On April 23, the House Government Reform Committee reviewed operations of the District of Columbia court system. Witnesses discussed implementation of the District of Columbia “Family Court Act” of 2001 (P.L. 107-114) and compliance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA)(P.L. 105-89).
In his opening statement, Chair Tom Davis (R-VA) explained that the Family Court Act was enacted “to resolve specific shortcomings in the court, including structural organization and case management practices. The Act increased the number of Family Court judges and required that judges have a background in family law and participate in on-going training. This was intended to ensure that Family Court judges are dedicated to serving on the court, and alleviates the sense among many judges that serving on the Family Court is a required stepping stone to more desirable positions in [the] Superior Court.”
Chief Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the Honorable Rufus King, highlighted a number of the court’s accomplishments including full implementation of the Family Court Act. He said that the Family Court currently has 15 associate judges and 16 magistrate judges and abides by the “one family, one judge” policy, under which a single judicial officer or team handles all cases involving members of the same family. A single adjudicator hears cases involving dissolution of marriage, paternity, child support, custody, juvenile delinquency, civil domestic violence, mental health and retardation, abuse and neglect, and adoption. Justice King stated, “To assist in the identification of related family cases at intake, three case coordinators review all new abuse and neglect case filings. When related cases are found, the case coordinators present that information to the judicial officer handling the case that initially brought that family to court. Decisions about how to schedule hearings in related cases are left to the discretion of the judicial officer. If appropriate, hearings in multiple case types may be heard at a single hearing or separate hearings may be scheduled.”
Justice King explained that the ASFA required the Family Court to hold a permanency hearing for each child within 12 months of the child’s entry into the foster care system. The statute establishes a 45-day deadline for a child that has not been removed from the home and a 105-day deadline for a child that has been removed from the home. Justice King said that the court’s compliance with the permanency hearing requirement has increased substantially in the past three years, noting, “All cases filed during that period which have had a permanency hearing, had their hearing within the 14-month statutory deadline…Newly developed protocols designed to ensure compliance with the deadline are in place to ensure that all remaining cases filed in 2003 will have a hearing within the required timeframe and that the required findings by judicial officers are made.” Justice King also noted that the Family Court collaborates with the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) to coordinate child welfare cases filed in the Family Court. He announced two initiatives that have developed from this collaboration: establishment of the Family Treatment Court for mothers to receive substance abuse treatment, counseling, and parenting classes and the Benchmark Permanency Hearing Program for older foster children.
During the question and answer session, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) focused her comments on the Family Treatment Court, citing concern for the 75 percent of African American children who are born to single women, many of whom may need substance abuse treatment. Justice Kelly said that all mothers with cases before the Family Court must sit through a “rigorous” presentation on treatment programs in the District of Columbia, then are given the option of entering the Family Treatment Court. He noted that there is currently a waiting list for the program because mothers are allowed to stay in the detoxification residence until they are able to find housing for themselves and their children. Justice King explained that the federal government does not provide funding for the court and all funding comes from the District’s CFSA budget.
Cornelia Ashby of the General Accounting Office (GAO) summarized the GAO’s report on the Family Court’s efforts to comply with the ASFA and the Family Court Act. The report found that the court had made progress in complying with the child welfare provisions of the Family Court Act. She stated, “The Family Court met established timeframes for transferring cases in to the Family Court and decreased timeframes for resolving abuse and neglect cases. As of October 2003, only 34 of approximately 3,500 cases that were to be transferred to the Family Court from other divisions of the Superior Court remained outside the Family Court and had not been closed. Similarly, the working relationship between the Family Court and CFSA has improved.” Ms. Ashby said that the Family Court had not yet achieved full compliance with the ASFA requirement to hold permanency hearings within 12 months of a child’s placement in foster care, noting, “The percentage of cases with timely permanency hearings increased from 25 percent in March 2001 to 55 percent in September 2002.” She explained that judges cited external factors such as lengthy waits for housing and the need for parents to complete substance abuse treatment for the delay in scheduling permanency hearings. Judges and court officials also told the GAO that they do not have “sufficient support personnel to allow the Family Court to manage its caseload more efficiently.” Ms. Ashby also noted that there are hindrances constraining the relationship between the Family Court and the CFSA, including an insufficient number of caseworkers and differing opinions on the responsibilities of caseworkers and judges.
The committee also heard testimony from Elliott Hall of the Council for Court Excellence. He said that the council’s research results “show that neglected or abused DC children are in far better hands now than they were a few years ago.” Mr. Hall cited a number of reasons for the improvement, including the “superior” leadership of the Family Court and the CFSA; collaboration among the Family Court, the CFSA, and the Office of Corporation Counsel; “substantial” funding increases for the Family Court; and “a shared commitment to do better for the city’s vulnerable children by ‘managing by the data,’ that is, by routinely measuring performance against statutory and other legal benchmarks.”
