

allowing them to review draft reports in advance. Among other things, the agency asks for 

comments concerning service delivery.

40. Th e State’s services under the Title IV-B plan are coordinated with services or benefi ts of other 

Federal or federally assisted programs serving the same population.

• Th e agency consults with legal system representatives specifi cally concerning the delivery of federally 

assisted services provided by agencies and entities not funded by the child protection agency.

XI. FOSTER AND ADOPTIVE PARENT LICENSING, RECRUITMENT, AND RETENTION:

41. Implementation of standards for foster family homes and child care institutions, reasonably in 

accord with national standards.

• Courts have information about standards for foster and adoptive parents and concerning child care 

institutions.

42. Standards applied to all foster family homes and child caring institutions receiving title IV-E 

or IV-B funds.

• Courts are informed when foster family homes and child caring institutions no longer meet agency 

standards.

43. State complies with Federal requirements for criminal background checks and has a case 

planning process that addresses the safety of foster and adoptive placements.

• State law requires criminal record checks of parents found to have abused or neglected their children 

and of other people living in the households of abused and neglected children.

• State law requires criminal record checks of all adults in foster and adoptive homes.

• Courts or court forms ask about the criminal record of parents found to have abused or neglected 

their children and of other people living in the households of abused and neglected children.
 124 Appendix E—Legal and Judicial Issues Suggested by the Child and 

 Family Services Review Performance Indicators

• Attorneys and judges are aware of State and Federal statutory restrictions concerning the licensing 

of specifi c categories of convicted criminals as foster and adoptive parents.

44. State has process for diligent recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families that refl ect 

the ethnic and racial diversity of children in the State for whom foster and adoptive homes are 

needed.

• Courts and attorneys are well informed about the process of recruiting, matching, screening and 

evaluating foster and adoptive families. 

• In case reviews in which the permanency plan is adoption and the child is not yet placed in 

a preadoptive home, judges and advocates ask about State eff orts to recruit and arrange such a 

home.

• When evaluating whether the State made reasonable eff orts to fi nalize a child’s permanency plan, 

judges and advocates consider, if relevant, the State’s eff orts to recruit, evaluate, and select adoptive 

parents for the child.

45. State has a process for eff ective use of cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely 

adoptive or permanent placements for waiting children.

• Courts receive technical assistance, materials, and training on interstate placements (and overcoming 

barriers to such placements), including implementation of the ICPC.

• Judges and attorneys are familiar with the ICPC, interstate adoption assistance benefi ts, ICAMA, 

and other interstate placement benefi ts and requirements.

• Judges, attorneys, and advocates consistently ask informed and penetrating questions when 

interstate placement or services are being considered.

Source: Hardin, M. (2002). How and why to involve the courts in your Child and Family Services Review 

(CFSR): Suggestions for agency administrators [On-line]. Available: http://www.abanet.org/child/courtimp.

html.