|
Full-Text |
Fiscal Year 2005 MARYLAND JUDICIARY Administrative Office of the Courts Department of Family Administration annual report of the Maryland Circuit Court Family Divisions and Family Services Programs ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS DEPT. OF FAMILY ADMINISTRATION Family Divisions & Family Services Programs ANNUAL REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY ADMINISTRATION 580 Taylor Avenue, 2nd floor Annapolis, Maryland 21401 410- 260- 1580 FAX: 410- 974- 5577 www. courts. state. md. us/ family ROBERT M. BELL, Chief Judge FRANK BROCCOLINA, State Court Administrator PAMELA CARDULLO ORTIZ, Executive Director Submitted: December 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS A MORE SOPHISTICATED APPROACH............................................................................................. 1 FAMILY DIVISIONS AND FAMILY SERVICES PROGRAMS...................................................................... 3 ACCESS TO JUSTICE.................................................................................................................. 12 Standard 1.1 Equal Access......................................................................................................................... ......... 12 Standard 1.2 Cost of Access......................................................................................................................... ...... 13 Standard 1.3 Safety, Accessibility and Convenience........................................................................................... 14 EXPEDITION AND TIMELINESS..................................................................................................... 16 Standard 2.1 Case Management System............................................................................................................. 16 Standard 2.2 Protection of Victims of Domestic Violence..................................................................................... 18 Standard 2.3 Processing Child Dependency Matters........................................................................................... 21 Standard 2.4 Resolution of Juvenile Delinquency Cases..................................................................................... 25 Standard 2.5 Coordination of Family Legal Issues............................................................................................... 27 EQUALITY, FAIRNESS AND INTEGRITY.......................................................................................... 28 Standard 3.1 Integration of Related Family Matters............................................................................................. 28 Standard 3.2 Fairness and Equality for Court Staff.............................................................................................. 29 Standard 3.3 Responsiveness to Child Support Issues........................................................................................ 30 Standard 3.4 Treatment of Unrepresented Parties............................................................................................... 32 INDEPENDENCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY......................................................................................... 36 Standard 4.1 Performance Issues........................................................................................................................ 36 Standard 4.2 Information Sharing........................................................................................................................ 38 Standard 4.3 Fair and Efficient Forum for Dispute Resolution............................................................................. 38 Standard 4.4 Safety and Security....................................................................................................................... . 39 Standard 4.5 Uniform Qualifications................................................................................................................. ... 40 PUBLIC TRUST AND CONFIDENCE................................................................................................ 41 Standard 5.1 A Therapeutic, Holistic, Ecological Approach to Family Law Decision- Making.............................. 41 Standard 5.2 Fairness, Courtesy and Civility........................................................................................................ 42 Standard 5.3 Visible Presence in the Community................................................................................................ 42 A NUANCED APPROACH TO FAMILY COURT REFORM...................................................................... 43 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Total Family Cases Filed or Reopened in Fiscal Year 2005................................................................. 17 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Juvenile and Dependency Drug Courts in Operation or in the Planning Phase in Maryland Circuit Courts......................................................................................................................... ................ 5 Figure 2. Number of Maryland Jurisdictions Offering Specific Family Support Services – FY05.......................... 5 Figure 3. Referrals to Child Access Mediation – FY00 – FY05............................................................................. 7 Figure 4. Referrals to Co- Parenting Education – FY00 – FY05............................................................................. 7 Figure 5. Education Levels of Co- Parenting Participants – FY05.......................................................................... 8 Figure 6. Self- Identified Ethnicity of Co- Parenting Participants – FY05................................................................ 8 Figure 7. Household Income of Co- Parenting Participants – FY05....................................................................... 8 Figure 8. Primary Language of Co- Parenting Participants – FY05........................................................................ 8 Figure 9. Gender of Co- Parenting Participants – FY05......................................................................................... 8 Figure 10. Individuals Assisted by Family Law Self- Help Centers – FY00 – FY05............................................... 9 Figure 11. Legal Forms Helpline Intakes – FY03 – FY05...................................................................................... 9 Figure 12. Legal Forms Helpline – Case Types – FY05........................................................................................ 9 Figure 13. Cases Referred for Custody Evaluations – FY00 – FY05.................................................................. 10 Figure 14. Cases Referred for Mental Health Evaluations – FY00 – FY05........................................................ 10 Figure 15. Substance Abuse Screenings, Evaluations and Treatment – FY02 – FY05...................................... 10 Figure 16. Cases Referred for Visitation Services in FY01 – FY05..................................................................... 11 Figure 17. Cases Including a Referral to Children’s Psycho- educational Programs, FY00 – FY05.................... 11 Figure 18. Family Caseload as a Percentage of Overall Circuit Court Caseload – FY05................................... 16 Figure 19. Family Case Types Heard by Maryland Circuit Courts – FY05.......................................................... 16 Figure 20. Relative Family Caseload by Jurisdiction........................................................................................... 16 Figure 21. SPG Grantees Serving Victims of Domestic Violence – Type of Services Provided – FY05............. 18 Figure 22. SPG Grantees Serving Victims of Domestic Violence – Major Benefit Achieved – FY05.................. 19 Figure 23. SPG Grantees Serving Victims of Domestic Violence – Cases Opened – FY05............................... 19 Figure 24. SPG Grantees Serving Victims of Domestic Violence........................................................................ 20 Figure 25. Family Law Self- Help Centers – Assistance Provided by Case Type – FY05................................... 32 Figure 26. Family Law Self- Help Centers – Referrals and Recommendations Made – FY05............................ 32 Figure 27. Pro Se Appearances in Domestic Litigation - FY05.......................................................................... 34 Figure 28. Self- Help Center Demographics – Highest Level of Education – FY05............................................. 34 Figure 29. Self- Help Center Demographics – Household Income – FY05.......................................................... 34 Figure 30. Self- Help Center Demographics – Primary Language – FY05........................................................... 35 Figure 31. Self- Help Center Demographics – Race/ Ethnicity – FY05................................................................. 35 Figure 32. Self- Help Center Demographics – Gender – FY05............................................................................ 35 1 A More Sophisticated Approach With seven years of experience in family court reform, the Maryland Judiciary has begun to appreciate the sea change that came with the creation of Family Divisions and Family Services Programs in 1998 and enjoy the benefits of working within a shared consensus about how to address the needs of families and children. The maturation of Maryland’s family court reform efforts has permitted the Judiciary to examine quality assurance issues and develop new tools that permit courts to more accurately match the services provided to the needs of individual families. Recognizing that we can always make improvements, the Judiciary seeks to adopt a more sophisticated approach to working with families. New Tools in the Toolbox During Fiscal Year 2005, many ongoing projects of the Maryland Judiciary were completed. The Judiciary now has several new tools in the toolbox, designed to improve the quality of services provided to families and children through the Maryland Circuit Court Family Divisions and Family Services Programs. Many of the projects culminated in the publication of technical resource guides, best practice documents or standards. Notable additions to the family justice toolbox include: Family Court ADR Program Best Practices Best Practices for Family Court Programs to Assist Self- Represented Litigants Screening Cases for Family Violence Issues to Determine Suitability for Mediation and Other Forms of ADR: Screening Protocols and Tools for Maryland Circuit Courts Maryland Standards of Practice for Court- Appointed Lawyers Representing Children in Custody Cases. Several publications were also issued to enhance the information available to litigants involved in the family justice system. These included a series of six brochures on key child support topics, prepared and published by the Conference of Circuit Court Clerks’ Child Support Incentive Fund Committee. With funding from the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault’s Sexual Assault Legal Institute also published and distributed a comprehensive litigant guide on Understanding the Legal System When Your Child Has Been Sexually Abused. Legislative Highlights The fiscal year was also marked by the implementation and/ or passage of key legislation that will have a significant positive effect on Maryland families and children. In October, 2004, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act took effect. That law clarified the relationship between state and federal law and improved the interstate enforcement of child custody orders. The Maryland Judicial Conference Committee on Family Law educated legislators about the benefits of the revised uniform law and supported its passage. 2 After several years of tireless effort, the Department of Family Administration’s Foster Care Court Improvement Project succeeded in convincing the Maryland General Assembly to pass the Permanency for Families and Children Act of 2005. The bill, which takes effect January 1, 2006, represents a comprehensive rewrite of the termination of parental rights ( TPR) and adoption portions of the Juvenile Causes Act. Court Innovation and Improvement New initiatives were undertaken to explore and improve the Judiciary’s response to children. The Circuit Court for Wicomico County began hearing the first cases filed in their newly inaugurated truancy court in January, 2005. The pilot project, which expanded to the remaining 1st Circuit jurisdictions in Fall, 2005, permits schools and courts to collaborate in addressing the underlying needs of children who are not regularly attending school. The Foster Care Court Improvement Project launched a new Model Court Initiative, by contracting with the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges ( NCJFCJ). The NCJFCJ will work with the Circuit Courts for Charles County and Baltimore City to implement innovative practices that enhance the management of child welfare cases. Better Compliance with Federal Law A number of Judiciary activities during Fiscal Year 2005 were designed to monitor and improve Maryland’s compliance with key federal laws affecting juvenile case types. The Foster Care Court Improvement Project ( FCCIP) played a role with agency partners in preparing for the Child & Family Service Review ( CFSR), a federal review of the state’s child welfare system. Since the CFSR was completed in November, 2003, the FCCIP has been working with courts to implement key provisions of the state’s Program Improvement Plan ( PIP), prepared in response to the CFSR. FCCIP also collaborated with agency partners to prepare for a secondary Title IV- E review, conducted by the federal government to review compliance with the provisions of the Adoptions and Safe Families Act ( ASFA). Reviewers noted dramatic improvements in Maryland’s compliance with ASFA. Finally, the Department of Family Administration has been working closely with the Department of Juvenile Services to create delinquency orders that comply with federal laws and to educate courts about how ASFA applies in delinquency matters. Training Highlights In addition to these activities, the Department of Family Administration continued to offer seminars and trainings to court personnel and various stakeholder groups. Events hosted since July, 2004 have included: An annual 3- day conference for juvenile judges and masters, with daylong components for attorneys and agency professionals entitled Child Abuse Neglect and Delinquency Options ( CAN DO). The conference was held in St. Michael’s, Maryland in October, 2004 and in Flintstone, Maryland in October, 2005. A 40- hour Basic Mediation course in June, 2005. A 20- hour Child Access Mediation course in July, 2005. Training for custody and mental health evaluators on risk assessment in March, 2005. Helping Spanish Speakers Navigate the Family Justice System: An Orientation for Organizations Serving the Hispanic Community. Through its Special Project Grants Program, the Judiciary sponsored a full- day conference in September, 2005, on substance abuse and family court entitled A Family Disease: The Impact of Addiction and Substance Abuse on Children, Families, Family Courts and Communities. The University of Baltimore School of Law, Center on Families, Children and the Courts organized the conference for the Judiciary. MISSION OF MARYLAND’S FAMILY DIVISIONS The mission of Maryland’s Family Divisions is to provide a fair and efficient forum to resolve family legal matters in a problem- solving manner, with the goal of improving the lives of families and children who appear before the court. To that end, the court shall make appropriate services available for families who need them. The court shall also provide an environment that supports judges, court staff, and attorneys so that they can respond effectively to the many legal and non- legal issues of families in the justice system. 3 Family Divisions and Family Services Programs Maryland Rule 16- 204 created Family Divisions in any Circuit Court with seven or more judges. Family Divisions were created in Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Montgomery County and Prince George’s County. Maryland’s remaining nineteen ( 19) jurisdictions each have a Family Services Program. Regardless of size, each jurisdiction offers the same range of services, and similar case management strategies to enhance the experience of families and children involved in domestic or juvenile litigation. Jurisdiction Circuit Court Family Divisions have jurisdiction over all civil legal matters relating to the family. This permits the court to coordinate related family matters, streamline the use of services, and develop a more comprehensive understanding of each family. It permits the cultivation of a trained body of judges, masters and court professionals who appreciate and understand the needs of families. Case types within the jurisdiction of family divisions include: Adoption Child support Child in need of assistance ( CINA) Child in need of supervision ( CINS) Custody Divorce Domestic Violence Guardianship Involuntary Admissions Juvenile Delinquency Name Change Paternity Termination of Parental Rights Truancy Visitation A Continuum of Service Each of Maryland’s twenty- four Circuit Court jurisdictions has developed a spectrum of core services to assist families and children involved with the legal system. Some services are provided directly by the court. Others are made available to litigants through referrals to private non- profit organizations or government agencies. In some instances, courts contract with a private provider to offer the service. Where possible, courts have attempted to build on existing community resources. The Maryland Judiciary has many partners in serving families and it is through collaboration with those partners that we have been able to leverage existing resources to better serve families. Responding to an Increasing Level of Conflict and Complexity A number of Circuit Courts have been reporting that cases come to the Family Division or Family Services Program with increasing levels of conflict and complexity. In Baltimore City, while the number of domestic filings has decreased since Fiscal Year 2000, the ratio of contested to uncontested cases has risen significantly. 1 That court has also noticed a significant number of petitions filed by third- party custodians, especially grandparents. Third party cases represented 20% of all custody cases filed in the city during Fiscal Year 2005.2 In other jurisdictions, for example, Baltimore County, increasing numbers of cases are requiring a merits trial or multiple hearings. There a 7.8% increase in domestic filings from Fiscal 1 Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Annual Report of the Family Division ( Fiscal Year 2005) ,( Baltimore, Maryland: October 3, 2005) p. 13. 2 Ibid., p. 18. 4 Year 2004 to Fiscal Year 2005 was accompanied by a 20% increase in merits trials. Maryland courts have adopted a number of strategies to aid families involved in these high- conflict cases, and cases with complicating issues. Specialized Parenting Education The Circuit Court for Baltimore City sought and received grant funding to develop a specialized education seminar for third- party custodians. The seminar, to be implemented during Fiscal Year 2006, will focus on strengthening parenting skills and will provide support and communication skills- building sessions for relative caregivers and other third- party custodians. Parenting Plan Pilot Project During Fiscal Year 2005, that court also completed collecting data as part of its Parenting Plan Pilot Project. The project, begun in April, 2003, with funding from the Department of Family Administration at the AOC, was designed to aid parents in developing parenting plan agreements in divorce cases with contested custody and visitation issues. The study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the program using a control group. A final report is expected during Fiscal Year 2006. High Conflict Domestic Case Processing The Circuit Court for Baltimore County has decided to tackle head on those cases that demand the most judicial resources and energy. During Fiscal Year 2005 the court convened an advisory committee, and brought in national experts to train stakeholders on promising practices in dealing with high conflict families. The committee developed a special case management plan for high- conflict cases to take effect December, 2005. Cases are screened to determine which cases would benefit from this new approach. The family will be provided with a services plan and assigned to one of three high- conflict tracks each of which will be managed by a high- conflict team. The Circuit Courts for Talbot and Caroline Counties have begun planning a case management strategy for high conflict cases as well which they hope to implement during Fiscal Year 2006. Parents will be educated about and asked to submit written parenting plans to the court and will be given the opportunity for a custody scheduling conference. Minimizing Post- Judgment Activity One legacy of divorce and custody litigation is often post- judgment activity. Unlike other types of civil disputes, when a domestic case is over, the parties are often bound in a lifetime relationship because they must continue to work together to raise their children. This means that while the initial case is over, the conflict may be ongoing. These families often return to court to file contempt petitions alleging that one partner failed to pay child support, or that the other person has not complied with a custody or visitation order. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County noticed a marked increase in the number of contempt hearings being held in that court over the past few years. In the last year alone, contempt hearings increased 67%. 3 To reduce the number of contempt hearings held by the court, the Circuit Court for Baltimore County has instituted pre- hearing contempt conferences for all contempt petitions filed concerning financial or child access issues. If the case involves child access issues, the conference is scheduled with a court mediator, approximately 25- 30 days after the filing of the contempt petition. Mediators assist the parties in developing a parenting agreement to resolve the dispute. If the conference does not resolve all issues, the matter is set in for a contempt hearing. If the case involves financial issues, a volunteer attorney facilitator holds the conference. Of those cases involving financial contempt issues, facilitators have assisted the parties in reaching full agreement in 64% of cases, reducing significantly the number of contempt hearings that are held. Specialty Courts The Judiciary continues to promote and support specialty courts with a problem- solving focus including truancy courts, and juvenile and dependency drug courts. These models permit courts to provide intensive supervision to individuals and families with underlying issues. Under the leadership of the Maryland Drug Treatment Court Commission, a number of jurisdictions have developed drug courts that specifically target substance abuse issues of juvenile offenders and the parents of children involved in the foster care system. Most courts have been able to participate in federal drug court training, and many have benefited from federal funding. During Fiscal Year 2005, the Circuit Court for Wicomico County began hearing its first cases under its new truancy court. Cases filed by the local school board were brought against parents, as well as children who were not attending school regularly. The court hired a truancy court coordinator. Funding provided by the Local Management Board provided “ wraparound services,” to address the needs of those children and their families. During Fiscal Year 2006, the truancy court is planning to hold its first graduations. The program will also be expanded to the other 1st Circuit jurisdictions – Somerset, Worcester and Dorchester. 3 Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Family Division Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2005, p. 3. ADR- C/ V MeADR- Dependancy MedADR- Facilitator ADR- Financial MediADR- MedArb or ArbitADR- Other - ParentADR- Settlement ConfChildren's Attorney/ Children's Programs- PsychoeducaChildren's Programs- WaitiCINA or TPR MeCustody InvestigDomestic Violence- AdvoDomestic Violence- CouEmergency AssistJuvenile ProMental Health- Family/ Individual CoMental Health- Group TMental Health- Peer CouMental Health- Psych EvaluOtherParenting CoordParenting EducatPro Se AssisSubstance Abuse- EvaSubstance Abuse- ScreSubstance Abuse- TreaVisitaiton Services- Supervised VisVisitation Services- Monitored Excha Figure 2. Number of Maryland Jurisdictions Offering Specific Family Support Services, Fiscal Year 2005 Figure 1. Juvenile and Dependency Drug Courts in Operation or in the Planning Phase in Maryland Circuit Courts 6 Types of Services ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION These services encourage parties to settle their dispute in a manner other than by going to trial. Child Access Mediation Marital Property Mediation Volunteer Settlement Panels Facilitation Dependency Mediation Parent- Teen Mediation Pre- trial Conferences Parent Coordination EVALUATIVE SERVICES These programs provide the court with information it needs to make a decision that is in a child’s best interest, or that is best for that family. Home Studies Custody Evaluations Mental Health and Psychological Evaluations Substance Abuse Assessments Visitation Reports EDUCATIONAL AND THERAPEUTIC SERVICES These programs educate the parties, help parents remain child- focused, and ease the family’s transition. Co- parenting Education Psycho- educational Programs for Children Individual, Group and Family Therapy Abuser Intervention Programs Substance Abuse Treatment Drug Courts Truancy Court SAFETY AND PROTECTION SERVICES These resources are designed to ensure the safety of adults and children. Emergency Mediation and Crisis Intervention Domestic Violence Safety Planning and Coordination Visitation Services LEGAL SERVICES These programs ensure access to the justice system for those of limited means, and those at risk. Family Law Self- Help Centers Domestic Relations Forms Domestic Violence Advocacy CASA Programs Web Sites, Publications, Videos 7 8 Promoting Parents as Primary Decision- makers Child Access Mediation Courts promote parents as primary decision- makers by providing them the opportunity to resolve cases without litigation. Mediation permits parents the chance to recognize and place their child’s needs first. When a custody or visitation case goes to trial, the relationship between former spouses is further eroded, positions are polarized, and it becomes less likely that those parents will be able to cooperate in the future to make child- rearing decisions. Neighbors and extended family are called in to testify against the opposing party, further destroying the parties’ support networks. Alternative dispute resolution helps preserve relationships where possible and promotes child- focused decision- making 3,3573,8713,9064,5474,1404,20205001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,5005,000FY00FY01FY02FY03FY04FY05 Figure 3. Referrals to Child Access Mediation – FY00 – FY05 Helping Parents Remain Child- Focused in Their Decision- Making Co- Parenting Education All Maryland jurisdictions offer some form of co- parenting education. Maryland Rule 9- 204 prescribes the content and length of the course, which can be up to two sessions for a total of six hours of instruction. Several courts now offer additional, specialized co- parenting courses targeted to address the needs of specific populations. In Baltimore City, where many child access cases involve parents who have never been married and who never resided together, the court offers a program called “ SHAPE” or “ Shared Parenting Education” specifically to help parents who have never had a close relationship develop the skills to work together as parents. Of 859 custody, visitation and child support cases reviewed by the Family Division Administrator in Baltimore City during Fiscal Year 2005, 62% involved parents who had never been married. More recently, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City has begun to develop a course for relative caregivers and other third- party custodians. During the last fiscal year, 20% of custody cases involved parties other than the parents of the child in that court. 4 7,8718,9158,6058,9219,3758,6587,0007,5008,0008,5009,0009,500FY00FY01FY02FY03FY04FY05 Figure 4. Referrals to Co- parenting Education – FY00 – FY05 Who Benefits from Co- Parenting Education? When parents participate in co- parenting education, they are asked to complete a demographic questionnaire. This data provides some picture of the individuals involved in contested child access cases. This information is used to assist the courts in designing co- parenting curricula and in targeting written materials and other resources to ensure they meet the needs of the court’s customers. Successful co- parenting education includes a unit explaining the role and benefits of mediation, and preparing parents to participate effectively in alternative dispute resolution sessions. In some courses, local attorneys, judges, mediators or other court professionals visit the class to explain more about the process. 4 Circuit Court for Baltimore City, id., p. 18. 9 Advanced Degree10% Bachelor's Degree17% High School32% Less than High School5% Some College36% Figure 5. Education Levels of Co- Parenting Participants – FY05 African American31% Asian2% Native American1% Other3% Pacific Islander0% Hispanic5% Caucasian 58% Figure 6. Self- Identified Ethnicity of Co- Parenting Participants – FY05 02004006008001000120014001600$ 0-$ 14,999$ 15,000-$ 29,999$ 30,000-$ 49,999$ 50,000-$ 69,999$ 70,000-$ 99,999$ 100,000+ Figure 7. Household Income of Co- Parenting Participants – FY05 English95% Spanish4% Other1% Figure 8. Primary Language of Co- Parenting Participants – FY05 Female53% Male47% Figure 9. Gender of Co- Parenting Participants – FY05 Access to the Family Justice System Help for the Self- Represented No system of justice is effective unless the persons it was designed to benefit can have effective access to that system. Maryland Circuit Court Family Divisions and Family Services Programs have made a strong commitment to serve all Maryland residents without regard to representational status. Many individuals find it difficult or impossible to afford counsel in family cases. When a marriage dissolves, the family is compelled to support two households on the same income that once supported one. The Maryland Judiciary provides a broad spectrum of resources to aid those who must proceed without benefit of counsel. 10 27,46133,18737,48137,86241,35138,84605,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,000FY00FY01FY02FY03FY04FY05 Figure 10. Individuals Assisted by Family Law Self- Help Centers – FY00- FY05 Family Law Self- Help Centers. These free walk- in legal clinics provide forms, information and procedural assistance to self- represented persons. Every Circuit Court in Maryland operates a family law self- help center. Attorneys interview litigants to determine whether their case is appropriate for self- representation, assist them in completing forms, and in planning for the next steps of their litigation. Referrals for more in- depth legal assistance are made where the party is in need of full representations. These programs are in extremely high demand. In Fiscal Year 2005, family law self- help centers served 38,846 individuals. The Judiciary adopted a new resource document to guide courts in managing effective self- help programs. Best Practices for Programs to Assist Self- Represented Litigants in Family Law Matters was developed by Maryland court professionals and self- help providers and adopted during Fiscal Year 2005 by the Maryland Conference of Circuit Judges. The document paints a picture of what a good self- help program looks like and recommends promising practices for Maryland courts. During the Fall of 2005, self- help providers were also offered training on how to screen cases for family violence issues. Self- help providers can play a critical role in helping victims let the court know when family violence is an issue and when, as a result, mediation or other forms of ADR may be inappropriate. Domestic Relations Forms. The Maryland Judiciary maintains a large body of forms for use by self- represented litigants in domestic cases. Forms are available in fillable- field PDF format through the Judiciary’s website for use in divorce, custody, visitation, child support, name changes and domestic violence cases. The forms are also available online in a bilingual Spanish- English format. Spanish speakers can complete the bilingual form and submit it directly to the court. Complete instructions are available in Spanish. Legal Forms Helpline. The Department of Family Administration supports a statewide legal forms hotline to aid individuals in completing and filing the domestic relations forms. The Legal Forms Helpline is operated by the Women’s Law Center of Maryland under a Special Project Grant from the Department of Family Administration. The Helpline also offers services in Spanish one half- day per week. 202422982388050010001500200025003000FY03FY04FY05 Figure 11. Legal Forms Helpline Intakes – FY03- FY05 Divorce/ Separation52% Child Support14% Emergency Protection from Abuse1% Name Change4% Custody/ Visitation29% Figure 12. Legal Forms Helpline – Case Types – FY05 10 Understanding Families to Enhance Decision- making Custody Evaluations All Maryland Circuit Courts have a mechanism for providing home studies or custody evaluations. In some instances the court maintains social workers on staff to provide this service. In some jurisdictions the service is provided for a fee by the local department of social services, or another private provider. Evaluations can range from simple home visits with a report on the conditions in the home, to an in- depth assessment of the parents’ relative parenting abilities based on interviews with the parties, observations of the child with each parent in the home, interviews with collateral witnesses, and a review of pertinent education, medical and other records. The Department of Family Administration provides occasional opportunities for the court’s custody and mental health evaluators to enhance their skills and obtain continuing education credits necessary to maintain their professional licensing. In March, 2005, forensic evaluators participated in a seminar about the benefits of actuarial- based risk assessment tools. The seminar, held in Annapolis, featured Dr. Kathryn Seifert, founder and executive director of Eastern Shore Psychological Services. 1,5251,4771,6721,6991,8081,97105001,0001,5002,0002,500FY00FY01FY02FY03FY04FY05 Figure 13. Cases Referred for Custody Evaluations – FY00 – FY05 Mental Health Evaluations When serious mental health issues have been identified, a court may need an evaluation of an individual or family members before making child access decisions. All Maryland Circuit Courts have some mechanism for requesting an in- depth assessment of the mental health of a party or child. In some jurisdictions, this services is provided by contractual psychiatrists or psychologists retained by the court. In most jurisdictions, however, this service is provided by making a referral to one of several private providers identified by the court. These types of evaluations are costly to provide. While not needed in all cases, they provide critical information to the court and the parties in those cases where mental health issues are raised. The parties are normally required to pay for these services, although the court makes fee waivers available to income eligible litigants. In the last several years, courts have made fewer referrals for mental health evaluations as they have experimented with less costly ways to obtain the evaluative information they require. 4474285134163833710100200300400500600FY00FY01FY02FY03FY04FY05 Figure 14. Cases Referred for Mental Health Evaluations – FY00- FY05 Substance Abuse Assessments Many courts have devised ways to arrange for drug and alcohol testing where substance abuse has been alleged. In some jurisdictions, onsite, same- day urine testing can be done. This can improve the accuracy of reports and the speed with which they can be made available. 050010001500ScreeningEvaluationTreatmentFY02FY03FY04FY05 Figure 15. Substance Abuse Screenings, Evaluations and Treatment – FY02 – FY05 11 Promoting Healthy Parent- Child Relationships Visitation Services Visitation services promote family relationships and parent- child access while preserving the safety and security of family members. These services can become especially critical when there have been allegations of family violence or substance abuse. Without access to supervised visitation or monitored exchange, some parent- child relationships would be completed disrupted or limited unnecessarily. Monitored Exchange Services provide a neutral setting for parents to drop off and exchange children before and after visits. By using a staffed, neutral site, parents can avoid contact, thereby minimizing the possibility of a hostile or violent confrontation. These services promote parent- child relationships and minimize the trauma to which children are sometimes exposed. Supervised Visitation Centers provide a neutral setting where non- custodial parents can spend time with their children. Trained professionals, many of whom have a mental health background, staff these centers. A structured activity may be offered. In many cases, the visitation center will report to the court on whether the parties are participating and/ or how the visits went. Supervised visitation services protect children while promoting their relationship with their parent. 0500100015002000FY01FY02FY03FY04FY05Monitored ExchangeSupervised Visitation Figure 16. Cases Referred for Visitation Services – FY01- FY05 Programs to Support Non- Custodial Parents Courts can support families and reduce post- judgment activity by facilitating stable relationships between non- custodial parents and their children. The Circuit Court for Worcester County has engaged in a fruitful partnership with that county’s Health Department to establish a countywide Nurturing Fathers program. Nurturing Fathers is a 10- week parent education program for non- custodial fathers who are not engaged in ongoing, consistent relationships with their children. The program provides fathers with experiences that allow new ways of thinking to change parenting attitudes and behaviors, and to aid them in establishing more nurturing, rewarding relationships with their children and co- parents. The program is supported by the court’s Family Services Program as well as a Child Support Incentive Fund Grant made available through the Maryland Judiciary. During Fiscal Year 2005, 60 fathers participated in and successfully completed the Nurturing Fathers program. 5 Some other jurisdictions are able to make referrals to similar locally operated programs for non- custodial parents. In Queen Anne’s County, the court refers non- custodial parents to a Nurturing Program operated by the local department of social services. Helping Children Adjust to Changes in Their Family Psycho- educational Programs for Children A number of Circuit Court Family Divisions and Family Services Programs offer programs to aid children in coping with changes that are happening in their divorcing or separating families. These “ psycho- educational” programs range from classes, which provide information, to more in- depth therapeutic groups which meet for several weeks and which provide children an opportunity to express and process what is going on in their lives. 74077868385690294902004006008001000FY00FY01FY02FY03FY04FY05 Figure 17. Cases Including a Referral to Children’s Psycho- educational Program, FY00- FY05 5 Circuit Court for Worcester County, Annual Report on Family Support Services for the Circuit Court for Worcester County, Fiscal Year 2005, October 15, 2005, p. 22. 12 Access to Justice Under the leadership of Chief Judge Robert M. Bell, the Maryland Judiciary continues to make Access to Justice a cornerstone of the family justice system. Maryland has become a national leader in responding to the needs of the self- represented and has won acclaim for its comprehensive statewide response to the issue. The Judiciary’s support of and collaboration with the legal services delivery system has enhanced access to the family justice system for thousands of Marylanders. Standard 1.1 Equal Access Maryland’s family divisions ensure that court services are accessible equally to all litigants, regardless of race, ethnic background, religious affiliation or socio- economic status. Highlights and Examples The Maryland Judiciary promotes equal access to the family justice system in a variety of ways. Maryland Circuit Courts operate a statewide network of family law self- help centers. These free walk- in legal clinics offer forms, advice and information to self- represented persons. Family law self- help centers served over 38,000 in Fiscal Year 2005. The Maryland Judiciary provides a large volume of Domestic Relations Forms to assist self- represented litigants in divorce, custody, visitation, child support, domestic violence and name change cases. The forms are provided through the Internet in fillable PDF. This permits users to download and print completed forms for filing. A simple, online interface assists users in identifying which forms they need. The entire body of forms and instructions are also available in a bilingual Spanish/ English format. Similarly, the entire family section of the Maryland Judiciary website has been translated into Spanish, providing Spanish- speakers with the same depth of information available to English speakers. Through its Special Projects Grant program, the Department of Family Administration funds a statewide Legal Forms Helpline. The Helpline, operated by the Women’s Law Center of Maryland, provides assistance with forms in English and Spanish. Attorneys answer the helpline and provide basic assistance with the forms and family law procedures upon request. Maryland courts have adopted a number of strategies to assist non- English speakers and others who may need assistance in navigating the family justice system. Some courts are able to offer co- parenting education in Spanish. In Howard County, the National Family Resiliency Center, the court’s contractual provider, offers their co- parenting course in Spanish. The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County has created a special liaison for self- represented litigants and Hispanics. They also employ two Spanish- speaking staff members in their Family Division Information and Referral Center. The Maryland Judiciary provides interpreters in all court proceedings in civil and criminal cases for non- English speakers in any language. Anytime a court orders litigants to participate in some type of program or service, the Judiciary will likewise provide an interpreter for the program upon request. 13 Standard 1.2 Cost of Access Maryland’s Family Divisions must ensure that court services are accessible equally to all litigants, regardless of their ability to pay for the services, and supply certain core services. Highlights and Examples As a condition of accepting Family Division / Family Services Program grant funds, each jurisdiction agrees to provide a fee waiver for individuals that meet certain income- eligibility criteria. The income guidelines that have been adopted are those devised each year by the Maryland Legal Services Corporation. The guidelines are based on household size and household income and are tied to the Maryland median income and the federal poverty guidelines. Some jurisdictions have extended the reach of this initiative by offering partial fee waivers on a sliding scale to individuals that would not qualify for a full fee waiver under the Judiciary- wide guidelines. The use of a uniform fee waiver standard can have a disparate impact on the varying jurisdictions. Jurisdictions where the rate of individuals living in poverty is higher will have to use a higher percentage of grant funds to provide services for indigents. During Fiscal Year 2005, for example, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City reported that 25% of divorce, custody, visitation and child support filings were accompanied by an order waiving the filing fee ( up from 22% in Fiscal Year 2005). This means that those individuals had petitioned for and were entitled to a fee waiver based on indigency. Poverty also brings with it issues that may complicate the handling of a family case. In Baltimore City, 86% of cases handled by the family division involved at least 1 self- represented litigant at the time of filing. Of 859 cases reviewed by Family Division staff, 62% involved parents who had never been married. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City has developed a specialized co- parenting course to aid never- married parents in raising their child collaboratively. Each jurisdiction is asked to budget to cover the costs of services when the parties cannot pay. The court may still depend heavily on evaluative information, even though the parties may be unable to pay for it. Thus, to adequately adjudicate family matters, courts must often provide the service regardless of ability to pay. Courts have experimented with different ways to ensure access to services regardless of ability to pay. For example, the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County maintains an in- house mediator who provides emergency referrals and provides mediation when fees have been waived due to indigency. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City has also developed an in- house mediation program. Many Baltimore City residents were unable to travel to Sheppard Pratt for mediation services because of financial or transportation constraints. Those same individuals are often unable to pay the fee normally required for mediation. Under the new program, trained volunteer mediators meet with indigent parties after a court proceeding to aid them in resolving outstanding issues. Although the program is available only 9 hours per week, during Fiscal Year 2005, program mediators handled 82 cases. Of those, 41% resulted in a full settlement; and additional 10% resulted in a partial or temporary settlement. In a contested custody case, the appointment of child counsel or a guardian ad litem can aid the court in understanding what a child wants, or what is in that child’s best interest. Unfortunately, child counsel can be costly and courts are reluctant to appoint them unless the parties have the resources to pay for such services. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City has worked with the Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service ( MVLS) for the last three years to provide free guardians ad litem in such cases. MVLS secured grant funding to launch the program. Many family support services coordinators are playing a role in the local pro bono planning committees that have been established in each jurisdiction. They are working to identify ways the courts can enhance access to the family justice system by harnessing the energies of attorneys seeking to do pro bono work. The Department of Family Administration continues to be responsible for managing the State’s pro bono reporting process. Maryland’s 31,000 attorneys are required to report on their pro bono activities each calendar year. The Administrative Office of the Courts works with the Standing Committee on Pro Bono Legal Services to promote pro bono activity among the Maryland Bar, to increase access to justice for Maryland’s poor. Finally, the Department of Family Administration makes Special Project Grants available to a number of legal services programs to enhance access to representation and a range of legal services for litigants in family case types. 14 Standard 1.3 Safety, Accessibility and Convenience Maryland’s Family Divisions aspire to ensure that court facilities are safe, accessible, and convenient to use, and they aspire to develop a strategic plan to implement this standard by working with domestic violence advocacy groups and local governments, among others. Highlights and Examples Maryland courts continue to offer key services during evening and weekend hours to make it easier and convenient to take advantage of court- based services. Most courts offer their co- parenting education and psycho- educational programs for children after hours and on weekends. Some programs are offered at community sites convenient for families. During Fiscal Year 2005, for example, the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County outfitted a legal information outreach site at the local county library. By providing computer equipment, printers and written information about the family justice system, the court was able to expand access to legal information and will also be able to use the library as a site for to provide family law self- help program services during evening hours. Many other courts have made public- access computers available to permit users to look up case information and to access online resources including the domestic relations forms. Visitation services are offered typically weekday evenings and on weekends to accommodate family visitation schedules. Many jurisdictions have furnished and maintain child waiting areas within the courthouse, to make coming to court easier for parents with children. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City continues to offer a staffed child waiting area at Courthouse East where parents can leave their children while they are at the Family Division. Non- staffed waiting areas are outfitted at the court’s Juvenile Justice Center a few blocks away. Some jurisdictions have to overcome significant transportation or geographic obstacles in order to deliver convenient and accessible services. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County has made significant strides to better serve residents of both the western and eastern sections of the county. During Fiscal Year 2005, that court expanded both its juvenile drug court and its visitation centers to additional locations. The juvenile drug court began hearing cases in a District Court location convenient for eastern residents of the county. In October, 2004, the court opened a second Visitation Center at the Eastern Family Resources Center in Essex. In St. Mary’s County, the local county government provided funding to train staff from the Office of the Clerk and other courthouse staff on CPR and the use of an emergency defibrillator. Red Cross certified trainers from the rescue squad provided the training. An emergency defibrillator is located in a visible location within the courthouse. Enhancing Access to Justice for Victims of Violence and the Under- represented The Department of Family Administration continues to enhance access to the family justice system through Special Projects Grants. These funds are awarded for a broad range of projects that enhance access to the family justice system. A large number of these grants are given to organizations providing safety planning and legal representation to victims of domestic violence. A list of projects receiving Special Project Grant funds in Fiscal Year 2005 is provided. 15 Special Project Grants The following Special Project Grants were awarded in Fiscal Year 2005 to support Maryland’s family justice system. GRANTEE/ project DVSARC( DOVE CENTER)/ legal advocacy initiative FOR ALL SEASONS/ family visitation center expansion HOUSE OF RUTH / protective order advocacy representation project – baltimore city district court HOUSE OF RUTH / protective order advocacy representation project – prince george’s circuit and district courts HOUSE OF RUTH / protective order advocacy representation project – montgomery county circuit court LAW FOUNDATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY / latino legal access project LIFE CRISIS CENTER / all about children LIFE CRISIS CENTER / domestic violence legal services program MARYLAND COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL ASSAULT / child sexual abuse project MARYLAND LEGAL SERVICES CORP. / contested custody representation project MARYLAND VOLUNTEER LAWYERS SERVICE / safenet MARYLAND VOLUNTEER LAWYERS SERVICE / washington county domestic violence legal services MARYLAND VOLUNTEER LAWYERS SERVICE / domestic violence expansion project SOMERSET CO. DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES / somerset co. child advocacy center SOUTHERN MD CTR FOR FAMILY ADOVOCACY / domestic violence legal services program UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE, SCHOOL OF LAW, CFCC / substance abuse & addiction conference WOMEN’S LAW CTR / protective order advocacy representation project – baltimore city WOMEN’S LAW CTR / protective order advocacy representation project – baltimore county WOMEN’S LAW CTR / protective order advocacy representation project – carroll county WOMEN’S LAW CTR / legal forms helpline WORCESETER CO. HEALTH DEPARTMENT / nurturing fathers program YWCA OF ANNAPOLIS AND ANNE ARUNDEL CO. / domestic violence legal services program CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY / juvenile drug court incentive program CIRCUIT COURT FOR WICOMICO COUNTY / truancy reduction pilot program 16 Expedition and Timeliness The Maryland Judiciary pursues excellence in the timely management of family cases by evaluating court performance in light of statewide time standards. Family Divisions and Family Services Programs are continually evaluating how well their case management systems work to ensure the timely resolution of family case types. Standard 2.1 Case Management System In order to provide for the fair, reasonable and expeditious resolution of all issues arising in family legal matters, Maryland’s Family Divisions manage and operate a case management system that compels timely discovery and fruitful settlement negotiations with a view toward limiting the issues requiring trial. Family Matters Comprise Nearly One- Half the Circuit Court Caseload Nearly one- half of all cases filed in the Maryland Circuit Courts are within the jurisdiction of the Family Divisions. The bulk of cases occupying the time of judges, masters and court staff are those with the most complex issues – child access, family violence, delinquency, child abuse and neglect As aforementioned, courts have noted an increase in the percentage of family case types coming before them in a contested posture. It is essential that the State of Maryland dedicate sufficient resources to ensure that the court can manage these complex cases effectively, and reach decisions that promote family health and stability. During the one- year period from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005, Maryland Circuit Courts initiated or opened 125,991 family cases. This represented 63% of all civil legal matters and 45% of the total Circuit Court caseload. Criminal29% Other Civil26% Family45% Figure 18. Family Caseload as a Percentage of Overall Circuit Court Caseload – FY05 Adopt/ Guard2% Paternity18% DV3% Juv- Del23% Other Domestic20% Juv- Guard1% Divorce/ Annulment30% Juv- Adopt0% Juv- CINS0% Juv- CINA3% Juv- Peace0% Juv- Other0% Figure 19. Family Case Types Heard by Maryland Circuit Courts – FY05 0500010000150002000025000Balt. CityPGMontgomeryBalt. Co. Anne Arun. WashingtonHarfordCharlesFrederickCalvertHowardCecilCarrollWicomicoSt. Mary’sAlleganyWorcesterDorchesterSomersetCarolineTalbotQAGarrettKentFigure 20. Relative Family Caseload by Jurisdiction 17 Table 1. Total Family Cases Filed or Reopened in Fiscal Year 2005 Jurisdiction Divorce/ Annul Other Domestic Adopt/ Guard Paternity DV Juv- Del Juv- CINS Juv- CINA Juv- Guard Juv- Adopt Juv- Peace Juv- Other Total Allegany 595 762 38 388 13 265 8 52 8 2129 Anne Arundel 3717 2094 342 1080 360 2335 8 126 23 1 15 2 10103 Baltimore 4078 3213 263 1155 536 3647 1 412 56 33 94 1 13489 Baltimore City 3203 1820 180 5933 248 6762 181 1929 381 303 235 9 21184 Calvert 823 849 28 1108 61 625 23 7 7 26 3557 Caroline 269 353 4 270 75 174 1 35 2 2 1185 Carroll 865 576 74 140 383 928 37 31 3 52 8 3097 Cecil 767 1258 38 504 151 363 1 58 10 7 3157 Charles 1068 926 34 783 303 1234 46 14 11 4419 Dorchester 236 382 1 350 49 193 20 6 4 1241 Frederick 1331 1201 62 634 74 785 12 79 34 21 22 1 4256 Garrett 193 288 15 107 14 47 2 37 1 5 1 710 Harford 1526 1428 69 839 264 703 115 29 28 9 5010 Howard 1240 661 51 312 162 875 57 19 3 1 3381 Kent 163 184 5 166 38 119 1 3 4 683 Montgomery 6270 1026 1695 1480 643 3861 353 33 31 58 15450 Prince George's 7332 2944 112 3122 485 2266 222 38 49 3 16573 Queen Anne's 236 183 5 119 4 187 15 4 4 1 758 Somerset 177 390 11 479 60 71 1 28 3 5 1225 St. Mary's 632 664 31 579 116 475 44 2 5 3 2551 Talbot 270 264 9 165 18 273 31 7 3 1040 Washington 1108 2264 28 1166 39 1098 2 304 36 21 13 1 6080 Wicomico 603 660 30 655 52 535 39 14 14 20 1 2623 Worcester 326 554 16 883 18 247 1 28 17 2090 Total 37028 24944 3141 22417 4166 28068 256 4087 751 549 553 31 125991 Highlights and Examples During Fiscal Year 2005, Circuit Courts continued to monitor their compliance with time- to- disposition standards for a variety of case types. Courts continued to refine family case management practices to improve their ability to comply with those standards and to enhance the timeliness with which family matters are resolved. Many jurisdictions set a scheduling conference early in the pendency of the case, to initiate critical services and evaluations, and to ensure the matter proceeds quickly towards resolution. A number of jurisdictions have been reviewing cases with little or no activity to determine what steps can be taken to close or expedite those matters. For example, the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County recently reviewed all family cases filed within the last several years to determine whether there was a failure of service or other obstacle to case closure. Appropriate cases were referred for a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or lack of prosecution. That court has also initiated a writ review project. Family Division staff are currently reviewing all outstanding body attachments issued in family cases, to reduce the number of writs that remain outstanding. Permanency planning liaisons regularly review CINA, TPR and adoption cases to ensure those cases are processed in a timely fashion, and in accordance with state and federal timelines. Finally, a number of Circuit Courts convene local juvenile task forces. These committees provide an opportunity for a wide range of stakeholders to coordinate their efforts in better managing and serving youth alleged to have committed a delinquent act. 18 Standard 2.2 Protection of Victims of Domestic Violence The practices and procedures of Maryland’s Family Divisions maximize protection efforts for victims of domestic violence by ensuring access to the courts, coordination of other family matters with domestic violence proceedings, and by securing a comprehensive understanding of individual and family history relative to violent conduct. The Family Divisions conduct adequate, independent screening and identify important family needs via an established domestic violence protocol. Maryland’s family divisions endeavor to hear all ex parte petitions for relief from domestic violence as soon as possible after the alleged victim’s entry into the court facility. Access to the Protection the Law Provides Protective Order Advocacy and Representation Projects ( POARP) and Related Programs To enhance the safety of victims of family violence, Maryland’s Circuit Court Family Divisions and Family Services Programs take extraordinary measures to ensure those victims can access the legal system to obtain protection. All Maryland Circuit Courts refer victims to programs where they can receive assistance in developing a safety plan, legal advice, information and representation in a protective order hearing. All Circuit Courts also make referrals for abuser intervention programs and other treatment alternatives to address violent behavior. There can be many obstacles impeding a victim’s ability to seek protection – the victim may be subject to the control of the abuser, forbidden to leave the house or watched constantly. Phone calls or access to a family vehicle may be restricted. To eliminate as many obstacles as possible, a number of Circuit Courts provide on- site legal services programs for victims in the courthouse. Through Special Project Grants, the Department of Family Administration has extended the network of these Protective Order Advocacy and Representation Projects. Operated by local domestic violence advocacy organizations, those programs have become a cornerstone of the safety net provided for victims through the Maryland Circuit Courts. Victims can meet with a paralegal or attorney, discuss the steps necessary to ensure their safety, obtain assistance in applying for a temporary protective order, and obtain representation at a subsequent protective order hearing – all without leaving the courthouse. In October, 2004, the Department of Family Administration was able to expand the POARP model to Carroll County. The Carroll County POARP program commenced with funding provided by a Violence Against Women Act ( VAWA) STOP Grant, which was subgranted to the Women’s Law Center of Maryland who operates the program. The Administrative Office of the Courts applied for and was awarded another VAWA STOP Grant commencing October 1, 2005, to fund an Hispanic Outreach component for the Prince George’s county POARP project. Bilingual staff will be hired to enhance the program’s ability to serve Spanish- speaking and immigrant victims of domestic violence. Quality of Service for Victims of Family Violence The Department of Family Administration collects data from Special Project Grantees serving victims of family violence to ensure that these programs are adequately serving the persons for whom they are intended. 0100020003000400050006000Administrative/ ClericalAdministrative/ ManagerialAdvocacy/ SupportCase PreparationCommunity EducationFollow- up with PO ClientsInfo/ Brief Advice - in personInfo/ Brief Advice - via phoneLegal Advice - in personLegal Advice - via phoneLegal RepresentationOtherSafety PlanningSupervision of Legal Case ... TrainingLawyersParalegalsAdvocatesOtherFigure 21. SPG Grantees Serving Victims of DV – Type of Services Provided – FY05 19 5814142122273354686972939415916331331551158483712122057396005001000150020002500300035004000Avoided or reversed admin finding of abuse/ neglectObtained protection from DV via mutual POAssistance with separation agreementObtained or preserved right to visitationObtained from DV via peace orderObtained, preserved or increased child supportObtained a divorceObtained successful outcome upon appealObtained support thru criminal accompanimentObtained or maintained custody of childrenObtained protection from DV via Peace OrderObtained a separationObtained successful outcom upon modification hrgObtained guardianship or adoption for dep childAvoided removal of childrenAvoided termination of parental rightsCounseling services on an individualEstablished paternity for childObtained, preserved or increased spousal supportObtained protection from DV via ex parteBrief adv., info, referral on individual rightsObtained protection from DV via POOther servicesBrief adv., info, referral on family law Figure 22. SPG Grantees Serving Victims of Domestic Violence – Major Benefit Achieved – FY05 020040060080010001200House of Ruth - MontgomeryHouse of Ruth, POARP- Baltimore CityHouse of Ruth, POARP- Prince GeorgesLife Crisis Center, Legal Services ProgramMVLS, Expansion ProjectMVLS, SafenetMVLS, Washington County DVLSWomen's Law Center, POARP- Balt CountyWomen's Law Center, POARP- Baltimore... Women's Law Center, POARP- CarrollYWCA, Arnold, DVLS Figure 23. SPG Grantees Serving Victims of Domestic Violence – Cases Opened – FY05 20 Figure 24. SPG Grantees Serving Victims of Domestic Violence Family Violence and Mediation The Administrative Office of the Courts, with a variety of stakeholders including domestic violence advocates and Maryland’s Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office ( MACRO), has developed a set of screening protocols and tools to aid courts in making more appropriate referrals for mediation. The document, entitled Screening Cases for Family Violence Issues to Determine Suitability for Mediation and Other Forms of ADR: A Screening Protocol and Tools for Maryland Circuit Courts, has been distributed to judges, masters, clerks, coordinators, court professionals, self- help providers and mediators, and is available on the Judiciary’s website. As Family Divisions and Family Services Programs expand the use of mediation, courts must become more sophisticated in the use of those programs. The tools aid courts in reviewing divorce, custody and visitation cases to determine if there are underlying family violence issues that may or may not be evident from the history of the case. The project was developed in response to concerns expressed by advocate organizations and members of the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence that courts were not careful enough in referring cases to mediation. To promote the use of the new tools, the Department of Family Administration has been hosting a series of six regional trainings for court professionals, self- help providers and mediators. In addition to the protocols and tools, the Department of Family Administration worked with a variety of advocates to identify and promote clear policies about when mediation may not be appropriate. Court of Appeals Chief Judge Robert M. Bell and then- District Court Chief Judge James Vaughn, communicated to courts that protective order cases themselves are inappropriate for mediation. The Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence honored Chief Judge Bell in October, 2005, when he was given an award for his efforts to promote victim safety because of these initiatives. The members of the Domestic Violence Mediation Work Group were likewise honored with certificates of recognition. Legislative Changes to Protect Victims Two pieces of legislation passed or implemented during Fiscal Year 2005 will have a positive effect on the court’s ability to protect victims of domestic violence. On October 1, 2004, new legislation took effect that permits the court in a divorce the authority to transfer family use personal property. Domestic violence advocates supported this provision, which may permit victims access to a vehicle or other essential items previously in the abuser’s control or name. New legislation passed during the 2005 legislative session added stalking to the definition of abuse and permits courts to protect victims from stalking in the protective order. 21 Standard 2.3 Processing Child Dependency Matters The Family Division has jurisdiction over child abuse and neglect procedures so the court will manage and operate a system of case management standards and procedures that is reflective of the Foster Care Court Improvement Project ( FCCIP) recommendations published in 1997. The Judiciary’s efforts in serving the needs of child victims of abuse and neglect continues to be driven by the work of the Foster Care Court Improvement Project ( FCCIP) Implementation Committee and its various subcommittees. During Fiscal Year 2005, the FCCIP continued to meet and work on a variety of fronts towards reform efforts to improve the Judiciary’s ability to respond to the needs of Children in Need of Assistance. Implementation Committee The Implementation Committee is the oversight committee of the FCCIP. The Honorable Patrick L. Woodward, Court of Special Appeals, chairs this committee; the Honorable Pamela L. North, Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, serves as Vice- Chair. The Implementation Committee oversees and approves the work of the various subcommittees. It is responsible for expenditures of the Court Improvement Project grant the Judiciary receives from the federal government, and sets the vision for the FCCIP. Recently, the Implementation Committee has been directly implementing some of the tasks originally assigned to the TPR/ Permanency Planning Subcommittee of the FCCIP. Because of the overlap in some of the recommendations and the overall efficiency of the FCCIP, it was decided that this particular subcommittee would be abolished and all recommendations be divided among the rest of the subcommittees. The Implementation Committee is also responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Title IV- E and Child and Family Services Review ( CFSR) court- related program improvement plan items. The Committee continues to improve the courts’ processing of CINA cases. The following provides a brief description of two of the newest initiatives. Model Court Programs The FCCIP has initiated in Baltimore City and Charles County the development of Model Court Programs through the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges ( NCJFCJ). Lead judges in both jurisdictions have been identified and a preliminary site visit by NCJFCJ staff occurred in May, 2005. Teams from both the Model Court sites participated in an all- sites conference sponsored by the NCJFCJ in October, 2005. Both teams are actively developing work plans for their respective jurisdictions. Dependency Mediation and Drug Court Programs The FCCIP has awarded 14 jurisdictions small state grants to start and sustain dependency mediation programs. Juvenile courts have also been awarded grants to assist in newly developed dependency drug court programs. The FCCIP will continue to request state funding to supplement the CIP grant and make needed improvements. Re- assessment The FCCIP contracted with the ABA Center on Children and the Law to conduct an evaluation of the FCCIP and to determine whether the efforts of the FCCIP have had an impact on the courts’ processing of the child welfare cases. The evaluation was completed in July, 2004, and was forwarded to the ACF Regional Office in the Fall of 2004. In November, 2004, the FCCIP staff was advised that the ABA Evaluation met the requirements of the reassessment. It was recommended that the FCCIP proceed with deliberation of the ABA recommendations and address those recommendations in the Strategic Plan. The various subcommittees reviewed the recommendations that fit under their purview and made recommendations to the Implementation Committee regarding the implementation and completion of the recommendations. To supplement the findings and recommendations of the ABA Evaluation, the FCCIP recently completed judicial and legal workload assessments. The FCCIP staff worked with the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges ( NCJFCJ) Permanency Planning Department to modify the Court Performance and Workload Assessment Worksheets developed by the American Bar Association Center, the National Center for State Courts and the NCJFC. The worksheets, as well as the formula were derived using the specification in the ABA, NCSC, and NCJFCJ’s publication, BUILDING A BETTER COURT: Measuring and Improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. 22 Judges, masters, attorneys and clerks throughout the State completed the worksheets. The University of Maryland School of Social Work completed the analysis and is finalizing a report for the FCCIP. A preliminary summary of the judicial workload assessment indicates that there is need for additional judges and masters in some of Maryland’s juvenile courts. Judiciary Involvement with the Title IV- E and Child and Family Services Review ( CFSR) Process Title IV- E Review Each state is evalutaed periodically by the federal government to determine whether it complies with Title IV- 3 of the Social Security Act. To receive federal funding under the Act for children in foster care placements the state must be in substantial compliance. In a 2002 evaluation, the state was found to not be in substantial compliance. One reason for the finding was that court orders lacked required findings regarding efforts made by DSS to finalize children’s permanency plans. As a part of the Program Improvement Plan ( PIP), developed as a result of that evaluation, the FCCIP provided several resources to jurisdictions throughout the State ( training, uniform court orders, etc.) in an effort to improve the courts’ role in complying with federal law. A secondary eligibility review of the State’s Title IV- E foster care maintenance program was conducted from June 27 to July 1, 2005. Again, the purpose of the review was to determine Maryland’s compliance with the child and provider eligibility requirements and validate the basis of the State’s financial claims to determine whether appropriate foster care payments were made. A dramatic improvement was noted over the initial primary review. The courts’ orders were especially highlighted. Timely reasonable efforts findings, child specific findings, and well- documented reasons supporting judicial determinations were areas in which the court was commended. The courts’ improvement efforts along with those of the Maryland Department of Human Resources both contributed to a finding that Maryland is now in substantial compliance. The FCCIP will continue to work with individual jurisdictions to assure that court findings throughout the State continue to meet Federal requirements. CFSR Review Maryland completed its on- site Child and Family Services Review in November 2003 and the final report was issued in June 2004. The FCCIP was involved in the following ways in the preparation of the on- site review and the development of the PIP: Sponsored two series of regional multi- disciplinary training meetings throughout the State to inform and educate all stakeholders about the requirements as well as to address practice issues that affect compliance; Worked closely with the Baltimore City DSS preparation team by sitting on the case review system subcommittee, arranging interviews for the judge, master, and attorneys during the on- site review; Worked with the lead judges and masters in the three site areas to educate them about the CFSR process. This included arranging a training program for them given by a DSS manager; Provided a session on the CFSR at the annual judicial conference; Participated on the State review team; Participated on the PIP Executive Committee, PIP Steering Committee and various subcommittees; Requested and received input from the courts on the development of the CFSR PIP. The federal government in March, 2005, approved the CFSR PIP initiatives and the specific court related areas have been incorporated into the FCCIP strategic plan and will be an ongoing initiative of the FCCIP. The FCCIP staff continues to inform the courts and other stakeholders of its initiatives and progress through committee participation, memorandums, reports, summaries and Department of Family Administration newsletters. This includes updates on the Title IV- E and CFSR initiatives. Regional Multi- disciplinary Training Meetings During this fiscal year, the FCCIP staff organized six ( 6) regional multi- disciplinary training meetings. Approximately 400 people attended. The topics included updates on the CFSR and Title IV- E reviews, judicial determinations and court orders, and various best practices issues. Legislative Subcommittee Legislation The Legislative Subcommittee, chaired by the Honorable Pamela L. North, Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, orchestrated the submission of legislation that revised Maryland’s TPR/ Adoption statute. After five ( 5) years of meeting and revising this statute, it was submitted for the third time and was passed by the General Assembly during this past legislative session. The bill was signed by the Governor on May 26, 2005, and became effective January 1, 2006. 23 The separation of the statute into three ( 3) subtitles, DSS- Related TPR and Adoption Proceedings, Private Child Placement, Agency Guardianship and Adoption Proceedings, and Independent Adoptions Proceedings, will afford judges, masters, practitioners, and others the ability to look in one section and chronologically follow the legal process for the type of proceeding in which they are involved. A workgroup from the Legislative Subcommittee developed training materials for all stakeholders on the new law. The judges, masters, attorneys and juvenile clerks were all trained on the new statute. Representation Subcommittee Training Programs The Representation Subcommittee continues to be chaired by the Honorable Katherine P. Savage, Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The primary focus of the Representation Subcommittee has been ensuring that all counsel are adequately educated and trained. The October, 2005, conference did not include a specific attorney training track, but rather offered a multi- disciplinary day of training on the first day of the conference. All attorneys were invited to attend and participate. Additionally, a second full day of training was held for attorneys on the new laws that were passed during the legislative session. Appellate Issues The Representation Subcommittee has been working on ensuring a better appellate process for the child welfare cases. The Subcommittee has been meeting with the Clerk of the Court of Special Appeals ( CSA) to work out some administrative barriers that may be occurring. The FCCIP has hired a legal intern to work with the FCCIP and CSA in order to better ascertain where the problems may lie. Standards of Representation The Representation Subcommittee is drafting standards of Representation for agency counsel and parents’ counsel. The subcommittee members are in the process of reviewing and revising national and other states’ standards of representation. As stated previously, these representation efforts and activities help provide for the safety, well- being, and permanence of children. It helps ensure that all parties are adequately represented, which includes counseling and advising them of the laws, assisting in getting their clients the necessary services and trying to ensure that time frames and adequate documentation of efforts are followed. Statistics Subcommittee Judge Woodward chairs the Statistics Oversight Subcommittee. Master Peter Tabatsko, Circuit Court in Carroll County, serves as the vice- chair. The Statistics Oversight Subcommittee continues to work on integrating the various database systems in Maryland in order to produce reliable child welfare data. The subcommittee has been working with Maryland’s Judicial Council to establish case time standards for its dependency cases. In 2001, the Judiciary began implementation of Case Time Standards in certain case types for the Circuit and District Courts. The child welfare cases were not included. In 2004, the Judiciary expanded the case time standards initiative to include the child welfare cases. Data definitions have been developed and the first assessment of the child welfare data is scheduled to occur September, 2005, through November, 2005. A report is to be produced in December, 2005. This will assist the Judiciary and the FCCIP in overseeing and ensuring the timely processing of the child welfare cases. Training Programs Training programs for clerks and other court personnel have continued during this fiscal year. A third series of training programs occurred during the Fall of 2004. Training on the new child welfare legislation was offered to juvenile clerks in December, 2005. Uniform Court Orders As noted above, the use of the uniform court orders was on the agenda of the regional multi- disciplinary training meetings. The FCCIP staff discussed the judicial determinations and the proper use of the orders during those meetings. The Statistics Oversight Subcommittee is also in the process of revising the uniform court orders. Upon approval the revised orders will be disseminated on diskette and published on the Judiciary website. The automation of court orders will assist the courts in completing orders in an expeditious manner, which ultimately assists in the timely processing of the cases leading to timely, permanent placements for children. The revised orders will also be color- coded to assist the courts in complying with state and federal laws. Quality Assurance The Statistics Oversight Subcommittee is currently developing an on- site review committee and protocol. This on- site review will assist the FCCIP in determining whether accurate information is being recorded and also enable the FCCIP and Judicial Information Systems staff to provide technical assistance to the end users of the database systems. 24 Training Subcommittee Conferences The Training Subcommittee sponsored its 8th Annual Child Abuse and Neglect Judicial Conference October 17- 19, 2005 at the Rocky Gap Lodge and Resort in Flintstone, Maryland. This year’s conference attendees revisited a multi- disciplinary format summoning over 300 participants. The conference addressed many of the outstanding issues related to the Federal Child and Family Service Reviews ( CFSR), and the subsequent Program Improvement Plan. Juvenile judges, masters, attorneys, state and local agency staff, Court Appointed Special Advocates ( CASA) representatives, representatives from the Citizens’ Review Board for Children, education, and mental health advocates were invited to the first day of the conference. Some of the featured topics included a mock trial of a permanency planning hearing, reasonable efforts findings, and new laws. A presentation was also made on the efforts of the FCCIP’s Best Practices Workgroup, to develop a manual of best practices to address areas needing improvement identified in the FCCIP reassessment/ evaluation, court related areas in the Child and Family Service Reviews ( CFSR) and Program Improvement Plan ( PIP). The manual will highlight best practices, policies, and procedures for Maryland Courts and provide jurisdictions with an action plan to illustrate how to implement these model policies. The best practices currently identified include: One Judge, One Family; Early Identification of Parents - Parent Litany; Continuance Policy; Permanency Checklist for Ten to Sixteen Year- olds; and a Properly Conducted Hearings Checklist. The third day of the conference was again devoted to delinquency matters. Judicial Institute Courses The FCCIP annually sponsors training programs through Maryland’s Judicial Institute. In April, 2004, a full day program focused on TPR, Guardianship Review Hearings and Adoptions. In March, 2005, a full day beginner’s dependency training program was held. In October, 2002, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals issued an Administrative Order requiring new juvenile judges and masters to attend the Judicial Institute courses sponsored by the FCCIP. FCCIP Strategic Plan The FCCIP continues to utilize its strategic plan as its guide to accomplishing the many goals outlined. The strategic plan has been revised to incorporate the CFSR PIP, ABA recommendations, and the most recent Child Welfare Action Plan developed by Chief Judge Bell and a select team in September, 2005. 25 Standard 2.4 Resolution of Juvenile Delinquency Cases All juvenile delinquency cases are resolved in a prompt and thorough manner within the Family Division, according to the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Maryland, statutory law, and precedent in order to protect society while applying the means necessary to adequately address the developmental needs of the child before the court. Juvenile Law Subcommittee The Juvenile Law Subcommittee of the Judicial Conference Committee on Family Law remains active, tracking and reviewing legislation that affects Maryland’s juvenile justice system, proving policy guidance on juvenile issues and planning and hosting the “ delinquency day” at Maryland’s Child Abuse, Neglect & Delinquency Options ( CANDO) Conference. The 2nd annual “ delinquency day” was held in October, 2004, which featured mental health and substance abuse issues. The subcommittee secured a technical assistance grant from the Center for Sex Offender Management to provide a speaker for that event. The committee also planned and hosted “ delinquency day” at the 2005 CAN DO Conference. That agenda featured key speakers from the Department of Juvenile Services, including Secretary Kenneth Montague, as well as a researcher from the National Institutes of Health who provided a keynote address on adolescent brain development. More recently the Juvenile Law Subcommittee has been collaborating with the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to implement the new juvenile competency bill passed during the 2005 legislative session. Judges and masters attended a training session during Fall, 2005, on the new competency bill. ASFA Compliance in Delinquency Matters The Department of Family Administration undertook key initiatives during Fiscal Year 2005 and the beginning of Fiscal Year 2006 to improve the courts’ ability to comply with the Adoption and Safe Families Act ( ASFA) in handling delinquency matters. ASFA, enacted in 1997, amended federal foster care laws to emphasize child safety, permanency, and well- being. States who comply with these provisions are eligible for federal foster care matching funds. There are many children involved in the juvenile justice system who have been or will be placed in foster care at some time, or who will at some point receive services through the child welfare system. States are eligible for federal foster care matching funds for delinquent youth in the foster care system. Because a child who has been removed from the home in a delinquency case may someday end up in a foster home or child care institution, and because many of the findings required by ASFA must be made the first time a child is removed from the home, those findings must be made in a detention order or other court order as a part of the delinquency case. This ensures that the state can at some point receive federal foster care funds. To aid the Department of Juvenile Services in accessing those funds, the Maryland Judiciary has developed a set of form orders for statewide use. The newly revised delinquency orders will help ensure that courts are making appropriate findings required under ASFA. The Judiciary also used the 2005 CAN DO conference as an opportunity to train judges and masters in how to ensure they are following ASFA in handling delinquency matters. The newsletter of the Department of Family Administration, Family Matters, featured an article on the topic in the Summer, 2005, issue. Ultimately Maryland youth will benefit from the provisions of ASFA, which encourage courts to scrutinize the efforts of both DSS and DJS to ensure the permanency, safety and well- being of all children. Highlights and Examples In addition to these efforts, local jurisdictions have adopted special initiatives to help improve the experience of Maryland youth in the juvenile justice system. Baltimore’s Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative ( JDAI) Under the direction of juvenile judge- in- charge, Judge Martin P. Welch, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City has been pursuing a strategy to reduce the amount of time youth spend in detention. The partners in the city’s Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative ( JDAI) have been pursuing several routes to achieve that goal. The project is a collaboration between the court, the Department of Juvenile Services, the State’s Attorney’s Office, the Office of the Public Defender, the local department of social services, and the Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners. 26 Under the auspices of JDAI, project partners have formed six work groups to, among other things: Reduce case processing time between arrest and disposition, to reduce the time youth can be detained; Identify early intervention strategies; Develop community- based early reporting centers and other alternatives to detention; Look at services more appropriate for young female offenders; and Ensure detention facilities meet national standards. JDAI efforts resulted in 50 percent fewer youth detained in Baltimore City between January, 2004, and January, 2005. A Picture of a Juvenile Drug Court Thanks to the leadership of the Maryland Drug Treatment Court Commission and its staff, the Maryland Circuit Courts have been able to take advantage of federal training opportunities and technical assistance to plan and implement juvenile drug courts. For example, the Circuit Court for Baltimore County was able to open a second site to hear juvenile drug court cases during Fiscal Year 2005. In addition to hearing cases in the Circuit Court location, the court also hears cases at the Essex District Court building. The program is available to youth between the ages of 13 and 17 who have been charged with a crime, other than a violent crime or sexual offense. Candidates participate on a voluntary basis. The juvenile drug court program requires them to participate in frequent court proceedings, random drug tests and counseling, both individual and group. In June, 2005, there were 39 juvenile drug court participants in the Baltimore County program. During Fiscal Year 2005, a range of services were provided to participating youth including: 332 individual counseling sessions; 1,316 face- to- face contacts between a drug court team member and the youth; 241 parent- to- team member contacts; 118 family counseling sessions; 197 adolescent group meetings; 558 individual review hearings with a 98% attendance rate; 1,371 urinalysis specimens collected with only 15% testing positive for drugs. 6 6 Circuit Court for Baltimore County, id., p. 13. The court has begun an evaluation of its juvenile drug court with the help of the University of Maryland’s Bureau of Government Research. Over the coming year, the court hopes to gauge the impact of its juvenile drug court on participating adolescents. Truancy Courts Wicomico County Circuit Court began hearing its first cases as a part of the Truancy Reduction Pilot Program in January, 2005. A truancy court coordinator was hired and the local school board began filing petitions against parents and their children under the new legislation, which created the program. The legislation, House Bill 1443, enacted during the 2004 legislative session, creates legal options schools can pursue to keep children attending school. The program permits judges to identify and address the underlying causes of truancy and head off future problems for at- risk children and their families. The court has been working with the Local Management Board, the Office of the State’s Attorney, and others to plan for and evaluate the impact of the program. During Fiscal Year 2006, the program is being expanded to other 1st Circuit jurisdictions – Somerset, Worcester and Dorchester. The three- year pilot is in its second year. The Department of Family Administration has designed a database to aid the court in managing and evaluating the program. In a similar vein, judges from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County have collaborated with the University of Baltimore, School of Law’s Center on Families, Children and the Courts to establish a school- based program to address truancy issues. That program, which operates in two middle schools and two elementary schools in Baltimore, is a diversion program. Volunteer “ judges,” some of who are actual judges, and some of who are attorneys or other members of the community, hold an informal “ hearing” at the school to discuss school attendance issues and come up with strategies to improve attendance for individual children. Treatment Approaches The Circuit Court for Carroll County has begun making referrals to a new program in the county. The “ Violent Acts” program is designed to provide assessments and brief strategic family therapy for youth at risk due to exposure to adult violence or because child has exhibited violent acts. That court’s family law administrator receives reports on participating children from the program provider. 27 Standard 2.5 Coordination of Family Legal Issues The Family Divisions assess and identify all court matters relating to the same family in a timely and expeditious manner. In doing so, the Family Divisions apply uniform criteria for determining the need to coordinate or consolidate those matters in order to refer all matters involving the same family to the same judge or to the same case management personnel or team. A Team Approach Each jurisdiction has assembled a team of professionals to serve the needs of families and children. Those individuals may include family support services coordinators, parent educators, mediators, mental health professionals, custody evaluators, juvenile court coordinators, permanency planning liaisons, domestic violence coordinators, masters and judges. Typically, each administrative judge appoints a Family Division Judge- in- Charge who provides guidance and direction for the court’s Family Division. Most Family Divisions hold regular meetings where information can be exchanged and policies developed. Improving Communication in Family Violence Cases When the safety of family members is an issue, the coordination of information about those cases is especially important. To improve the ability of varying courts to communicate and coordinate their efforts in managing family violence cases, the Judiciary has undertaken an important information technology project. Judicial Information Systems ( JIS) has continuing working towards the development of a single, integrated, web- enabled centralized database of all domestic violence cases. The database includes an application, already in use by Circuit and District Courts with which judges are able to generate orders in the courtroom. The Domestic Violence Wizard, the application used to generate the orders, has improved the consistency and readability of domestic violence orders. The larger project will use the DV Wizard as the interface for a larger, integrated statewide database. A small grant from the State Justice Institute permitted JIS to hire a systems architect to advance the project. The Department of Family Administration has provided additional funding, although the long- term funding necessary for project completion has not yet been identified. The Department of Family Administration is assisting JIS in pursuing federal grant funds to fund the completion of the project. When completed, the project will permit statewide access to domestic violence orders and case information for all courts. The project will improve inter- court coordination, prevent duplicate filings in multiple courts, and improve the courts’ ability to coordinate with law enforcement to promote victim safety. During Fiscal Year 2005, advances were made in the public inquiry portion of the program that will permit victims and law enforcement officers easy access to protective orders. 28 Equality, Fairness and Integrity A judicial system derives its power from the consent of the people it serves. It can only win that consent if it dispenses justice in a manner that is, and that is perceived to be, equitable, fair and imbued with integrity. Maryland courts guard that trust by managing processes where all litigants, regardless of their position or representational status, can have a fair hearing. The courts also work with agency partners to improve the effectiveness and enforceability of court orders. Finally, Maryland Family Divisions work to ensure equitable treatment for those working within the justice system, including court professionals. Standard 3.1 Integration of Related Family Matters Family Division litigants have enhanced ability to comply when there is integration of related matters so that changes or conflicting orders are minimized. Moreover, pro se litigants are afforded a uniform intake process that includes a uniform mechanism for case reception and establishment. Promoting Consistency of Practice Uniform Orders Maryland’s Family Divisions promote consistency of practice by making available several bodies of uniform forms – for use by litigants, agency professionals and courts alike. The Domestic Relations Forms are uniform pleadings used by thousands of self- represented litigants each year. This large body of forms is distributed through a network of Family Law Self- Help Centers, where the self- represented can obtain assistance. Pleadings and other key forms are available for most family law case types. To aid courts and agency partners in complying with various federal and state laws, the Department of Family Administration and its Foster Care Court Improvement Project have developed uniform orders for use in CINA and delinquency matters. These orders have been distributed to all judges and masters, and are available on the Judiciary’s website. The CINA orders have been incorporated into the state’s case information system, UCS, so that orders can be automatically generated in the courtroom or in chambers. The delinquency orders, which were only recently approved by the Conference of Circuit Judges, is in the process of being incorporated into UCS. A Joint Forms Committee of the Administrative Office of the Courts and the District Court, has developed and maintains a set of uniform orders and forms for use in protective order cases. These forms are likewise available online for use by litigants and their attorneys. Uniform orders are prepared through the District and Circuit Court case management systems and can be generated automatically in the courtroom in nearly all jurisdictions. 29 Sample case management orders, are also available for court use in the Judiciary’s website. Working Towards Statewide Integration of Domestic Violence Orders and Cases As aforementioned, Judicial Information Systems has been working on a multi- year project to develop an integrated, web- enabled statewide domestic violence database. When completed, the project will provide access to court orders and information about pending and past domestic violence cases in any Maryland jurisdiction. The new technical resource document, Screening Cases for Family Violence Issues to Determine Suitability for Mediation and Other Forms of ADR: A Screening Protocol and Tools for Maryland Circuit Courts, provides guidelines to ensure Maryland courts screen cases effectively for family violence issues. The recommended practices in that document will enhance the consistency with which family cases are handled and underlying issues of domestic violence are addressed. The document reiterates the need for courts to thoroughly review each case for any prior legal history of domestic violence to ensure better coordination of cases and sharing of appropriate information. Standard 3.2 Fairness and Equality for Court Staff The Family Division observes standards of fairness and equality for all staff of the court, including those who provide services to litigants in the Family Divisions. Promoting Uniformity in a Decentralized System While the Circuit Courts remain substantially locally funded, a number of significant segments of the family justice system have come under state control and responsibility. This has permitted the Judiciary to develop uniform positions, grades and salaries. Judges, elected clerks and their staff have long been State employees. Within the last four years, masters and law clerk positions have been assumed by the State. Uniform position descriptions, grade structures and salaries have been developed for those positions. While some masters remain county employees, the county is compensated at the standard rate for those positions and when those positions become vacant they become State positions. Even when positions remain under local government control, Family Division/ Family Services funding is leveraged to promote consistency. For example, a recommended job description and qualifications have been provided for family support services coordinators and permanency planning liaisons. Improved Policies for State Employees of the Judiciary The management of the Judiciary’s Human Resources Department has been regularized over the last several years. Employee committees guide that department in the development of policies and practices to benefit employees and retain committed staff within the courts. Providing An Even Chance Fair Processes for Potential Contractual Providers As a condition of accepting Family Division/ Family Services Program grants, individual jurisdictions must agree to comply with local procurement practices to ensure that all contracts are bid fairly and equitably. Because most local governments have minority business enterprise ( MBE) programs, this should mean that contracts are being awarded in a way that promotes the minority- owned businesses in the State. During site visits, Family Administration staff regularly review local procurement practices to ensure compliance with the requirement. Grantees are also subject to periodic audits and management reviews to ensure their compliance with all grant requirements. The Department of Family Administration follows the AOC’s procurement practices that include an active MBE program. Fair Practices in Awarding Grant Funds The Department of Family Administration publishes Notices of Funding Availability for Special Project Grants in the Maryland Register, and distributes copies widely to a broad range of potential grantees. An internal committee reviews grant proposals. The Department of Family Administration is regularly subjected to internal as well as legislative audits. The Administrative Office of the Courts recently hired a grants administrator who is providing consulting assistance to the Department of Family Administration to aid us in improving our grant- making policies and practices. 30 Standard 3.3 Responsiveness to Child Support Issues The Family Division responds to any court- focused child support initiatives from the Maryland legislature in a manner that facilitates an equal and fair response to all parties in child support issues. Responding to Legislative Initiatives Child Support Subcommittee The Child Support Subcommittee of the Judicial Conference Committee on Family Law reviews pending legislation and considers legislative reform and policies that will improve the Judiciary’s ability to ensure that children receive the financial support they need. In Fiscal Year 2005, the Honorable Julia Weatherly, Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, chaired this subcommittee. During Fiscal Year 2005, the subcommittee also reviewed and approved changes to the Earnings Withholding Order to ensure the Judiciary remained complaint with changes in state and federal laws. Maintaining Court Expertise The Judiciary has a number of mechanisms to ensure that judges, masters and court professionals maintain their knowledge of child support matters and recent legislative changes. A summary of new bills that became law and case law updates are included regularly in Family Matters, the newsletter of the Department of Family Administration. The Judiciary also uses child support incentive funds, received under its Title IV- D contract to send approximately 60 clerk’s office employees, masters and judges to the annual Maryland Joint Child Support Conference held each year in Ocean City. The Judiciary’s Child Support Incentive Funds Committee each year has planned training modules at the conference for clerks and masters. During Fiscal Year 2005, that committee also awarded a grant to the Maryland Joint Child Support Conference Committee to bring an excellent keynote speaker to discuss customer service, Anna Eidson. Securing Resources and Funding Innovation Title IV- D Contract Each year the Maryland Judiciary negotiates a contract with the Child Support Enforcement Administration to receive federal funding, under Title IV- D of the Social Security Act, which pays, in part for the handling of child support establishment, enforcement and modification. During Fiscal Year 2005, the Judiciary was able to add funding to the contract for Family Law Self- Help Centers – as these have become an important resource for self- represented parents in child support matters. The Judiciary has used these funds to help the Circuit Courts improve assistance to respondents and petitioners in child support matters. Child Support Incentive Fund Committee The Maryland Judiciary receives some “ incentive funds” in addition to the federal dollars provided under the Judiciary’s Title IV- D contract. The Child Support Incentive Fund Committee of the Conference of Circuit Court Clerks issues notices of funding of availability and solicits applications from within the Judiciary to determine how those dollars will be spent to enhance the child support enforcement system. In addition to sending court staff to the annual child support conference, funds have also been provided for programs that enhance a number of child support innovations. During Spring, 2005, the Child Support Incentive Fund Committee awarded the following grants: Family Division - Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Child Support Video. This informational video will instruct listeners on establishment of child support, calculation of child support, modification of child support and enforcement of orders. The video will be shown to the general public in the Family Division waiting areas. Somerset County Family Services Program, Children Need Love and Support. This public awareness project permitted the court to rent a billboard on Route 13 in Somerset County. The billboard refers the public to Somerset County Child Support Services or Family Services for assistance with child support issues. Clerk of the Circuit Court for Allegany County, Brochure Rack and Fax Machine. This grant was used to purchase a brochure rack to display child support brochures and the purchase of a fax machine for use by the child support department. 31 Clerk of the Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County, PaperFlow Licenses and Shipping. This grant permitted the purchase of additional licenses for PaperFlow software that allows the Clerk’s Office to scan paternity files and retrieve documents electronically. The grant will cover some archiving costs for these cases. Circuit Court for Caroline County, Fatherhood For Now. This fatherhood program provides a comprehensive and coordinated approach to building a strong and lasting capacity in fathers to support their children. This grant supplements funding provided by the Circuit Court, the Family Support Center, the Human Services Council ( Local Management Board), the Caroline County Counseling Center and Prevention Office, Mosaic Connection, and Mental Health Services. Supporting Non- Custodial Parents and Their Families Employment Services for Payors During Fiscal Year 2005, the Circuit Court for Baltimore County began an initiative to improve child support enforcement efforts by helping payors address an underlying problem to lack of payment – lack of employment. That court was awarded a federal grant to launch an employment and support program for non- custodial parents paying child support in Baltimore County. The Family Employment and Support Project ( FESP) combines court oversight, case management, employment referral and employment training to get non- custodial parents who have been delinquent with child support payments back on track, financially contributing to the well- being of their children. Participants are required to meet weekly with a court employment coordinator, actively seek employment, retain employment and pay child support. An employment coordinator determines each individual’s employment skills and training needs, and makes appropriate referrals for job training. Court employment coordinators also recruit local employers as referral sources. Participants remain under the supervision of the court for one year. The goal of the program is to increase accountability and employment opportunities for non- custodial parents to help them improve their relationships with their children, and to increase the emotional and financial support available to those children. The court made 86 referrals to the program during Fiscal Year 2005. Employment coordinators held 250 in- person conferences and another 263 phone contacts with clients during that period. A total of 37 clients were employed as a result of the program, and a total of $ 35,448 of child support was collected, even though the program was only operations for seven months during the fiscal year. 7 Nurturing Fathers A Special Project Grant now supports one program originally initiated with Incentive Funds, the Nurturing Fathers program in Worcester County. This 10- week curriculum cultivates and supports male nurturance in an effort to benefit men, women and children in family relationships. The program was begun as a partnership of the Circuit Court and the Worcester County Health Department. The program is designed to re- engage fathers in the lives of their children. The court refers non- custodial fathers with pending child support or child access cases, although the program is open to all. Program services are offered in Berlin, Snow Hill, Pocomoke and the Worcester County jail on a rotating basis. Brochures The Judiciary has developed a series of six ( 6) brochures on key child support topics. The brochures have been printed and distributed to courts and agency partners, and are available from the Department of Family Administration. 7 Circuit Court for Baltimore County, id., p. 24. 32 Standard 3.4 Treatment of Unrepresented Parties The Family Divisions endeavor to provide for each person within their jurisdiction equal care and fair treatment, without regard to representational status. To this end, should a party who is not represented wish legal representation, Family Divisions refer them to potential legal representation resources. A Coordinated Statewide Approach to Assisting the Self- Represented Family Law Self- Help Centers Maryland is one of the few states that has adopted a statewide approach to assisting the self- represented. Maryland citizens have universal access to Family Law Self- Help Centers. These free, walk- in legal clinics are available in every Circuit Court and are in high demand. During Fiscal Year 2005, these programs served 38,846 individuals. Family Law Self- Help Centers provide assistance in a variety of case types. They also perform an important function by discussing with litigants whether their case is appropriate for self- representation. Litigants with high conflict custody issues, complex financial issues, or litigants who themselves appear unable to represent themselves effectively are advised to seek the assistance of counsel. Family Law Self- Help Centers make thousands of referrals each year to local lawyer referral programs, and to legal services providers. 41833717324825115521311673892646302294802000400060008000100001200014000AdoptionAlimonyChild Support IVDChild Support NonIVDCustodyDivorceDVName ChangeOtherPaternityVisitationFigure 25. Family Law Self- Help Centers – Assistance Provided by Case Type – FY05 Child Support Agency6% Lawyer Referral19% Other10% Proceed Pro Se48% Legal Services Provider17% Figure 26. Family Law Self- Help Centers – Referrals and Recommendations Made – FY05 Promoting Quality Self- Help Programs To aid courts in managing effective self- help programs, the Judiciary has adopted a set of Best Practices for Programs to Assist Self- Represented Litigants in Family Law Matters. The document was developed by family support services coordinators, self- help providers and other key stakeholders, and was thoroughly vetted and revised by the Judicial Conference Committee on Family Law before being adopted and endorsed by the Conference of Circuit Judges during Fiscal Year 2005. This technical assistance guide has been printed and distributed to judges, masters, coordinators and self- help providers. It has also been posted on the Judiciary’s website. The Department of Family Administration has also been following up on a number of recommendations that grew out of an assessment conducted of the family law self- help programs under a grant from the State Justice Institute, completed during Fiscal Year 2004. Forms: A Key Tool for the Self- Represented The Department of Family Administration continues to maintain the Domestic Relations Forms online. These critical tools enable thousands of individuals to file and respond to pleadings and motions, who might not 33 otherwise be able to participate in the family justice system. The entire body of forms and supporting web pages has also been translated into Spanish. These are provided online in a bilingual Spanish/ English format with complete instructions in fillable PDF. The Judiciary plans to extend the accessibility of the forms by translating and creating bilingual versions in several key additional languages. Telephone Support To help litigants in using the online forms, the Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts ( AOC) provides Special Project Grant funds to the Women’s Law Center of Maryland to operate the Legal Forms Helpline. Users can call a toll free number to speak with an attorney to get help in completing and filing the Domestic Relations Forms. To support the new Spanish forms, the Women’s Law Center also provides the Legal Forms Helpline in Spanish, one half- day per week. Spanish speakers can call and speak with a Spanish- speaking attorney for help with the bilingual forms. Substantive Legal Information on the Web The Judiciary has taken an active role in providing support and guidance to the Maryland Legal Assistance Network ( MLAN) that operates the People’s Law Library ( PLL). PLL is a legal content website that provides in- depth information on a broad range of legal topics which has earned a national reputation for excellence. The Judiciary has provided sustaining funding for the project, and plays an active role in the governance of the project. MLAN is housed at and administered by the Legal Aid Bureau of Maryland, in collaboration with a broad community of legal services providers. Links to PLL and other MLAN resources from the Family Administration web pages and forms pages, enhances the depth of information available to litigants. Addressing Special Case Management Needs Many self- represented litigants believe that once they have filed a petition or answer in a case, the hard part is over. Many do not realize that they may be required to take proactive steps to ensure that their case reaches disposition. A number of jurisdictions have adopted the practice of holding status conferences in cases involving the self- represented – to see if additional motions need to be filed to ensure the case moves forward. In those instances, self- represented litigants can be referred to the self- help center so they can receive information on how to take next steps. The Circuit Court for Prince George’s maintains a paralegal unit that reviews pro se filings and pleadings to ensure they are legal sufficient. Other courts have developed specialized forms of alternative dispute resolution to address the needs of the self- represented. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City operates an in- house mediation program for self- represented litigants. The Circuit Court for Harford County operates a settlement conference program using volunteer attorney facilitators to help the parties resolve cases involving the self- represented. Understanding the Needs of the Self- Represented Data Collection Efforts In order to plan effectively to address the needs of the self- represented, the Department of Family Administration collects and compiles data from every jurisdiction on the number of individuals appearing without benefit of counsel at a variety of stages of domestic litigation. In addition, all Family Law Self- Help Centers collect and report on the demographics of self- represented individuals using the program. Data accuracy has continued to improve and has demonstrated a level of consistency. The Department of Family administration provides technical assistance regularly to individual jurisdictions to assure data collection in this area and others is accurate. One key function of the self- help centers is to assist litigants in determining if it is appropriate for them to represent themselves. All self- help centers refer litigants to appropriate legal services or other programs if it is advisable for them to be represented. In Fiscal Year 2005, slightly less than one- half of all program users ( 48%) were advised that it was appropriate to proceed pro se. The rest were advised to seek the assistance of another community- based legal services provider or other program that could assist them. How Many Individuals are Self- Represented? In order to get a true picture of the impact of self- representation on the family justice system, the Judiciary looks at pro se appearances at a variety of stages of litigation. A court case is not a single, finite event but a series of events that happen over time. Individuals may begin their court case believing they can handle the case themselves but may end up engaging an attorney once it becomes clear that the case is contested or a trial is pending. In other instances, individuals may run out of funds before the case is over and be compelled to discharge their attorney. Data is collected through the Judiciary’s information system to track the number of 34 domestic cases that involve one or more self- represented persons at various stages. The level of self- representation can vary greatly by jurisdiction. In the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, 86% of all cases involved at least one self- represented litigant at the time the Answer was filed, as opposed to 68% statewide. Who is Unrepresented? While the Judiciary’s information system does not currently permit courts to capture demographics of self- represented litigants, we can get some sense of who is appearing without benefit of counsel by looking at the demographics for Maryland’s Family Law Self- Help Centers. Individuals who request assistance from these programs are asked to complete a one- page demographic questionnaire. While there are local variations, the typical self- represented litigant is an African – American female with a high school education and a household income of under $ 15,000 per year. Although it would be difficult to say with accuracy the reason for the increase, Fiscal Year 2005, during which forms and web- based resources were added in Spanish, saw an increase in the percentage of Spanish speakers served by the program from 9 to 13%. 32% 49% 39% 75% 71% 19% 29% 24% 30% 28% 26% 25% 15% 20% 37% 33% 35% 35% 40% 25% 36% 10% 9% 44% 39% 40% 36% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% AnswerScheduling ConferencePendente LiteSettlement ConferencePretrialUncontested HearingContested TrialDispositionContempt2 or more Pro Se Parties1 Pro Se PartyFull Representation Figure 27. Pro Se Appearances in Domestic Litigation – FY05 254511197764335941199020004000600080001000012000Less thanHighSchoolHighSchoolSomeCollegeBachelor'sDegreeAdvancedDegree Figure 28. Self- Help Center Demographics – Highest Level of Education – FY05 10781785149201693745327020004000600080001000012000$ 0-$ 14,999$ 15,000-$ 29,999$ 30,000-$ 49,999$ 50,000-$ 69,999$ 70,000-$ 99,999$ 100,000+ Figure 29. Self- Help Center Demographics – Household Income – FY05 35 English82% Other5% Spanish13% Figure 30. Self- Help Center Demographics – Primary Language – FY05 African American40% Asian3% Caucasian39% Pacific Islander< 1% Other4% Native American1% Hispanic13% Figure 31. Self- Help Center Demographics – Race / Ethnicity – FY05 Female60% Male40% Figure 32. Self- Help Center Demographics – Gender – FY05 36 Independence and Accountability Adhering to values of independence and accountability ensures that a system of justice will retain the respect and confidence of those who come before it. The Judiciary regularly evaluates its performance to ensure accountability of the family justice system. Standard 4.1 Performance Issues The Family Divisions conduct regular reviews of their performance to assist with the responsibility to manage effectively, to participate actively in long range planning, to identify and pursue needed resources, and to account publicly for performance. Annual Evaluation Cycle Maryland Circuit Court Family Divisions are subject to a series of regular evaluation protocols. Each Family Division or Family Services Program submits quarterly financial and program reports to the Department of Family Administration at the Administrative Office of the Courts. This information is used to measure financial accountability and ensure programs are on track. This data is compiled annually and incorporated into this annual report. Periodic Audit All jurisdictional and Special Project grantees are subject to periodic audits and management reviews upon request of the Department of Family Administration. Performance Standards and Measures The Judiciary adopted a set of Performance Standards and Measures for Maryland’s Family Divisions in 2002. These standards serve as the measure by which evaluations and site visits are conducted. They provide guidance to all jurisdictions in developing long- range plans and establishing priorities for future development. Family Division Evaluation Tools During Fiscal Year 2005, work continued on the development and implementation of four survey instruments for use in evaluating court performance in light of the Performance Standards. With funding from a State Justice Institute technical assistance grant, a consultant was hired to design four tools: A Litigant Satisfaction Survey An Attorney Satisfaction Survey A Co- Parenting Course Exit Survey A Self- Help Center Exit Survey The consultant delivered the final survey instruments, an implementation plan, and a database capable of producing aggregate reports in January, 2005. Working with family division administrators and coordinators, the Department of Family Administration has devised a timeline for conducting the surveys. Judicial Information Systems is aiding the department by producing termination reports and contact information so that surveys may be mailed to litigants whose cases closed during the month of December, 2005, and to their attorneys. Co- parenting and Self- Help Center exit surveys will be distributed and collected by those programs during the month of March, 2006. Guidelines and Best Practices The Judiciary has developed and/ or adopted guidelines in several areas, some of which are referred to in the Maryland Rules. Attorney Guidelines for CINA/ TPR Cases The Guidelines of Advocacy for Attorneys Representing Children in CINA and Related TPR and Adoption Proceedings took effect July, 2001. Developed by the FCCIP Representation Subcommittee, the document provides comprehensive guidance for how children are to 37 be represented in these cases, from an initial meeting to the final disposition of the case. All vendors under contract with the Maryland Legal Services Program of the Department of Human Resources, the entity that provides for child representation in such matters, must abide by the Guidelines. Guidelines for Child Counsel in Custody Cases During Fiscal Year 2005, the Judicial Conference, Committee on Family Law, Custody Subcommittee, under the leadership of its then- chair, the Honorable Marcella Holland, Circuit Court for Baltimore City, developed a similar document intended to guide attorneys in providing effective representation to children in custody cases. The Conference of Circuit Judges approved the Maryland Standards of Practice for Court- Appointed Lawyers Representing Children in Custody Cases in September, 2005. The standards were developed with three goals in mind: 1) to improve the quality and availability of representation for children in custody cases; 2) to promote consistency of practice and terminology around the State; and 3) to provide a uniform set of standards for attorneys in these cases. The conference has forwarded the new standards to the Rules Committee recommending that they be incorporated into the Maryland Rules. Family Court ADR Program Best Practices During Fiscal Year 2005, the Judiciary also adopted a set of best practices for family court- based alternative dispute resolution programs. The work was the product of many months of |
