|
Full-Text |
Fiscal Year 2004 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 COURT S 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 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOCUSED ON FAMILIES................................................................................................................ 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........................................................................................ 29 Standard 3.4 Treatment of Unrepresented Parties............................................................................................... 31 INDEPENDENCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY ......................................................................................... 35 Standard 4.1 Performance Issues ........................................................................................................................ 35 Standard 4.2 Information Sharing ......................................................................................................................... 36 Standard 4.3 Fair and Efficient Forum for Dispute Resolution ............................................................................. 37 Standard 4.4 Safety and Security ......................................................................................................................... 38 Standard 4.5 Uniform Qualifications ..................................................................................................................... 38 PUBLIC TRUST AND CONFIDENCE ................................................................................................ 40 Standard 5.1 A Therapeutic, Holistic, Ecological Approach to Family Law Decision- Making .............................. 40 Standard 5.2 Fairness, Courtesy and Civility........................................................................................................ 41 Standard 5.3 Visible Presence in the Community ................................................................................................ 41 SUSTAINING THE LONG TERM BENEFITS OF FAMILY COURT REFORM................................................ 42 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Total Family Cases Filed or Reopened in Fiscal Year 2004 ................................................................. 17 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Percentage of Maryland Jurisdictions Offering Specific Family Support Services in Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004........................................................................................................................... ...... 5 Figure 2. Juvenile and Dependency Drug Courts in Operation or in the Planning Phase in Maryland Circuit Courts ............................................................................................................................... .......... 6 Figure 3. Referrals to Child Access Mediation – FY00 – FY04 ............................................................................. 7 Figure 4. Referrals to Co- Parenting Education – FY00 – FY04............................................................................. 7 Figure 5. Education Levels of Co- Parenting Participants – FY04.......................................................................... 7 Figure 6. Self- Identified Ethnicity of Co- Parenting Participants – FY04 ................................................................ 7 Figure 7. Household Income of Co- Parenting Participants – FY04....................................................................... 8 Figure 8. Primary Language of Co- Parenting Participants – FY04........................................................................ 8 Figure 9. Gender of Co- Parenting Participants – FY04 ......................................................................................... 8 Figure 10. Individuals Assisted by Family Law Self- Help Centers – FY00 – FY04 ............................................... 9 Figure 11. Cases Referred for Custody Evaluations – FY00 – FY04 .................................................................. 10 Figure 12. Cases Referred for Mental Health Evaluations – FY00 – FY04 ........................................................ 10 Figure 13. Substance Abuse Screenings, Evaluations and Treatment – FY02 – FY04...................................... 10 Figure 14. Cases Referred for Visitation Services in FY01 – FY04..................................................................... 11 Figure 15. Cases Including a Referral to Children’s Psycho- educational Programs, FY00 – FY04.................... 11 Figure 16. Family Caseload as a Percentage of Overall Circuit Court Caseload – FY04 ................................... 16 Figure 17. SPG Grantees Serving Victims of Domestic Violence – Type of Services Provided – FY04............. 18 Figure 18. SPG Grantees Serving Victims of Domestic Violence – Major Benefit Achieved – FY04.................. 19 Figure 19. SPG Grantees Serving Victims of Domestic Violence – Cases Opened – FY04............................... 19 Figure 20. SPG Grantees Serving Victims of Domestic Violence........................................................................ 19 Figure 21. SPG Grantees Serving Victims of Domestic Violence – Gender – FY04........................................... 20 Figure 22. SPG Grantees Serving Victims of Domestic Violence – Race/ Ethnicity – FY04................................ 20 Figure 23. Family Law Self- Help Centers – Assistance Provided by Case Type – FY04 ................................... 31 Figure 24. Family Law Self- Help Centers – Referrals and Recommendations Made – FY04 ............................ 31 Figure 25. Pro Se Appearances in Domestic Litigation - FY04 .......................................................................... 33 Figure 26. Self- Help Center Demographics – Highest Level of Education – FY04 ............................................. 34 Figure 27. Self- Help Center Demographics – Gender – FY04 ............................................................................ 34 Figure 28. Self- Help Center Demographics – Primary Language – FY04........................................................... 34 Figure 29. Self- Help Center Demographics – Race/ Ethnicity – FY04 ................................................................. 34 Figure 30. Self- Help Center Demographics – Gender – FY04 ............................................................................ 34 Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 1 Focused on Families Six years after the creation of Family Divisions, the Maryland Judiciary remains focused on families. The Judiciary’s family court reform efforts culminated in 1998 with the creation of Circuit Court Family Divisions and Family Services Programs. Since that time, the Judiciary has strengthened its investment in families, developing and promoting a uniform spectrum of services, case management practices and decision- making tools that enable the courts to respond effectively to the needs of families and children. A Model for Court Reform The key elements of the Judiciary’s family court reform efforts have now become a model for other court reform efforts in the State. Maryland courts have begun to explore other types of “ problem- solving” courts. These new efforts represent finely tuned responses to specific family- related needs that come before the court. During Fiscal Year 2004, the Circuit Courts have seen the following changes: The proliferation of juvenile drug courts. Training and development of a statewide dependency drug court team to promote the use of drug courts to address the substance abuse issues underlying child maltreatment as well as the establishment of the states first dependency drug courts. Legislation passed to permit the creation of a court- based truancy prevention pilot project. The Maryland Circuit Court Family Divisions and Family Services Programs have matured. Their success has inspired courts to address family problems in new ways and have born fruit in the creation of new problem-solving courts. The methods used in implementing the family divisions have likewise been mirrorred in these new court reform efforts including the reliance on coordinating personnel in each court, statewide team-building methods, and statewide administrative support and leadership. The latter has ensured that promising practices benefit not just a single jurisdiction, but are quickly spread throughout the state. This has likewise ensured that citizens in every jurisdiction have access to the same resources. Highlights In addition to the creation of specialty courts, the Maryland Judiciary continues to improve its level of service to families by continually evaluating its efforts, piloting new services and exploring promising practices which this year have included: Coordination of a nationwide study of state court programs designed to assist the self- represented which included an in- depth assessment of Maryland’s family law pro se assistance projects. Development of survey instruments for family division litigants and attorneys, and exit surveys for two key programs, scheduled for completion by January, 2005. Translation of all domestic relations forms and the Judiciary’s family website into Spanish. Funding the Latino Legal Access Project, a project of the Law Foundation of Prince George’s County, designed to enhance access to the family justice system for Spanish speakers. Co- sponsoring, with the Maryland Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office ( MACRO), a conference on court- based family mediation. Expansion of the Protective Order Advocacy Representation Project ( POARP) to Carroll County. Training for attorneys representing parents in child protection cases. Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 2 Completion of a follow- up assessment conducted by the American Bar Assocation ( ABA) to gauge the courts’ effectiveness in addressing child welfare issues. Caseflow management training for family case managers. A pilot project in Anne Arundel County to enhance mediator quality by providing live videotaped role plays for the court’s family law panel mediators. A pilot project in Baltimore City to evaluate the use of mandatory parenting plans in divorce cases involving children. 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. Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 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 juisdiction 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 Child in Need of Supervision 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. Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 4 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 SEVICES 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 New Services in Fiscal Year 2004 During Fiscal Year 2004 courts experimented with new models of service. Family Employment and Support The Circuit Court for Baltimore County received a federal grant to launch a employment and support program for non- custodial parents paying child support in Baltimore County. The Family Employment and Support Project ( FESP) will combine court oversight, case management, employment referral and employment training to help non- custodial parents who have been delinquent with child support payments get back on track. Each participant will meet weekly with a court employment coordinator, actively seek employment, retain employment and pay child support. Truancy Court Passage of House Bill 1443 during the 2004 Legislative Session created a new cause of action – a civil status charge for failure to attend school that can be brought against a child. The bill created a truancy reduction pilot project in the 1st Circuit. The new truancy court model the bill describes and the new civil charges will be piloted in Wicomico County Circuit Court during the coming year. During early Fiscal Year 2005, the Circuit Court began planning an implementation strategy for the new court, working closely the Wicomico County Public Schools and Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 5 other local partners. Services provided through the Local Management Board will enable the court to help families address the underlying causes of truancy including substance abuse and mental health issues. The court will hear its first truancy cases in January, 2005. It is hoped that additional funding will be identified to permit the implementation of the model in the entire 1st Circuit. Dependency Mediation Funding provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts to improve the handling of child welfare cases permitted growth in the number and types of dependency mediation programs operated by the court. These programs use proven alternative dispute resolution techniques in Child In Need of Assistance ( CINA) cases and Termination of Parental Rights ( TPR) cases or adoptions. Some of the new programs were made possible by additional funding provided by the Maryland Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office ( MACRO). Two program models have evolved. The first uses trained mediators to prevent the removal of a child from the home or return a child to the home, early in a CINA case, by engaging the family to ensure that the child will continue to remain safe. The second model uses trained mediators to bring birth families, prospective adoptive families and social workers together to resolve how future issues will be addressed including whether and how the child may remain connected to the birth family post adoption, and how the child’s long term needs will be addressed. New dependency mediation programs were established in the following jurisdictions: Allegany County Anne Arundel County Calvert/ St. Mary’s Counties Prince George’s County Somerset County These join the ranks of pre- existing programs in several other jurisdictions. As the field matures, mediation professionals and courts are gaining experience in how alternative dispute resolution can improve the quality of decisions made for children involved with the foster care system. Parenting Coordination This field has matured over the last year as more courts have experimented with how parenting coordination can improve outcomes for very high conflict families. Calvert, Frederick, Harford and Queen Anne’s Counties all began referring small numbers of cases to parent coordinators – highly trained, skilled mental health professionals who assess high conflict families and serve as a consistent resource for those families, assisting them in making on- going decisions about child access issues and other issues that often arise post- judgment. This developing resource can help families avoid returning to court to relitigate old disputes, or to enforce orders through the use of the contempt process. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ADR Children Psychoeducational Children- Waiting Room Child Counsel/ GAL Custody Investigation Domestic Violence- Advocacy Domestic Violence- Counseling... Emergency Assistance Psychological Evaluations Family/ Individual Counseling Parenting Education Pro Se Assistance Substance Abuse Juvenile Programs Visitation Services Parenting Coordination FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 Figure 1. Percentage of Maryland Jurisdictions Offering Specific Family Support Services in Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004 Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 6 Holiday Court Many families dispute when and with whom children will spend the holidays. Some of those families find themselves in court for an emergency hearing before the holiday, or in court at a contempt proceeding after the holiday. To help families avoid contested litigation, the Circuit Court for Howard County initiated “ holiday facilitation” in December, 2003, for families disputing child access issues over the winter holidays. Families were offered the opportunity to meet with a trained volunteer attorney facilitator to resolve these issues without protracted litigation. Family Dependency and Juvenile Drug Courts The Judiciary continues to make strides in promoting and implementing specialty drug courts, thanks to the leadership and guidance of the Maryland Drug Treatment Court Commission. In addition to adult drug courts, numerous Family Divisions and Family Services Programs have sought to address underlying substance abuse issues by starting drug courts specifically targeted to the needs of juvenile offenders and the parents of children involved in the foster care system. Most courts have benefited from federal training grants as well as the technical assistance provided by the Commission. 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. Planning Family Dependenc y Drug Court Family Dependency Drug Cou rt in Operation Planning Juvenile D rug Court Juvenile D rug Court in Operation Figure 2. Juvenile and Dependency Drug Courts in Operation or in the Planning Phase in Maryland Circuit Courts Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 7 3871 3906 4547 4140 3357 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 Figure 3. Referrals to Child Access Mediation – FY00 – FY04 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. Figure 5. Education Levels of Co- Parenting Participants - FY04 African American 27% Asian 2% Caucasian 63% Other 3% Hispanic 4% Pacific Islander 0% Native American 1% Figure 6. Self- Identified Ethnicity of Co- Parenting Participants - FY04 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 targetting written materials and other resources to ensure they met the needs of the court’s customers. Successful co- parenting courses include 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. Figure 4. Referrals to Co- Parenting Education – FY00 – FY04 7871 8915 8605 8921 9375 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 High School 34% Some College 36% Advanced Degree 9% Less than High School 5% Bachelor's Degree 16% Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 8 14% 24% 27% 15% 10% 10% 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 $ 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 - FY04 English 96% Other 2% Spanish 2% Figure 8. Primary Language of Co- Parenting Participants - FY04 Access to the Family Justice System Help for the Self- Represented No system of justice is effective unless the persons it was designd 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 number of individuals who represent themselves has continued to increase over the last several years. The Maryland Judiciary has adopted a multi- faceted strategy for addressing the needs of the self- represented. Family Law Self Help Centers. Formerly called “ pro se assistance projects,” 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. Attorney providers interview litigants to determine whether their case is appropriate for self- representation, assist them in completing forms, and in planning for the next steps in their litigation. Referrals for more in- depth legal assistance are made where the party is in need of full representation. These programs are in extremely high demand. In Fiscal Year 2004, family law self- help centers served 41,351 individuals. Domestic Relations Forms. Forms were developed several years ago by the Maryland Judiciary to permit self- represented litigants to file documents in a broad range of family cases including: divorce, custody, visitation, child support, name changes and domestic violence. The forms are maintained in an interactive PDF format on the Internet to permit users to complete and print them from the website. More recently, the entire body of forms was translated into Spanish. Those forms are now provided in an English- Spanish bilingual format with complete instructions in Spanish. Legal Forms Helpline. Individuals can call a toll free number to receive help in completing and filing the domestic relations forms. The Legal Forms Helpline is operated by the Women’s Law Center of Maryland under a grant from the Administrative Office of the Courts, Department of Family Administration. Female 54% Male 46% Figure 9. Gender of Co- Parenting Participants - FY04 Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 9 More recently, the Women’s Law Center added assistance in Spanish. One half- day per week, Spanish speakers can call to consult with a Spanish- speaking attorney for help with the bilingual forms. This service was added at the request of the Administrative Office of the Courts to enhance the usability of the translated forms. 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 assesment 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. Jurisdictions that border other states often make reciprocal arrangements with providers in those states to ensure that adequate evaluative information is available to the court, even when one of the parties resides in another state. This year, the Circuit Court for Allegany County was able to identify providers who can conduct evaluations in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Specialized Evaluations and Hybrid Services As evaluative services have matured, some Maryland jurisdictions have experimented with varying models of service, some of which are designed to meet the needs of special populations. In Harford County, the Office of Family Court Services ( OFCS) conducts child custody and visitation evaluations “ practiced as alternative dispute resolution.” Trained OFCS personnel conduct an assesment of the family where the focus is limited to identifying the child’s needs and the parents’ ability to respond to those needs. Once the assessment has been conducted, parents are given the opportunity to become the “ first users” of the information by reaching a facilitated settlement with the help of the assessor/ facilitator. Harford County has also piloted another innovation in their Kinship Care Program. When a non- parent requests custody, the court evaluates whether temporary custody to that person is appropriate. The matter is then referred to the Kinship Care Caseworker at the OFCS. The person investigates the petitioner, the home setting and does a psycho- social evaluation of the relationship between the 27,461 33,187 37,481 37,862 41,351 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 Figure 10. Individuals Assisted by Family Law Self- Help Centers - FY00 - FY04 Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 10 child and the petitioner. The caseworker also reviews various public programs the petitioner may be able to access that can assist them in caring for the child. A hearing follows within 30 days to determine the final merits of the petition. Continued involvement with other agencies may be made a condition of any final custody order, if appropriate. 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. Al l 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 service is provided by contractual psychiatrists or psychologists retained by the court. In most jurisdictions, however, the 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. The number of mental health evaluations conducted has declined for the last two year as courts have experimented with less costly ways to obtain the evaluative information they require. Substance Abuse Assessments Many courts have devised ways to arrange for drug and alcohol testing where substance abuse has been alleged. In some jurisdicitons, 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. 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 completely disrupted or limited unnecessarily. 428 383 513 416 447 100 200 300 400 500 600 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 Figure 12. Cases Referred for Mental Health Evaluations - FY00 - FY04 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. 1,525 1,477 1,672 1,699 1,808 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 Figure 11. Cases Referred for Custody Evaluations - FY00 - FY04 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Screening Evaluation Treatment FY02 FY03 FY04 Figure 13. Substance Abuse Screenings, Evaluations and Treatment - FY02 - FY04 Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 11 Supervised Visitation Centers provide a neutral setting where non- custodial parents can spend time with their children. These centers are staffed by trained professionals, often with a mental health background. 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. 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 designed to aid children in coping with changes resulting from separation and divorce. 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. 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 Monitored Exchange Supervised Visitation Figure 14. Cases Referred for Visitation Services in FY01 - FY04 778 856 902 683 740 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 Figure 15. Cases Including a Referral to Children's Psycho- educational Programs, FY00 - FY04 Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 12 Access to Justice Under the leadership of Chief Judge Robert M. Bell, Maryland has made Access to Justice a cornerstone of the family justice system. Maryland continues to stand out as one of few states that has adoped a statewide strategy for providing assistance to the self- represented. Other initiatives have made the Maryland Judiciary a key player in supporting the State’s legal services safety net. 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 provides a statewide network of Family Law Self- Help Centers ( formerly called “ pro se assistance projects”) that offer forms, advice and information to self-represented persons. These programs served over 41,000 individuals in Fiscal Year 2004. A number of jurisdictions were able to expand services or reduce program costs by encouraging local counsel to provide pro bono service to low- income individuals through the self- help centers. During Fiscal Year 2004, the Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts, Department of Family Administration, coordinated a nationwide study of state court programs to assist self- represented litigants. The study, funded in part by the State Justice Institute, involved assessments of programs in Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Maryland and Minnesota. Five Maryland family law self- help centers participated in the study. Pariticpating courts conducted surveys of program users, judges, masters, attorneys and court personnel. Outside consultants and volunteer evaluators then conducted week- long site visits which included in- court observations to determine how self- represented litigants perform in court, and interviews with various stakeholders. In the assessment reports, evaluators made recommendations on how the participating courts can improve their service to the self- represented. The Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts, and the individual circuit courts will be following up on those recommendations over the coming year. The family law self- help centers provide assistance with the Domestic Relations Forms, a large body of forms for users in divorce, custody, visitation, child support, domestic violence and name change cases. The forms are provided thorugh 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. Recently, the Administrative Office of the Courts, Department of Family Administration had the entire body of Domestic Relations Forms translated into a bilingual Spanish/ English format. Complete instructions are provided in Spanish. The entire Famiy Administration web presence has likewise been translated into Spanish so that Spanish speakers have access to the identical online resources available to English speakers. Plans are underway to translate the forms and web pages into other key languages. To enhance access to the Spanish forms, the Department of Family Administration recently enhanced their grant award to the Women’s Law Center to permit them to expand the Legal Forms Helpline to serve Spanish speakers. One half day per week, Spanish speakers may call to consult with a Spanish- speaking attorney for help with the forms. Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 13 During Fiscal Year 2004, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City made an effort to bring mediation services to litigants who cannot travel outside the city to Sheppard Pratt where mediation services are normally provided. The court initiatied an In- House Mediation Program to provide services on- site at the city courthouse. The Circuit Court for Montgomery County retains a contractual mediator who can provide alternative dispute resolution services in Spanish and French. They have also secured technology necessary so that they can offer their PEACE co- parenting course to non- Enlish speakers via simultaneous translation. Two sets of equipment permit them to offer the course any time in Spanish and one additional language. A newly created position in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Liaison for Self- represented and Hispanic Services, permits that court to better address the needs of those populations. Finally, even in Maryland’s smallest jurisdiction, Kent County, the Circuit Court there has translated its family services fact sheets into Spanish. 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 serivces for indigents. During Fiscal Year 2004, for example, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City reported that 22% of divorce, custody, visitation and child support filings were accompaniied by an order waiving the filing fee. This means that those individuals had petitioned for and were entitled to a fee waiver based on indigency. 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 wiaved due to indigency. 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 Administative 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. Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 14 Standard 1.3 Safety, Accessibility and Convenience Maryland’s Family Divisions aspire to ensure that court facilitites 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 All Circuit Court Family Divisions and Family Services continually review their facilities, processes and services to enhance their safety, accessibility and convenience. Almost all courts offer co- parenting education and other services after hours and on weekends, to accommodate the needs of working parents. Some are held at community sites convenient for families. For example, the Circuit Court for Kent County has partnered with the local Kent Family Center to offer “ Parents’ Nights.” Two consecutive Monday evenings per month, the court offers its self- help services and co- parenting education at the Center. Several jurisdictions continue to operate People’s Law Library Outreach Sites. These centers, often set up a local libraries, a few in the courthouse, were made possible by an equipment grant and assistance from the Maryland Legal Assistance Network ( MLAN). The sites provide a computer with Internet access to specific legal websites in Maryland, as well kiosks with written information about family law issues, court programs and processes. Courts have experimented with existing services to enhance their accessibility. For example, the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County was concerned that public transportation was not available to the courthouse most evenings. They thus began offering their Self- Represented Litigant Orientation Program two evenings per month at a local library. Cecil County permits litigants and counsel to participate in scheduling conferences by telephone. Carroll County created a space in their new annex where members of the public can use a computer to access key legal resources. A number of new jurisdictions, including Carroll and Howard Counties, were able to open child waiting areas within the courthouse, to make coming to court easier for parents with children. Baltimore City continues to offer a staffed child waiting area where parents can leave their children while they are in court. 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 percentage 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 2004 is provided. Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 15 Special Project Grants The following Special Project Grants were awarded in Fiscal Year 2004 to support Maryland’s family justice system. GRANTEE/ project CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY / don’t just paint it pink – responding to the needs of girls in baltimore city HOUSE OF RUTH / protective order advocacy representation projects LAW FOUNDATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY / latino legal access project LIFE CRISIS CENTER / domestic violence legal services program MARYLAND COUNCIL FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION – anne arundel county mediator quality assurance pilot project MARYLAND LEGAL SERVICES CORP. / contested custody representation project MARYLAND VOLUNTEER LAWYERS SERVICE / safenet MARYLAND VOLUNTEER LAWYERS SERVICE / washington county domestic violence legal services MICPEL – court- based family mediation conference SOUTHERN MD CTR FOR FAMILY ADOVOCACY / domestic violence legal services program 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 – montgomery co. WOMEN’S LAW CTR / legal forms helpline YWCA OF ANNAPOLIS AND ANNE ARUNDEL CO. / domestic violence legal services program Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 16 Expedition and Timeliness The Maryland Judiciary continues its commitment to improving case clearance rates and time to disposition for all case types. The development of case time standards and several successive time standard compliance assessments have helped keep this goal in the forefront. Family Divisions have reinvigorated and reworked case management goals to ensure the timely resolution of family cases. 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 – 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. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City, reported, for example, that during Fiscal Year 2003, 52% of all cases reviewed by the Family Division Administrator involved children in some way. That court has also noted an increase in the number of contested cases, despite an overall reduction in caseload. It is necessary for the State of Maryland to 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, 2003 through June 30, 2004, Maryland Circuit Courts initiated or opened 128,854 family cases. This represents 63% of all civil legal matters and 46% of the total Circuit Court caseload. Highlights and Examples During Fiscal Year 2004, Circuit Courts continued to monitor their compliance with time- to- disposition standards for a variety of case types. Courts made a number of improvements in the handling of family cases to improve their ability to comply with those standards, and to enhance the timeliness with which family matters are resolved. The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County has established a family case management team. The team reviewed approximately 4,200 files in Fiscal Year 2004 for time standard compliance and service- related issues. The goal of the team is to ensure proper management for each individual case. That court has launched an aggressive campaign to improve its clearance rate ( the ratio between the number of cases opened and the number disposed within a single year). They were able to reduce Figure 16. Family Caseload as a Percentage of Overall Circuit Court Caseload - FY04 Criminal 28% Other Civil Family 26% 46% Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 17 Table 1. Total Family Cases Filed or Reopened in Fiscal Year 2004 Jurisdiction Divorce/ Annul Other Domestic Adopt/ Guard Adult GuardPaternity DV Juv- Del Juv- CINS Juv- CINA Juv- Guard Juv- Adopt Juv- Peace Juv- Other Total Allegany 542 618 16 285 9 340 20 77 8 0 0 0 1915 Anne Arundel 4939 1594 430 1 906 401 2483 12 65 2 1 15 0 10849 Baltimore 4069 3116 256 1257 491 3651 1 556 52 39 90 0 13578 Baltimore City 3265 1965 181 6271 241 7055 167 1957 320 456 242 5 22125 Calvert 709 704 34 5 836 55 610 0 31 10 7 15 0 3016 Caroline 293 361 16 1 193 140 174 0 24 3 3 2 0 1210 Carroll 918 554 62 5 113 332 869 3 31 6 0 22 1 2916 Cecil 691 1156 26 722 141 417 0 43 5 1 0 0 3202 Charles 1011 844 32 835 311 1455 0 48 12 4 0 1 4553 Dorchester 206 399 11 422 48 130 0 11 4 3 0 0 1234 Frederick 1367 1268 66 544 77 938 22 165 21 27 18 1 4514 Garrett 224 295 10 89 12 32 1 25 6 14 0 0 708 Harford 1471 1279 70 843 317 708 0 140 30 18 14 0 4890 Howard 1249 572 56 280 167 810 0 60 13 0 18 1 3226 Kent 167 159 11 2 155 44 75 0 4 1 0 0 0 618 Montgomery 6217 1130 1748 1393 645 4057 0 1546 149 38 89 2 17014 Prince George's 7147 3189 125 4013 519 2233 3 260 58 15 0 20 17582 Queen Anne's 218 165 13 114 3 124 1 14 0 1 0 0 653 Somerset 186 359 8 473 57 87 0 36 6 0 3 0 1215 St. Mary's 674 688 25 621 195 437 0 24 3 7 0 0 2674 Talbot 260 224 5 161 23 223 0 17 5 7 0 0 925 Washington 1086 1951 37 1158 24 933 5 202 23 20 11 0 5450 Wicomico 594 594 22 629 31 372 0 83 13 13 14 0 2365 Worcester 356 568 25 1112 23 276 1 58 3 0 0 0 2422 Total 37859 23752 3285 14 23425430628489 236 5477 753 674 553 31 128854 time- to- disposition in domestic relations cases from 264 days in 2001 to 171 days in 2003. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City developed a new strategy to notify self- represented litigants if it is appropriate to file a notice of default. This helps ensure that cases do not languish for lack of action. During Fiscal Year 2004 they were able to hire a part-time case manager to aid with the timely and efficient review of pending cases. Differentiated Case Management Coordinators at the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County review new domestic filings during the eighth month of pendency to ensure that the case will comply with time standards. They notify litigants and/ or the court if action needs to be taken to keep the case moving forward. A number of other jurisdictions, including Allegany County and Dorchester County schedule status conferences for cases involving self- represented litigants which have not moved forward because of a lack of service or other delay. In Somerset County, where the court hears a large percentage of domestic cases filed by inmates incarcerated at the Eastern Correctional Institute, the family support services coordinator provides information to a legal services provider, Alternative Directions, to let them know which cases involve inmates, so that organization can assist those individuals in keeping their cases moving forward. Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 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 conducte 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 faciity. 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. Figure 17. SPG Grantees Serving Victims of Domestic Violence - Type of Services Provided - FY04 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Advocacy/ Support Safety Planning Administrative/ Clerical Case Preparation Legal Advice - in person Legal Representation Administrative/ Managerial Supervision of Legal Case Work Legal Advice - via phone Info/ Referral/ Brief Advice - in person Info/ Referral/ Brief Advice - via phone Cummunity Education Other Training Lawyers Paralegals Advocates Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 19 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 Figure 20. SPG Grantees Serving Victims of Domestic Violence Figure 18. SPG Grantees Serving Victims of Domestic Violence - Major Benefit Achieved - FY04 Other services 32% Obtained successful outcome upon modification hrg 2% Obtained a divorce Obtained protection 1% from DV via temporary PO 13% Obtained protection from DV via PO 19% Brief advice, information, or referral 33% 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 YWCA, Arnold, DVLS House of Ruth, POARP- Prince Georges House of Ruth, POARP- Baltimore City Women's Law Center, POARP- Montgomery Women's Law Center, POARP- Baltimore City Life Crisis Center, DVLS Women's Center of Southern Maryland MVLS, Washington County DVLS MVLS, Safenet Figure 19. SPG Grantees Serving Victims of Domestic Violence - Cases Opened - FY04 Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 20 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 will be operating the program. 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. Who Benefits from These Programs? To determine who is benefiting from these programs, the Department of Family Administration collects demographic data on program users. Some of that information is provided in accompanying charts. Family Violence and Mediation During Fiscal Year 2004, and continuing into Fiscal Year 2005, the Administrative Office of the Courts has begun an initiative to improve the safety of victims of family violence. The Department of Family Administration has been meeting since Spring, 2004, with advocates and members of the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence to improve how cases are identified for mediation. Domestic violence cases are often inappropriate for mediation – victims may not be at liberty to negotiate freely with their abuser – nor should anyone be required to negotiate for their safety. One goal of the group has already been accomplished. With the help of Chief Judge Robert M. Bell, and then District Court Chief Judge James Vaughan, a clear policy was developed that petitions for protection from domestic violence should be not sent to mediation. The group has also begun work on a set of screening tools and a screening protocol to assist Circuit Courts in identifying which domestic cases ( divorce, custody, child support, etc.) may include issues of family violence, and to assist those courts in determining when and if those cases are appropriate for mediation. The tools and protocol will be reviewed by the Judiciary during Fiscal Year 2005, for possible adoption as a regular mechanism for enhancing victim safety. Highlights and Examples Individual jurisdictions have adopted a variety of strategies to improve their response to the needs of victims of family violence. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City relies on a special master to provide expert, specialized services in domestic violence cases. The special master hears all requests for temporary protective orders, and reviews and hears all requests for emergency hearings in domestic cases. The court also employs a domestic violence case coordinator who oversees social work interns who assist victims with forms, and by providing support and referrals for service. Several courts, including Baltimore City and Montgomery County Circuit Courts, have reported a decrease in domestic violence filings in the last year. At least one court has surmised that this may be due to the fact that victims can now seek protection after hours by filing with a District Court commissioner. The decrease in Circuit Court filings may actually reflect the increase in convenience and accessibility that came with the “ 24/ 7” bill that permitted District Court commissioners to accept filings for protection after court hours. The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County refers domestic cases to two clinical professionals who screen Female 91% Male 9% Figure 21. SPG Grantees Serving Victims of Domestic Violence - Gender - FY04 White 35% Black 49% Am. Indian or Alaskan Native 0% Asian or Pacific Islander 2% Info not available 4% Hispanic 10% Figure 22. SPG Grantees Serving Victims of Domestic Violence - Race/ Ethnicity - FY04 Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 21 and assess the service needs when there has been a history of family violence. Abuser intervention services are provided to inmates in Calvert County through a partnership with the Crisis Intervention Center. In Charles County, an on- site domestic violence coordinator provides services to families with a history of violence. The coordinator is a certified victims’ assistance specialist and a certified trauma and stress specialist. The coordinator assists victims and perpetrators alike by making referrals to local community- based service providers. 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. Highlights and Examples The Judiciary’s efforts in serving the needs of child victims of abuse and neglect is largely driven by the work of the Foster Care Court Improvement Project ( FCCIP) Implementation Committee and its various subcommittees. During Fiscal Year 2004, the FCCIP continued to work on a variety of fronts to improve the Judiciary’s ability to respond to the needs of Children in Need of Assistance. The Judiciary hosted its annual CINA Conference. The conference was renamed in Fiscal Year 2004 to reflect the addition of a 3rd day focused on delinquency issues. The three- day Child Abuse, Neglect and Delinquency Options ( CAN DO) Conference was held in October, 2003 and again in October, 2004. The 2003 event included tracks for judges and masters, agency professionals and attorneys. In 2004, the agency track was eliminated to reduce the costs of the conference. At the 2004 conference, the masters and judges met at Harbortowne Resort and Conference Center in St. Michael’s, Maryland. The attorney conference was held simultaneously at another location, the Sheraton Columbia, as the original location could not accommodate the attorney track. The focus of the 2004 event was on mental health and substance abuse issues. The Foster Care Court Improvement Project continued to promote the use of alternative dispute resolution in Child in Need of Assistance ( CINA) and Termination of Parental Rights ( TPR) cases by providing grants. A notice of funding was issued and applications were received. A number of grants were awarded to agencies, courts and providers to promote the use of ADR in these case types. New dependency mediation programs were initiated in Allegany, Baltimore, Calvert, Prince George’s, Montgomery, Somerset and St. Mary’s Counties. The Statewide Dependency Drug Court Team completed three national trainings, as part of a grant provided by the National Drug Court Program. The State team will continue working with local jurisdictions to promote the development of family dependency drug courts. Permanency Planning Liaisons are at work in five of Maryland’s eight judicial circuits. They ensure compliance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and other federal and state laws. Implementation Committee The Implementation Committee is the oversight committee of the FCCIP. The Honorable Patrick L. Woodward, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, continues to chair this committee. The Honorable Pamela L. North, Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, continues to be the Vice- Chair. Not only does the Implementation Committee oversee and approve the work of the various subcommittees, it is responsible for oversight of grant expenditures and setting the vision for the FCCIP. Grant Awards The FCCIP has awarded small grants to various courts and other entities to assist with child welfare cases. These grants have ranged from assisting with ADR programs, paternity testing, parent and relative location and outreach services, and drug dependency court programs. Federal Reviews: CFSR and Title IV- E Corrective Actions The FCCIP has been responsible for assisting the courts in preparing for the federal Child and Family Services Review ( CFSR). One staff member was certified and served as a review team member for the onsite Review that was held in November, 2003. After receiving the final report of the CFSR in June, 2004, the FCCIP staff served on several committees to draft portions of the Program Improvement Plan ( PIP). Comments were solicited from members of the bench regarding the final report and PIP and forwarded to the Department of Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 22 Human Resources. It is anticipated that the PIP will be approved by the federal government in early 2005. Maryland’s Title IV- E review was held from July 29 to August 2, 2002. Maryland was found not to be in substantial compliance with Federal child and provider eligibility requirements for the period from April 1 to September 30, 2001. One reason Maryland was found not to be in substantial conformity was because of the lack of a finding in the courts’ orders regarding efforts made by DSS to finalize children’s permanency plans. Since the time of the review and as a part of the Program Improvement Plan ( PIP), the Foster Care court Improvement Project has completed the following to address these and other issues: Sponsored 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; Disseminated uniform court orders with requisite language and instructions to meet State and Federal laws; Resumed clerk and other court personnel training on uniform terminology, hearing outcomes; Provided technical assistance to individual jurisdictions upon request as a follow up to regional multi- disciplinary training meetings; Worked with internal information systems staff to implement uniform court orders into automated system The next Title IV- E Review is scheduled for the summer of 2005. The FCCIP is continuing to assist the courts throughout the State in ensuring compliance with IV- E requirements. CINA Subcommittee The CINA Subcommittee continues to be chaired by the Honorable Pamela L. North. The Subcommittee revised the TPR/ Adoption statute and separated it into three ( 3) subtitles, DSS- Related TPR and Adoption Proceedings, Private Child Placement Agency Guardianship and Adoption Proceedings, and Independent Adoptions Proceedings. This separation 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. This legislation was submitted during the 2003 legislative session; however, it was subsequently withdrawn due to drafting errors. A bill was submitted during the 2004 legislative session and received an unfavorable report. Immediately after the session, the CINA Subcommittee commenced revising the legislation and invited additional stakeholders to provide input into the legislation. A briefing before the House Judiciary Committee was held on October 19, 2004. The legislation will be re-introduced during the 2005 legislative session. Representation Subcommittee The Representation Subcommittee is currently chaired by the Honorable Katherine P. Savage, Circuit Court for Montgomery County. This past year, the Representation Subcommittee has focused on assisting with parents receiving representation. Efforts were made to collaborate with the local departments of social services and its counsel to ensure advance notification to the Office of the Public Defender of the filing of petitions. Another avenue explored was the possibility of attorneys receiving pro bono hours for representing parents, even if paid at a reduced fee. Attorneys are now able to claim parent representation as pro bono work. Parents Counsel Training To promote and encourage private attorneys to represent parents, the FCCIP sponsored a full day training program for attorneys interested in representing parents. In exchange for attending this training, attorneys agreed to sign up to handle at least one case. Attorney Training Track Finally, the Representation Subcommittee, in conjunction with the Training Subcommittee, spearheaded its first full day training program for all counsel involved in child welfare cases. The full day training was held as a part of the annual child abuse, neglect and delinquency judicial conference, the CAN DO Conference. This training was held in October, 2003, and repeated in October, 2004. 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 timeframes and adequate documentation of efforts are followed. Statistics Subcommittee As mentioned earlier, Judge Woodward is now the chair of the revamped Statistics Oversight Subcommittee. Master Peter Tabatsko, Circuit Court in Carroll County, is the vice- chair. Focus for this new subcommittee has been on the quality assurance aspect of data collection, which entails enhancing or implementing the modified version of the Maryland Automated Judicial Information for Children ( MAJIC) in Baltimore City, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, as well as overseeing the transition of MAJIC to the UCS Juvenile module in the other jurisdictions. Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 23 Training Programs In an effort to assist the courts with the transition of the MAJIC system to UCS, a second series of training programs for juvenile clerks, court administrators, programmers, and other interested persons commenced in June, 2003, and was completed in August, 2003. A third series of training programs was held during the Fall of 2004. The trainings focused on reviewing the uniform terminology and the legal and policy reporting requirements of the automated systems. Forms Revisions Statistical Reporting. The Statistics Oversight Subcommittee has been revising several forms. One is the aggregate statistical report that has been sent out monthly to the local courts. The revised aggregate report has been streamlined and made more user friendly. It is anticipated that this report will be implemented in early 2005. The Statistics Oversight Subcommittee has also assisted in the development of case time standards for CINA and related cases. Once adopted, these case time standards will be implemented on a statewide basis and courts will be held accountable for their performance. Uniform Court Orders. Another series of forms that have been revised are the uniform court orders. The uniform court orders were approved and disseminated in October, 2002. They have been included in the UCS system, distributed to the local courts on 3.5 diskettes, and posted on the Judiciary website. The use of the uniform court orders was the focus of a plenary session in the October, 2003, CAN DO Conference. The automation of the 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. These orders have also been colored coded to assist the courts in complying with State and Federal laws, specifically the ASFA requirements. Training Subcommittee The Training Subcommittee sponsored its 6th annual conference in October, 2003. The FCCIP sponsored a full day training program through the Judicial Institute. The April, 2004, training focused on TPR, Guardianship Review Hearings and Adoptions. As of October 2002, these Judicial Institute courses have been made a requirement by the Chief Judge for new juvenile judges and masters. The focus of most of the training programs and educational materials have been more in the areas of permanency planning and the role of the courts’ in ensuring permanency for the child and on the well- being of children. Several sessions at the conferences focused on needs and services for children and their families. FCCIP Strategic Plan The FCCIP submitted a Strategic Plan to the Department of Health and Human Services in July, 2004. Several activities, such as the training programs, legislative revisions, development of uniform court orders, and ADR programs, have been achieved and continue to be ongoing. The strategic plan will be revised to incorporate the CFSR PIP and the adopted recommendations of the ABA evaluation. Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 24 In December 2002, the FCCIP procured the ABA Center on Children and the Law to conduct an evaluation of the FCCIP’s efforts in the courts’ processing of child welfare cases. The evaluation was completed in July 2004. Accomplishments and next steps were highlighted. STATUTORY AND RULE CHANGES Accomplishments Drafted and spearheaded the passage of the 2001 Child in Need of Assistance ( CINA) statute which has improved child welfare practice. Developed Uniform Court Orders to ensure that courts are complying with state and federal laws and are implementing best practices. Next Steps Define basic requirements of properly conducted hearings. Make sure the court orders are being followed and that additional training on the orders is provided for judges, masters, and attorneys. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM AND MATERIALS Accomplishments Implemented an orientation program for new judges and masters. Developed Child Welfare Benchbook for Judges and masters. . Presented two day Annual Child Abuse and Neglect Judicial Conference and Judicial Institute training programs for juvenile judges and masters, for the last seven years. Next Steps Ensure courts conduct orientation programs. Create a mandatory orientation program for attorneys. Consider a wider distribution of the Benchbook. REPRESENTATION OF PARTIES Accomplishments Developed the “ Guidelines of Advocacy for Attorneys Representing Children in CINA and Related Termination of Parental Rights ( TPR) and Adoption Cases” which were approved by the Court of Appeals in 2001. This has set high standards for representation of children. Obtained change in CINA statute to allow for representation of indigent parents regardless of custodial status. Next Steps Develop Uniform Standards for agency and parent’s counsel. Using recent funding, make sure more non- custodial parents are represented. Timing of appointment of counsel for parents in TPR cases should be reviewed. The use of Shelter Care Authorization Forms that give contact information for the Office of the Public Defender should be used statewide. CASE MANAGEMENT AND STATISTICAL OVERVIEW Accomplishments Developed the Maryland Automated Judicial Information System ( MAJIC) in 1999. Next Steps Although the FCCIP has worked hard and made strides in developing a database system, this is an area needing much improvement. Extensive coordination between the FCCIP, JIS, and outside vendors is needed to develop a functional database system as well as developing a way to provide for quality control of data entry. IMPLEMENTATION Accomplishments Awarded grants for the continuation of Court Appointed Special Advocate programs. Organized six regional multi- disciplinary meetings throughout the state to address the Adoption and Safe Families Act regulations, two federal reviews, and best practices. Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 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 first such “ delinquency day” was held during the October, 2003, conference and featured a variety of topics for juvenile judges and masters: nuts and bolts of delinquency, detention reform, intake and assesment tools, peace orders and disproportionate minority representation in the juvenile justice system. The subcommittee also planned and hosted the 2nd annual “ delinquency day” 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. Over the past year, the subcommittee also reviewed a December, 2003, report entitled, Maryland: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings. In response to the report, the subcommittee met with and has begun a dialogue with Nancy Forster, Public Defender, on ways to ensure adequate representation for children in delinquency proceedings. Baltimore City Juvenile Justice Center In September, 2003, the Baltimore City Juvenile Justice Center opened in downtown Baltimore. In addition to the Department of Juvenile Services Community Justice Offices, the Center includes a 144- bed detention facility, the Juvenile Divisions of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, offices of the State’s Attorney and Public Defender’s Offices, reprsentatives of the Baltimore City Police Department , Sheriff’s Office and the legal services offices of the Baltimore City Department of Social Services. Minority Confinement Reduction Initiative The Judiciary continues its involvement in a key effort in Baltimore City to address the over- representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system. In October, 2003, the City’s Disproportionate Minority Confinement Reduction Initiative Advisory Board ( DMCR) held its first meeting. The advisory board is co- chaired by the Honorable David W. Young, Circuit Court for Baltimore City, and Dr. Marie Washington. The goal of the DMCR advisory board is to: 1) examine Baltimore City data regarding juveniles at various points in the juvenile justice system; 2) examine agencies’ decisions, policies and practices that may contribute to a disproportionate percentage of minority youth placed in secure detention and confinement; 3) and in a collaborative effort, take steps to change decisions, policies, and practices that contribute to the over-representation. Addressing Truancy Issues Two new truancy initiatives were planned during Fiscal Year 2004, for implementation in Fiscal Year 2005, to address the needs of children who are not attending school regularly. Both programs will permit judges to identify and address the underlying causes of truancy and to head off future problems for at- risk children and their families. A Court- Based Program on the Eastern Shore Wicomico County Circuit Court will hear its first cases in January, 2005, as part of the Truancy Reduction Pilot Program. The program, authorized under House Bill 1443 during the 2004 Legislative Session, creates new legal options schools can pursue to keep children attending school. The bill permited courts to create a truancy docket within juvenile court where judges will hear civil actions filed against children and criminal misdemeanors filed against parents. The new bill empowers courts to impose specific dispositions designed to address truant behavior. The court will operate much Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 26 like other “ problem- solving” courts like juvenile drug courts. A School- Based Program in Baltimore City A second initiative will establish a voluntary, school-based program for students in Baltimore City. The University of Baltimore, School of Law, Center for Families, Children and the Courts ( CFCC) received funding from the Charles Crane Family Foundation to develop and implement a truancy program in two elementary schools, two middle schools and a high school in Baltimore City. The program is still under development, but planners expect it to feature a diversion program, where volunteer judges will conduct informal “ hearings” in participating schools. Highlights and Examples Individual jurisdictions have also made extraordinary efforts to improve the manner in which juvenile delinquency matters are handled. Several courts, including Caroline, Dorchester, Montgomery, Prince George’s, St. Mary’s and Talbot Counties began operating juvenile drug courts during the past year. Five additional courts -- Calvert, Charles, Queen Anne’s and Somerset/ Worcester have begun the planning process. Baltimore County expanded its juvenile drug court to additional locations. They were able to expand to Catonsville and Essex by holding juvenile drug court at District Court locations in those areas of the county. This has greatly enhanced access to these important resources. The Circuit Court for Allegany County has partnered with a local provider to evaluate children for competency. This partnership has also improved their ability to hear these cases in a timely manner. Carroll County continues to offer parent- teen mediation through a partnership with the Department of Juvenile Services, the schools, the Carroll Youth Service Bureau and the State’s Attorney’s Office. The program, now operated by the Community Mediation Center, provides free mediation using volunteer teams of adult and teen mediators to help resolve conflicts between teens and the adult members of their families. In Queen Anne’s County, the court has partnered with the State’s Attorney’s Office, DJS, and the Board of Education to create a new Teen Court. HELPING KIDS STAY IN SCHOOL A new law, passed during the 2004 Legislative Session, will enable the courts to more actively address the needs of students who have been unable to attend school regularly. House Bill 1443 created a new case type and authorized the development of a truancy reduction pilot project on the Eastern Shore. During the next year, the Circuit Court for Wicomico County will begin hearing truancy cases and piloting the program outlined in the legislation. The program is mirrored, in part, after Delaware’s successful truancy court. Wicomico County pupil personnel workers will file petitions and appear before the county’s Circuit Court for hearings in one of two types of cases. Currently, a parent who permits a child to unlawfully miss school can be found guilty of a criminal misdemeanor. Although those cases have generally been filed in District Court, Circuit Courts share concurrent jurisdiction over criminal matters filed under the Education Article of the Maryland Code. In this pilot program, cases will be filed in juvenile court and assigned to a truancy docket. The new law also creates a civil charge that can be filed against a child for failure to attend school. The new charge is neither a delinquency action nor a Child in Need of Assistance action. It represents a new way to address the needs of children whose parents have been unable to keep them at school and who may need additional guidance to keep them from going too far afield. If a child is charged civilly and the allegations proven, the court may order the child to attend school, perform community service, attend individual or family counseling, participate in substance abuse evaluations and treatment, and undergo a mental health evaluation and keep a curfew. The court will operate like other problem-solving courts; regularly scheduled hearings and access to a broad range of services will help the courts and school officials address underlying issues that have prevented the child from regularly attending school. The court will hear its first cases in Jan. 2005. Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 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 begun development of what will eventually be 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 Domesitc 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. Additional funding has been provided by the Department of Family Administration, although the long- term funding necessary for project completion has not yet been identified. 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. Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 28 Equality, Fairness and Integrity These goals are key to ensuring the efficacy of any adjudicatory system. The Maryland family justice system must maintain the hallmarks of equality, fairness and integrity in order to win the respect of the public and those who come before the court. The power of the court lies almost entirely in the trust individuals have in the process. Without that, paper orders and verbal pronouncements will go unheeded. The court must earn that trust by providing a fair and equitable forum for the resolution of family disputes. 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 for conflicting orders are minimized. Moreover, pro se litigants are afforded a uniform intake process that includes a uniform mechanism for case reception and establishment. Consistent Orders, Improved Coordination Uniform Orders The Administrative Office of the Courts, Department of Family Administration, provides sample case management orders online to guide courts in implementing services in a uniform manner. Uniform orders for CINA and TPR cases have also been developed. Judges, masters and court staff are regularly trained in using these orders. Technical assistance is provided by the Foster Care Court Improvement Project. Uniform pleadings are also available for self- represented litigants in most domestic case types. Finally, a uniform set of orders for domestic violence cases has been developed and is generated through the DV Wizard application used by District and Circuit Courts alike. Specialized Case Management A number of courts have specialized case managers who provide continuity for individuals involved with the court. In Montgomery County, for example, a juvenile case manager is permanently assigned to a child at the time the first delinquency or peace order petition is filed to ensure continuity through that child’s involvement with the court. Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 29 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 three years, masters and law clerks 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 which 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. Grant proposals are reviewed by an internal committee. The Department of Family Administraiton is regularly subjected to internal as well as legislative audits. 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 fiar response to all parties involved in child support issues. The Maryland Judiciary has several vehicles for improving the handling of child support cases in the State. Legislative Initiatives Child Support Subcommittee The Child Support Subcommittee of the Judicial Conference Committee on Famiy Law reviews pending legislation, and considers legislative reform and policies that will improve the Judiicary’s ability to ensure that children receive the financial support they need. In Fiscal Year 2004, this subcommittee was chaired by the Honorable Julia Weatherly, Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. During the fiscal year, the subcommittee convened a meeting with key stakeholders including representatives from the Child Support Enforcement Administration, State’s Attorney’s, the Office of the Attorney General and Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 30 others involved in child support efforts around the State. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the positive and negative aspects of using crimianl enforcement, barriers to its use and the limitaitons of civil contempt. The subcommittee also provides guidance to the Judiciary on how new child support laws should be implemented. Program Innovations 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. Recently, the Administrative Office of the Courts was able to add funding to the contract to assist self-represented litigants in child support cases through the Family Law Self- Help Centers. These funds will be used to enhance the self- help centers operated by all Circuit Courts improve their 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. Funds have been used each year to send approximately 60 masters, clerk’s office staff, and other court professionals to the annual statewide child support conference in Ocean City, Maryland. The Incentive Fund committee each year has planned training modules at the conference for clerks and masters. Funds have also been provided for programs that enhance child support case file automation, mediation of collateral issues arising from paternity cases, and “ Nurturing Fathers,” a program for young fathers in Worcester County. Recently, the Child Support Incentive Funds Committee developed a series of six brochures that explain various portions of the child support process. With the approval of the Conference of Circuit Court Clerks, child support incentive funds were used to develop brochures on the following topics: Establishing Child Support Frequently Asked Questions about Child Support Contempt and Enforcement of Child Support Maryland Child Support Guidelines Modification of Child Support The Maryland Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ( UIFSA) Nurturing Fathers One program initiated with Incentive Funds has been 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. Employment Services for Payors During Fiscal Year 2005, the Circuit Court for Baltimore County will be exploring a new way to improve child support enforcement efforts by helping payors address an underlying problem to lack of payment – lack of employment. That court was recently 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) will combine 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 will be required to meet weekly with a court employment coordinator, actively seek employment, retain employment and pay child support. An employment coordinator will determine each individual’s employment skills and training needs, and make appropriate referrals for job training. Court employment coordinators will also recruit local employers as referral sources. All participants will 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. Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 31 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- reprsented. Maryland citizens have universal access to Family Law Self- Help Centers, formerly called “ pro se assistance projects.” The Judiciary has begun referring to these programs in this way to eliminate reliance on Latin legal terminology which can make it more difficult for the self-represented to understand the justice system. The Family Law Self- Help Centers are free, walk- in legal clinics which are available in every Circuit Court in Maryland. These programs are in extremely high demand, serving 41,351 individuals in Fiscal Year 2004. Litigants can obtain forms, procedural information and assistance from these on- site clinics in each courthouse. Promoting Best Practices In an effort to ensure these programs are well- managed, the Department of Family Administration, in partnership with the Maryland Legal Assistance Network, family services coordinators and self- help program providers from around the State, developed a set of Best Practices for Programs to Assist Self- Represented Litigants. The document was recently approved by the Committee on Family Law and will go through a final round of vetting before it is disseminated. Evaluating Program Performance The Administrative Office of the Courts coordinated a nationwide evaluation of self- help programs, made possible by a grant from the State Justice Institute. The study, which was recently completed, used an evaluation protocol designed by the Trial Court Research and Improvement Consortium ( TCRIC). The grant- funded study was intended to test the evaluation protocol and begin benchmarking standards for self- help program performance. State court projects from Arizona, Minnesota, Florida, Alaska and Maryland were included in the study – including five Maryland Family Law Self- Help Centers. Consultants and volunteer evaluators visited each of the five Maryland sites, and made recommendations for program improvement. Some key recommendations include the following: create statewide definitions of legal information and legal advice to provide clarity for program and court staff; train judges on dealing with self- represented litigants in the courtroom; < 1% 1% 16% 37% 35% 2% 2% < 1% 7% 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Adoption Alimony Child Support Custody Divorce Domestic Violence Name Change Paternity Visitation Figure 23. Family Law Self- Help Centers - Assistance Provided by Case Type - FY04 Child Support Agency 4% Lawyer Referral 16% Other 7% Legal Services Provider 19% Proceed Pro Se 54% Figure 24. Family Law Self- Help Centers - Referrals and Recommendations Made - FY04 Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 32 adopt a more sophisticated judicial branch forms process, including adding specific admonitions for litigants regarding specific legal rights; Reviews forms and instructions for readability and effectiveness; translate instructions into other languages; develop forms for use in other areas; enhance self- help programs and forms with workshops on specific case types; and promulgate rules to allow limited scope representation to encourage attorneys to provide limited legal services to litigants. Forms: A Key Tool for the Self- Represented The Department of Family Administation 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 otherwise be able to participate in the family justice system. Recently the entire body of forms and supporting web pages were translated into Spanish. These are now provided online in a bilingual Spanish/ English format with complete instructions in fillable PDF. The Judiciary plans to extend the accessability of the forms by translating and creating bilingual versions in several key additional languages. The Judiciary has partnered with the Maryland Legal Assistance Network and the Legal Aid Bureau on a project to further enhance form usability. A recently awarded technology grant provided by the federal Legal Services Corporation will permit the project partners to develop a document assembly interface for several Domestic Relations Forms packets. This will permit users, via the web, to “ complete” forms, in a more transparent fashion, by answering some simple questions, the answers to which will be used to populate the forms that individual will need. Document assembly systems can simplify the forms process for less- sophisticated users and make the filing process less intimidating. 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. Recently, this service was expanded, at the request of the AOC. To support the new Spanish forms, the Women’s Law Center will be providing the Legal Forms Helpline in Spanish, one half- day per week. Spanish speakers will be able to 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) which 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. The project itself was recently relocated and reorganized. Formerly a project of the Maryland Legal Services Corporation, MLAN is now 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 Cecil County has developed specific instructions and form letters that can be sent to let the self- represented litigants know when they must take affirmative action. Other courts have developed specialized forms of alternative dispute resolution to address the needs of the self- represented. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City began an in- house mediation program for self-represented litigants. The Circuit Court for Harford County initiated 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 Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 33 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 administraiton 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 2004, slightly more than one- half of all program users ( 54%) were advised that it was appropriate to proceed pro se. The remainder 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 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, 85% of all cases involved at least one self- represented litigant at the time the Answer was filed, as opposed to 67% statwide. 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. 33% 48% 38% 74% 63% 20% 29% 24% 28% 29% 25% 26% 17% 26% 37% 32% 36% 35% 38% 27% 36% 9% 11% 43% 39% 40% 37% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Scheduling Conference Pendente Lite Settlement Conf Pretrial Uncontested Hearing Contested Proceeding Disposition Contempt 2 Pro Se Parties 1 Pro Se Party Full Representation Figure 25. Pro Se Appearances in Domestic LItigation - FY04 Annual Report – Fam ily Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 34 Figure 30. Self- Help Center Demographics - Gender - FY04 Figure 29. Self- Help Center Demographics – Race/ Ethnicity - FY04 Figure 28. Self- Help Center Demographics - Primary Language - FY04 Figure 27. Self- Help Center Demographics – Gender – FY04 Figure 26. Self- Help Center Demographics - Highest Level of Education - FY04 15% 41% 26% 13% 5% 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Less than High School High School Some College Bachelor's Degree Advanced Degree African American 41% Asian 3% Caucasian 39% Native American 1% Pacific Islander 0% Hispanic 12% Other 4% Male 39% Female 61% English 86% Other 5% Spanish 9% 41% 30% 19% 6% 3% 1% 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 $ 0-$ 14,999 $ 15,000-$ 29,999 $ 30,000-$ 49,999 $ 50,000-$ 69,999 $ 70,000-$ 99,999 $ 100,000+ Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 35 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. During Fiscal Year 2004, the Department of Family Administration completed a full cycle of site visits. Department staff visited each jurisdiction to review local practices and determine how well courts were complying with the Performance Standards and Measures for Family Divisions. A uniform site visit questionnaire was developed and used in conducting the visits. Problem areas were addressed directly with court personnel and administrative judges. 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 meausre 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 2004, work continued on the development 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 and stakeholder meetings were held to gather information for the development of the four tools: A Litigant Satisfaction Survey An Attorney Satisfaction Survey A Co- Parenting Course Exit Survey A Self- Help Center Exit Survey The consultant will deliver the final survey instruments, and implementation plan and a database capable of producing aggregate reports in January, 2005. The AOC hopes to begin a regular cycle of administering the surveys during Fiscal Year 2005. Guidelines and Best Practices The Judiciary has developed and/ or adopted guidelines in several areas, some of which are refered 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 Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 36 provides comprehensive guidance for how children are to 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 Resouces, the entity that provides for child representation in such matters, must abide by the Guidelines. Guidelines for Child Counsel in Custody Cases The Judicial Conference, Committee on Family Law, Custody Subcommittee, under the leadership of its chair, the Honorable Marcella Holland, Circuit Court for Baltimore City, has begun work on a similar document intended to guide attorneys in providing effective representation to children in custody cases. A draft document is in the works. The subcommittee anticipates completion of the draft during 2005. Family Court ADR Program Best Practices During Fiscal Year 2004, work was completed on a set of best practices for family court- based alternative dispute resolution programs. The work was the product of many months of dialogue among court administrators, coordinators, and mediation professionals. The document was recently approved by the Judicial Conference Committee on Family Law and will be vetted by the Conference in 2005. Best Practices for Programs to Assist Self- Represented Litigants A second best practices document, intended to provide guidance to courts in managing the Family Law Self- Help Centers was likewise approved and will be reviewed by the Conference in 2005 as well. Foster Care Assessments During Fiscal Year 2004, the Judiciary participated in two key reviews of its role in the foster care system. FCCIP Follow- up Assessment The FCCIP engaged the American Bar Association to conduct a reevaluation of the Judiciary’s role in CINA and TPR cases. The study was intended as a follow- up to the 1997 assessment that established the FCCIP’s current set of goals and objectives. Child and Famiy Service Review ( CFSR) During Fiscal Year 2004, the FCCIP participated in the Child and Family Service Review, a federal audit of Maryland’s performance in providing for the needs of families. The CFSR identified a number of areas needing improvement. To follow- up on those recommendations, the FCCIP has been hosting regional multi- disciplinary meetings to ensure courts and their agency partners are knowledgeable about and follow federal requirements in handling child protection matters. The FCCIP has participated in the drafting of the State’s required Program Improvement Plan ( PIP), which is currently being reviewed by the federal government. Standard 4.2 Information Sharing The Family Divisions endeavor to share information about their effective case management and processing practices within each jurisdiction, which practices may then be replicated. Regular Opportunities to Exchange Information The Department of Family Administration creates regular opportunities for family court professionals to gather to exchange information and share new ideas. The Department continues to host quarterly meetings for family support services coordinators and Family Division administrators. More recently, permanency planning liaisons have likewise been invited to those regular meetings. Meetings generally include in- service trainings, updates on legislation and case law, and highlights of new promising practices. For the last three years, that group has held an annual retreat to reflect on accomplishments and identify new goals. The event features a regular “ best new idea” of the year contest where coordinators are encouraged to identify their most promising innovation. Their peers then vote on which ideas are most exemplary and the winners are acknowledged with small awards. Conferences and Trainings The Judiciary continues to host seminars and conferences on key family law topics. For Fiscal Year 2005, in addition to the annual CAN DO conference, the Judiciary is sponsoring a one- day conference on family law and substance abuse, as well as a one- day conference on CINA/ TPR mediation to support that evolving field. Individual jurisdictions have likewise taken the lead in producing seminars and conferences. The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel, Family Division, regularly organizes Learning Lunches for the bench. Those events include presentations by Family Division staff or local clinical or legal professionals on key family topics. They provide an Annual Report – Family Divisions & Family Services Programs – Fiscal Year 2004 ⎥ 37 opportunity for members of the bench to hear from and interact with other professionals serving families. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City hosted several events this year including its annual Family Law Seminar. The event held in December, 2003, was a seminar on custody decision- making, held at the University of Maryland, School of Law. The Fall, 2004, event focused on integrating juvenile court into Family Divisions. Many courts regularly hold events where service providers can exchange information and update their knowledge. The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County hosts a clinical lecture series for custody evaluators. Local mental health practitioners are invited to speak to the court’s clinical professionals. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City and others hosted training courses for child counsel in custody cases. Many of these courses are mandatory for attorneys who want to be appointed to represent children in these cases. Carroll County hosts bi-monthly professional breakfast meetings for mediators to discuss professional ideas and materials. The Circuit Court for Harford County, Office of Family Court Services also regularly hosts seminars on family law topics, bringing in experts in the field. Often local bar associations assist the court in offering training opportunities. The Family Law Section of the Montgomery County Bar Association provided volunteer family law attorneys who worked with custody evaluators interested in improving their ability to testify effectively in family cases. The collaboration culminated in a mock trial se |
