Skip to main content

The Marriage of Science and the Law in Child Welfare Cases

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Problem Solving Courts

Abstract

Dependency cases are some of the most complex cases in the justice system. Knowledge of the law, alone, is insufficient. Unfortunately, decades of social science research are unknown to decision makers in juvenile and family law cases. In fact, we lack a professional outlet that presents the findings of social scientists in a manner that is accessible to legal professionals who for the most part are untrained in the social sciences. In dependency cases, the legal mandate includes promoting safety, permanency, and well-being for children, not traditional legal functions. Therefore, a nontraditional approach to judging is required. Acting in the best interest of children requires the jurist to be well-versed in disciplines that are not taught in law school or judicial college. Every legal decision has a clinical or mental health component that affects the child. Science and research have an important place in our courtrooms where therapeutic jurisprudence thrives. This chapter takes the perspective of legal decision makers in dependency courts who are in need of sound empirical research, especially studies that examine the effectiveness of interventions in order to better service the families and children that find themselves in the courts’ jurisdiction. The chapter provides some positive examples of the use of empirical findings in family court and suggests some new ways in which courts and allied personnel can make use of the existing research on evidence-based treatments.

Fill the seats of justice with men who are good, but not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is.Thomas Noon Talfourd

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Comment by Judge Valerie Manno-Schurr, R.N., J.D. on her first day presiding in dependency court.

  2. 2.

    Illinois Juvenile Court Act, 1899 Illinois Laws, 132 et seq. (1899).

  3. 3.

    In brief: The science of early child development, Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University.

  4. 4.

    Zero to Three, What grown-ups understand about child development (2000).

  5. 5.

    The survey was administered at the 2008 Miami-Dade Community Based Care Alliance Annual Regional Child Welfare Conference, held in November of 2008 in Miami, Florida. This conference drew more than 300 professionals who serve families in the child welfare system for training and discussion on current topics and practices in the field.

  6. 6.

    PART evaluation results 2010.

References

  • Brank, E. M., Williams, A. L., Ray, R. E., & Weisz, V. (2002). Parental compliance: Its role in termination of parental rights cases. Nebraska Law Review, 80, 335–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butts, J. A. (2001). Problem-solving courts. Law & Policy, 23, 121–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalk, R., & King, P. (1998). Violence in families: Assessing prevention and treatment programs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dill, K., & Shera, W. (2010). Pushing the envelope: Future directions for evidence-informed practice. Toronto: PART & University of Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodge, K., Dishion, T., & Lansford, J. (2006). Deviant peer influences in programs for youth. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, P. (2006). Changing lives: Delinquency prevention as crime control policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hora, P., Schma, W., & Rosenthal, J. (1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system’s response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review, 74(2), 439–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvitz, S., Chamberlain, P., Landsverk, J., & Mullican, C. (2010). Improving the mental health of children in child welfare through the implementation of evidence based parenting interventions. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 37(1–2), 27–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, C. (2006). Rights myopia in child welfare. UCLA Law Review, 53, 637–699.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, J. (2004). Delivering justice today: A problem-solving approach. Yale Law and Policy Review, 22, 125–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, M., & Kelly, J. (2000). Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38(3), 297–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, C., Gomez-Kaifer, M., Katz, L., Thomlison, B., & Maze, C. (2009). An imperative: Evidence based practice within the child welfare system of care. Juvenile and Family Justice Today, Fall, 22–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, A., & Van Horn, P. (2009) Giving voice to the unsayable: Repairing the effects of trauma in infancy and early childhood. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 18, 707–720.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Osofsky, J., Kronenberg, M., Hammer, J., Lederman, C., Katz, L., Adams, S., Graham, M., & Hogan, A. (2007). The development and the evaluation of the intervention model for the Florida Infant Mental Health Program. Infant Mental Health Journal, 28, 259–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M. A. (2001). Evidence: Its meaning in health care and law. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 26(2), 191–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shonkoff, J. (2007). Helping babies from the bench: Using the science of early childhood development in court. Washington, DC: Zero to Three.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wexler, D. (1995). Reflections on the scope of therapeutic jurisprudence. Psychology, Public Policy and the Law, 1(1), 220–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wexler, D. (2000). Therapeutic jurisprudence: An overview. Thomas. M. Cooley Law Review, 17, 125–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winnicott, D. W. (1960). The theory of the parent–infant relationship. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 41, 585–595.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cindy S. Lederman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lederman, C. (2013). The Marriage of Science and the Law in Child Welfare Cases. In: Wiener, R., Brank, E. (eds) Problem Solving Courts. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7403-6_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics