Jeremy Travis, Director October 1996

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

R e s e a r c h P r e v i e w

National Institute of Justice

Coordinating Criminal and Juvenile Court

Proceedings in Child Maltreatment Cases

A Summary of a Research Study by Debra Whitcomb, Education Development Center, Inc.,

and Mark Hardin, American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law

Child abuse cases often inspire intense public reaction. In

some instances, public concern over child abuse has

encouraged criminal prosecution of offenders, even in

cases that otherwise would have been handled solely by

the child protection system and the juvenile courts. As a

result, many cases of child maltreatment involve both

criminal and juvenile court proceedings, each initiated by

different government entities, and each pursuing different

processes that may be incompatible, inefficient, and

deleterious to the child and family.

A National Institute of Justice-funded study conducted by

Education Development Center, Inc., and the American

Bar Association’s Center on Children and the Law found

that although many child protection and law enforcement

agencies work reasonably well together during the

investigation process, a similar level of cooperation has

not been achieved by attorneys who handle the litigation

in criminal and juvenile courts. Greater cooperation is

needed to protect children from harm without compromising the American justice system.

Key issues

In juvenile court, the goal is to protect the child, rehabilitate the family if possible, and ensure a permanent home

for the child. A criminal proceeding is brought to protect

the public, deter future crime, punish wrongdoing, and

rehabilitate the criminal. There is a philosophical difference between the treatment emphasis of juvenile court

and the punishment emphasis of criminal court.

This clash in approach becomes evident when criminal

and juvenile court actions in child maltreatment cases

proceed concurrently but independently of one another.

When these actions are not coordinated, the results can

be harmful to the child, the family, and the justice system

itself. For example, when juvenile court actions precede

the criminal matter, as they do in most circumstances, the

alleged offenders are at risk. Information they provide to

comply with juvenile court treatment plans, such as their

involvement in therapy, can be used against them in

subsequent criminal prosecutions.

When criminal actions proceed first and juvenile court

actions are delayed, children are at risk. Treatment and

placement plans may be stalled and children may not

receive needed services. It is also possible for judges in

the separate cases to issue conflicting orders (e.g., the

juvenile court may order joint family therapy while the

criminal court imposes a no-contact order). When this

happens, the integrity of the justice system is undermined.

Coordination of proceedings

To learn how jurisdictions deal with these issues, researchers talked to a nationally representative sample of

103 criminal prosecutors and 59 attorneys who represent

child protection agencies in the juvenile court. Responding prosecutors estimated that 60 percent of their child

maltreatment cases were concurrently involved in juvenile

court proceedings, often because a nonoffending parent

was unable or unwilling to protect the child from repeated

abuse by the alleged perpetrator. Conversely, child

protection attorneys estimated that 13 percent of their

caseloads were also involved in criminal courts; the

remaining cases either were not sufficiently serious or
lacked adequate evidence for criminal prosecution.

Sexual abuse was the offense category most likely to be

simultaneously involved in both courts.

Findings reveal that little attention is paid to coordinating

court proceedings in related cases:

• Roughly half the attorneys surveyed said that dualcourt cases proceed independently, with no consideration given to case status in the other court. Among

the other half, most respondents reported that juvenile

court matters generally preceded related criminal

proceedings, while a smaller percentage stated that

criminal cases were handled first.

• Nearly one-fifth of the prosecutors could not name the

individual or agency responsible for representing the

child protection agency in juvenile court proceedings.

• Several respondents suggested that attempts to coordinate child maltreatment cases would be inappropriate and perhaps counterproductive. They asserted that

the disparate missions of criminal and juvenile courts

could not be reconciled without radically changing the

larger system of jurisprudence.

Experiences in four jurisdictions

Following the phone survey, researchers visited four

jurisdictions—Chittenden County (Burlington), Vermont;

Tompkins County (Ithaca), New York; Santa Clara County

(San Jose), California; and Hawaii County (Hilo and

Kona), Hawaii—that had given special attention to the

problem of coordination. Despite substantial variations in

community size, court structures, statutory frameworks,

and social service resources, researchers observed a

number of common themes.

Reportedly, all four jurisdictions had overcome potential

problems with conflicting court orders in concurrent

cases. Much of the credit for resolving inconsistencies

went to: (1) defense attorneys, who often represented the

alleged offender in both courts; (2) probation officers, who

incorporated juvenile court orders into their presentence

investigation reports to the criminal court; and (3) criminal

court judges, who referenced juvenile court orders into

their own orders governing pretrial release or probation.

One judge even developed an on-line system to search

for outstanding protection orders involving any family

member.

On the other hand, defense counsel were universally

dissatisfied with statutory protections available to their

clients. “Testimonial immunity” statutes are meant to allow

alleged perpetrators to participate freely in juvenile court

matters without fearing that their statements will be used

against them in criminal court. However, because defense

counsel perceived these protections to be inadequate,

they frequently advised their clients not to testify in

juvenile court or participate in therapy. As a result,

treatment for alleged offenders—particularly those

accused of sexual abuse—was often delayed pending

resolution of the criminal case.

Policy implications

This study identifies issues that require resolution when

child abuse cases wind up in both criminal and juvenile

courts. Possible solutions include laws to:

• Encourage or require participation of criminal prosecutors and child protection attorneys in civil/criminal case

coordination teams.

• Delineate the nature of information that may be shared

between the courts and the circumstances under

which sharing is possible.

• Encourage or require the courts to report the status of

dual-court cases in a reciprocal manner.

Also, because juvenile court proceedings generally occur

before the corresponding criminal matters (as they

should, to give precedence to the child’s needs), States

are advised to review their testimonial immunity statutes

to strengthen protections for alleged offenders, e.g., by

specifying that reports from evaluations or treatment

conducted under juvenile court order cannot be made

available to the criminal prosecution.

However, researchers concluded that, ultimately, coordination of child maltreatment proceedings depends on

good communication between counsel for the child

protection agency and the criminal prosecutor. To transcend traditional barriers, child protection attorneys

should be included on multidisciplinary case review

teams that already exist in many communities. Attorneys

should consult with one another at key decision points in

their respective cases, and they should work together and

with others in the community to reform laws and practices

that create contradictions in purpose or block

cooperation.

This summary is based on the study supported by NIJ

grant 92–IJ–CX–K034. The full report on the project,

“Coordinating Criminal and Juvenile Justice Court Proceedings in Child Maltreatment Cases,” by Debra

Whitcomb and Mark Hardin (NCJ 161835) is available

through the National Criminal Justice Reference Service on interlibrary loan or for a photocopying fee. Call

800–851–3420.

Points of view in this document do not necessarily reflect the official

position of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Selected NCJRS Publications

Listed below are some recent NIJ publications related to

issues of child abuse, domestic violence, and victimization. These publications are free, except as indicated, and

can be obtained from the National Criminal Justice

Reference Service (NCJRS): telephone 800–851–3420,

e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.org, or write NCJRS, Box 6000,

Rockville, MD 20849–6000.

These documents also can be downloaded through the

NCJRS Bulletin Board System or at the NCJRS Anonymous FTP site in ASCII or graphic formats. They can be

viewed online at the Justice Information Center World

Wide Web site. Call NCJRS for more information.

Please do note that when free printed publications are

out of stock, they are available as photocopies or through

interlibrary loan.

Childhood Victimization and Risk for Alcohol and Drug

Arrests, 2 pages, NIJ Research Preview, 1995,

FS000108.

A Coordinated Approach to Reducing Family Violence:

Conference Highlights, 40 pages, NIJ Research Report,

1995, NCJ 155184.

Earle, Ralph B., Ph.D., Helping to Prevent Child Abuse

and Future Criminal Consequences: Hawai’i Healthy

Start, 12 pages, NIJ Program Focus, 1995, NCJ 156216.

Earls, Felton J., M.D., and Albert J. Reiss, Jr., Ph.D.,

Breaking the Cycle: Predicting and Preventing Crime, 68

pages, NIJ Research Report, 1994, NCJ 140541.

English, Kim, Managing Adult Sex Offenders in Community Settings: A Containment Approach. VHS videotape,

1996, NCJ 159740, U.S. $19, Canada and other foreign

countries $24.

Evaluation of Family Violence Training Programs,

2 pages, NIJ Research Preview, 1995, FS000125.

The Extent and Costs of Crime Victimization: A New

Look, 2 pages, NIJ Research Preview, 1996, FS000131.

Fagan, Jeffrey, The Criminalization of Domestic Violence:

Promises and Limits, 64 pages, NIJ Research Report,

1996, NCJ 157641.

Harrell, Adele, Ph.D., Intervening with High-Risk Youth:

Preliminary Findings from the Children-at-Risk Program,

VHS videotape, 1995, NCJ 153270, U.S. $19, Canada

and other foreign countries $24. Also a brief summary is

available at no cost. Ask for FS000140.

Healey, Kerry Murphy, Victim and Witness Intimidation:

New Developments and Emerging Responses, 16 pages,

NIJ Research in Action, 1995, NCJ 156555.

McGillis, Daniel, Beacons of Hope: New York City’s

School-Based Community Centers, 16 pages, NIJ

Program Focus, 1996, NCJ 157667.

Moffitt, Terrie, Ph.D., Partner Violence Among Young

Adults, VHS videotape, 1995, NCJ 154277, U.S. $19,

Canada and other foreign countries $24.

Moses, Marilyn C., Keeping Incarcerated Mothers and

Their Daughters Together: Girl Scouts Beyond Bars, 12

pages, NIJ Program Focus, 1995, NCJ 156217.

NIJ, OVC, OJJDP, National Center on Child Abuse and

Neglect, Joint Investigations of Child Abuse, Report of a

Symposium, 32 pages, NIJ Research Report, 1993, NCJ

142056.

Preventing Interpersonal Violence Among Youths,

2 pages, NIJ Update, 1994, FS000069.

Prosecuting Child Physical Abuse Cases: Lessons

Learned from the San Diego Experience, 2 pages, NIJ

Update, 1995, FS000078.

Saunders, Benjamin, Ph.D., and Dean Kilpatrick, Ph.D.,

Prevalence and Consequences of Child Victimization:

Preliminary Results from the National Survey of Adolescents, VHS videotape, 1996, NCJ 157643, U.S. $19,

Canada and other foreign countries $24.

Smith, Barbara, Ph.D., Prosecuting Child Physical Abuse

Cases: A Case Study in San Diego, 12 pages, NIJ

Research in Brief, 1995, NCJ 152978.

The Validity and Use of Evidence Concerning Battering

and Its Effects in Criminal Trials: Report Responding to

Section 40507 of the Violence Against Women Act, 178

pages, NIJ Report to Congress, 1996, NCJ 160972, U.S.

$23, Canada and other foreign countries $26.

Victim Assistance Programs: Whom They Service, What

They Offer, 2 pages, NIJ Update, 1995, FS000840.

Whitcomb, Debra, Gail S. Goodman, Desmond K.

Runyan, and Shirley Hoak, The Emotional Effects of

Testifying on Sexually Abused Children, NIJ Research in

Brief, 1994, NCJ 146414.

Widom, Cathy Spatz, Ph.D., Victims of Childhood Sexual

Abuse—Later Criminal Consequence, NIJ Research in

Brief, 1995, NCJ 151525.

Widom, Cathy Spatz, Ph.D., The Cycle of Violence

Revisited, VHS videotape, 1995, NCJ 153272, U.S. $19,

Canada and other foreign countries $24. Also a brief

printed summary is available at no cost. Ask for

FS000136.
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ

Permit No. G–91