The Nature of the Court Today

Abstract

This article surveys the current landscape of the juvenile court. The original concept of this court, when implemented by state legislatures, took different organizational forms. The length of judges' assignments to this court varies as does the extent of their specialization. These courts differ from one another in numerous ways such as the minimum and maximum ages of their delinquency jurisdictions, the types of cases they are authorized to hear in addition to delinquency and child abuse and neglect, the extent to which referees or quasi-judicial hearing officers hear cases, whether or not the juvenile probation department is administered by the court, and the individual practices that constitute particular court cultures. Today change in one form or another is common to all juvenile courts as this institution adapts to contend with the delinquent behavior of young people and with the failures of adults responsible for the well-being of their children.

Child Welfare in the Court: A Collaboration Between Social Work and Law Faculty to Prepare Social Work Students for Work With the Courts

“…At its core, the relationship is plagued with mistrust, resentment, and stress. Many judges and attorneys question the competency of caseworkers' testimony (Ellett & Steib, 2005;Johnson & Cahn, 1995;Schwartz, Weiner, & Enosh, 1999) due to perceived lack of preparation for court (Rubin, 1996;Albert, 2000) or lack of respect for expertise or specialized knowledge that caseworkers may possess (Ellett & Steib, 2005). Unsurprisingly, child welfare staff feel scrutinized, disrespected, or intimidated by the court (Ellett & Steib, 2005;Johnson & Cahn, 1995;Rubin, 1996).…”

“…Many judges and attorneys question the competency of caseworkers' testimony (Ellett & Steib, 2005;Johnson & Cahn, 1995;Schwartz, Weiner, & Enosh, 1999) due to perceived lack of preparation for court (Rubin, 1996;Albert, 2000) or lack of respect for expertise or specialized knowledge that caseworkers may possess (Ellett & Steib, 2005). Unsurprisingly, child welfare staff feel scrutinized, disrespected, or intimidated by the court (Ellett & Steib, 2005;Johnson & Cahn, 1995;Rubin, 1996). Child welfare workers report that problems in their encounters with judges, attorneys, and the courts have a negative impact on job satisfaction and are a major factor contributing to heightened frustration and turnover among child welfare staff (Ellett, Ellett, & Rugutt, 2003;Ellett & Steib, 2005).…”

Child Welfare Workers and Michigan's Family Court Legislation: The Relationship Between Policy and Practice

“…The Family Court assumed jurisdiction over a variety of matters formerly under the jurisdiction of either the Juvenile Division of the Probate Court (the "juvenile court") or the general jurisdiction Circuit Court. Many authors have discussed the history and development of the juvenile court from its inception in Illinois in 1899 to the recent creation of unified family courts (Edwards, 1996;Fox, 1996;Hurst, 1999;Ross, 1998;Rubin, 1996;Shepherd, 1999;Stevenson et al, 1996). Costello (1998, February) and Schaefer (2000, March) focus on the particular development of Michigan's Family Court.…”

“…Research conducted in a number of states has revealed that many families involved in the juvenile courts are involved in both delinquency and dependency matters (Katner, 1999). Other research reveals that many M i c h i g a n 's F a m i l y C o u r t L e g i s l a t i o n of the same families involved in these juvenile court matters are also involved in a separate domestic relation matter (Rubin & Flango's studies as cited in Stevenson et al, 1996;Rubin, 1996). Domestic relations matters include divorce, legal separation, paternity, child custody, and child support matters.…”

“…Proponents of a unified family court have offered a number of arguments in support of their position (Page, 1993;Rubin, 1996;Stevenson et al, 1996). One argument stems from the practical reality of administering a nonunified court.…”