Transcript A Study of Family Drug Treatment Courts in the US and UK

The case for a Family Drug
Treatment Court in Australia:
Putting children first
Greg Levine, Magistrate, Children’s Court of Victoria
Barbara Kamler, Emeritus Professor, Deakin University
6th World Congress on Family Law and Children’s Rights
17-20 March 2013, Sydney Australia
Parental substance misuse: An urgent
problem

In England and Wales substance misuse is a significant factor in up to two
thirds of care proceedings (Harwin et al, 2011).

In the United States, between 60 and 80 percent of substantiated cases of
child abuse and neglect cases involve substance misuse by a custodial
parent or guardian (Young et al, 2007).

In Australia, statistics are anecdotally similar. Families involved in child
protection cases are characterised by one or more intersecting problems:
drug or alcohol misuse, family violence, poverty, lack of education,
inadequate housing, intellectual disability or mental illness (Victorian Law
Reform Commission, 2010).
Increase in out-of-home care: Low
reunification once children removed

Australia-wide, the number of children in out-of-home care has risen every year over the last 10
years, with 35,895 estimated in out-of-home care as of 30 June, 2011.

Over the past decade, the number of Victorian children and young people in out-of home care
has increased by 44 per cent, bringing the total number in care to 5,700 by June 2011.
(Cummins et al, 2012: xxvi).

In Victoria, during 2010-11 approximately 3000 children and young people were placed in
accommodation away from their family home, and on average stayed in care for 18 months,
some in 3 or 4 placements in a single year.

The psycho-social costs to the child are extremely high: Inadequate foster care supply,
placement instability, lack of certainty about returning to the birth family adversely affects
children’s development, including emotional difficulties, behavioural problems and poor
academic performance (Lamont, 2011).
How do we deal with the problem of
parental substance misuse now?
• Children are removed from families. DHS file Protection Applications.
• Court Hearing. Orders made to facilitate parental rehabilitation and
recovery, including: drug treatment programs, regular drug testing,
attend parenting and anger management courses, relationship or
domestic violence counseling, help to find suitable accommodation.
• Court responsibility ceases. Judicial officer has no further contact with
family after orders are made, no knowledge of outcomes, no continuity
of decision making.
• It is left to the individual social worker to follow up treatment and
services for families - or cases may be unallocated in a context of
ongoing crises and high case loads in child protection services.
The result: Poor outcomes for children,
family rehabilitation and reunification

LITTLE EFFECTIVE COORDINATION OR/COMMUNICATION between the multiple
agencies parents are ordered to access.

With NO SYSTEMATIC SUPPORT, parents are less likely to comply with or
complete substance misuse treatment.

Judicial officers are likely to allow parents MORE TIME TO REHABILITATE for the
sake of the family. A regular criticism made of the Children’s Court in Victoria is
that it allows parents too many opportunities to prove they can rehabilitate.

This results in cases drifting on for years and LACK OF STABILITY FOR CHILDREN–
in escalating costs of out-of-home care and long-term problems for children,
families, the child protection system, the courts and the broader community.
Key features of the Family Drug
Treatment Court

A problem-solving rather than adversarial approach to decision making

Multidisciplinary Team attached to the court who provide carefully coordinated
case management and treatment for parents and children

Judicial continuity through a docket system

Quicker child-focused time lines for family reunification or permanent
placement outside the home (12 months)

Frequent court hearings to foster parental compliance and connection

Closely monitored rehabilitation to keep parents focused on recovery and
improved parenting with careful attention to children’s developmental needs
Churchill Program: March – April 2012

San Jose, California: Santa Clara County Dependency Drug Treatment Court

Omaha, Nebraska: Zero to Five Family Drug Treatment Court, Douglas County

Miami, Florida: Drug Dependency Court, Miami Dade County

Washington, DC: Family Treatment Court of the D.C. Superior Court

New York City: Manhattan Family Treatment Court, New York County Family
Court

London, UK: Family Drug and Alcohol Court, Inner London Family Proceedings
Court
Drug
Court DVD Short.mp4
How do FDTCs differ from the Criminal Drug
Courts?
 Family
Drug Treatment Courts draw on best practice from
the adult criminal drug court model and adhere to its ten
key components.
 BUT
FDTCs differ in the focus, structure, purpose and
scope of their activity because the best interests of the
child must also be served. FDTCs provide every necessary
service to parents, but they must also address and
prioritise the needs of children and the family.
Key differences between FDTCs and
Criminal Drug Courts
 Program
 Scope
incentives
of services
 Measures
 Gender
of success
profile of participants
Program incentives
In the Criminal Drug Court the principle incentive is to avoid
incarceration.
In the FDTC the key incentive is family reunification. Parents
who succeed know they will have their children returned.
But timelines are child-focused and sensitive to children’s
developmental needs. When parents cannot address the
issues that interfere with their ability to care protectively,
permanent plans are made to place children in out-of-home
care.
Scope of services
The Criminal Drug Court provides coordinated substance misuse
rehabilitation, treatment and closely monitored case
management services for participants.
In the FDTC there is the additional need to coordinate protective
services for children with adult services and address all factors
that impede family reunification. Thus FDTC partners include 1)
the court; 2) child protection services and; 3) a wide array of drug
treatment and other service providers for parents, children and
families
Measures of success
To ‘graduate’ from the Criminal Drug Court participants must
follow court orders, stay clean and sober for a sufficient period of
time and not continue offending.
In the FDTC being ‘drug free’ is only one measure of success.
Parents also need to demonstrate effective parenting, the
capacity to provide income, safe housing and a home free of
turmoil and violence in a relatively short period of time (12
months).
Gender profile of participants
Most Criminal Drug Court participants are male, while women comprise
more than 85% of the participants in FDTCs. As of 2001, 87% of FDTC
graduates in the US were women and 13% were men (Cooper, 2001).
This gender difference has significant treatment implications, with most
FDTCs structuring services to meet women’s specific needs, such as
dealing with low self esteem and depression, childhood trauma,
domestic violence, co-occurring health disorders as well as taking a
comprehensive approach to treating the mother-child relationship and
including children, especially infants, in treatment. (Edwards and Ray,
2005:5)
Positive evaluations: parental recovery,
family reunification, cost benefits

Parents in Family Drug Treatment Courts are twice as likely to begin and
complete treatment. Treatment completion rates were 20 to 30 percent
higher for FDTC participants than for the comparison participants.

Children of Family Drug Treatment Court participants spend significantly less
time in out-of-home placements, such as foster care.

Family re-unification rates were 20 to 40 percent higher for Family Drug
Treatment Court participants than for comparison groups. (Marlow and
Carey, 2012:2-3)
Human benefits
 interrupting
the cycle of intergenerational substance abuse
and child neglect
 reduction
in cumulative harm to children enabling a more
productive future
 increase
in children’s stability through family reunification or
early permanency planning outside the home
.
.
Cost benefits

Primarily realised through reduction in government administration and foster care costs.
Further savings from reduced court time in achieving permanent placement; increased judicial
efficiency; decrease in legal costs.

Several US evaluations report cost savings from a reduced reliance on out-of-home child
placements. For example, savings were approximately $10,000 per child in Maine, $15,000 in
Montana, $13,000 in Oregon. The average net cost savings for FDTCs ranged from $5,000 to
$13,000 per family.

In the UK, the average cost per family was £8740 over the life of a case. This cost was offset by
savings from more children staying with their families. Further cost reductions came from: (a)
shorter care placements (£4,000 per child); (b) shorter court hearings (£682 per family); fewer
contested cases; (c) expert witnesses replaced by specialist team (£1,200 per case).
Critical factor: Collaborative approach to
rehabilitation and reunification

The Judicial officer keeps control of the case from start through to permanency planning–
and establishes a motivating relationship with parents through frequent hearings,
sometimes weekly at the start

The Judicial officer works with a Multidisciplinary Team of experts attached to the court
(social work, substance use, mental health) who develop an intensive treatment plan and
coordinated access to all necessary services, eg- domestic violence and trauma
counseling, housing, child development

Intensive monitoring of the family by the Team, for ‘getting clean’; but also to repair the
child-parent relationship, develop healthy parenting. The Team discusses progress in
treatment plans before each court hearing and makes adjustments, as required

All Team members work for the same goal – reunification- and if/when it is clear the
parent cannot succeed , alternate planning begins early, with parents part of the process
Without collaboration, it is difficult to
make a difference to families

Recent experiences in Victoria. A judicial inclination to move to
the docket system to maintain contact and improve oversight of
parent progress.

Problem: The judicial officer makes a significant difference, but
it is the Judge working with the TEAM that achieves the results
of the FDTC.
Progress to date

Written and distributed the Churchill Fellowship Report

Meetings and discussions with senior people in government, including the Attorney
General and Minister for Community Services and Mental Health

Meetings with (a) CEOs and senior officials in non-government agencies involved in child
protection, legal aid and the private legal profession, mental health, drug and alcohol
therapeutic services; and (b )researchers in social work, addiction studies, mental health
to explore evaluation models of the Victorian FDTC and parent mentoring approaches

Numerous presentations to national and international conferences

Formation of a Steering Group to develop the first Australian FDTC and a budget for a 3
year trial of the FDTC in the Children’s Court of Victoria
Key challenge

Acquiring appropriate funding and resourcing for the successful
running of the FDTC, including:
the appointment of a full time FDTC Coordinator
the appointment of an Interdisciplinary FDTC Team (5-6 members,
social work, substance use, mental health)
the location of an appropriate venue and legal staffing for FDTC court
hearings, meeting rooms and offices for the Team
new methods to introduce/sustain the docket system
Positive signs. Steering Group commitment,
expertise, lobbying

In mid-October, we invited a committed group of experts to serve as the Inaugural Steering
Group of the FDTC to develop a program model and logic, budget, governance policies,
eligibility and assessment criteria, evaluation models etc. Since October, we have met 5 times
and call on a wide range of expertise from:

Department of Justice: Director, Courts Policy; President, Children’s Court of Victoria, CEO CCV,
Principal Registrar, CCV, Magistrate Levine, CCV; Victoria Legal Aid Child Protection Practitioner

AOD/Mental Health Experts : CEO Odyssey House; CEO Youth Support and Advocacy Services;
Associate Professor Addiction Studies, Monash University and Turning Point; Policy Advisor,
Department of Health

Child Protection Experts: Principal Child Protection Practitioner, Department of Human
Services; Director Take Two, Berry Street (non-government children and family support
services) Program development and evaluation: Emeritus Professor Barbara Kamler
Positive signs: Secondment of an FDTC
Coordinator one day per week

On November 26, 2012, we received support from the Department of
Justice via this email from the CEO of the Children’s Court:

Dear Greg Arrangements are being made for X, Program Manager Drug
Court, to dedicate one day per week to supporting the FDTC work. X will be
sitting either in Courts Policy or here with us (as required) to develop a
project plan and eventual program model.
Positive signs. ABC Radio National
Interview January 28, 2013
GREG LEVINE: ... All of the significant evaluations of courts in the United States have demonstrated that
both socially and economically there's absolutely no reason why it can't work here. In my view it's of the
highest priority for governments to be able to introduce this court process.
ALISON CALDWELL: Magistrate Greg Levine says a dedicated family drug treatment court would meet
two of the recommendations from Victoria's Cummins inquiry, including that child protection move away
from an adversarial system.
He has floated the idea with the Justice Department and Victoria's Department of Human Services.
Mary Wooldridge is the Minister for Community Services and Mental Health. She
welcomes the initiative.
MARY WOOLDRIDGE: The Coalition Government is very interested in that idea and
we're definitely having a look at the model and seeing if that's something that would fit
well into the Victorian justice system. f
In conclusion
‘Family Drug Treatment Courts offer a proven structure
and set of processes for interrupting the
intergenerational harm caused by substance abuse and
for giving parents the very best chance to rehabilitate
and be reunited with their children.’
[Levine, G. (2012) Report to the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of
Australia, p. 5.]