| Developing the Permanency
Collaborative Review Hearing
Susan Parnell, Court Mediator, Pima County Juvenile
Court
Chris Swenson-Smith, MSW, Pima County Juvenile Court
|
Article In 2006, Pima County
Juvenile Court launched a permanency pilot to identify the
population of children in care two years and longer and the
barriers to permanency for these children. We then developed a
pilot hearing to address these cases.
The pilot utilized the designated role of the judge as overseer
of the case to ensure that these resources were being used to
their fullest extent possible. In order to build buy-in to the
pilot, the committee surveyed the stakeholders on perceived
barriers to permanency. Surprisingly, only 2 of the 24 survey
items did not fall into the “high” barrier or “very high”
barrier of one or more groups. The challenge to the committee
was clear: develop a pilot that addressed children of all ages
facing all types of barriers to permanency.
The committee struggled to create a workable pilot until a
representative from the behavioral health field had the idea of
incorporating a child and family team (CFT) to address the
permanency needs of our target children. (A CFT is a facilitated
behavioral health meeting that draws together natural supports
in a strength-based, solution-focused meeting.) A model was
developed for the pilot project and the pilot hearing was named:
Permanency Collaborative Review Hearing (PCRV). It would be a
collaborative model incorporating behavioral health and natural
supports into an action-oriented effort to achieve permanency
for children.
The Process:
- The court developed a report tracking cases by child, by
judge and by time in care.
- Each of two pilot judges determined which of the cases
listed in their reports were appropriate for a PCRV.
- Case managers, their supervisors, the CASA volunteer, the
children’s attorneys, a behavioral health designee and others
involved in the cases were identified and received notice of
the hearing.
- The case manager and the CFT facilitator conferred to
determine who else might be available to attend the CFT from
the child’s natural support groups.
- The permanency CFT meeting was held at the court center
just prior to the PCRV. The CFT facilitator utilized a
specialized six-stage agenda (adapted from the Annie E. Casey
Foundation Family-to-Family Team Decision-Making model) to
guide the participants in a search for solution-focused action
plans intended to bring relationship, placement, and possibly
legal permanency to our target group.
- An inclusive and multi-disciplinary PCRV hearing that was
marked by its proactive stance and solution-focused approach
followed.
- Although on the record, the judge conducted the hearing in
an informal, conversational manner.
- The CPS case manager was not required to write a court
report.
- No reasonable efforts findings were made.
- The judge entered only those orders corresponding to the
action plans presented to the court as the outcome of the CFT
meeting.
The Judge:
- Reminds those in attendance that permanency is about
relationships
- Facilitates a conversation that allows for formulation
of the ideas generated during CFT into specific action plans
and encourages those present to act on those ideas
- Ensures that the action plans have clear expectations
for specific actions to be taken by specific individuals
- Sets a subsequent PCRV hearing during which the parties
report on the steps taken to achieve the objectives of the
various action plans developed at the PCRV (or incorporates
this step into a future review hearing)
The Outcomes:
A total of 26 children had pilot PCRV hearings. The
committee was committed to expanding the concept of
permanency beyond the legal outcome. Relational permanency
is a lifelong relationship. Physical permanency is the
availability of a home.
Relational Results
- 66% had connections restored, developed or newly
formed
- 34% are still waiting
- 7 children had sibling connections restored or
developed
Placement Results
- 5 children to kinship placements (including 4 with
siblings)
- 1 child reunified with parent
- 1 child in permanent guardianship with severed
parent
- 8 children placed in certified adoptive homes
- 9 children still waiting
- 2 children ran away (suspected that they ran to an
aunt with whom they had been reconnected during the
pilot)
Legal Results
- 12 had completed or pending legal closure
Our Conclusions:
Many of the collaborative processes developed
during the pilot continue to be used. Among them are a
“Family Information Sheet” developed by child
protective services to track kin and significant
others; this has been incorporated into the case plan,
updated regularly and prominently placed in the
current volume of each case file. The behavioral
health CFT underwent a systemic change, acknowledging
that permanency is a behavioral health issue, and
facilitators incorporated a review of movement toward
permanency as an element in the CFT process all
through the case, not just at the end. Court data
specialists now provide a quarterly report to each
judge that tracks children in care longer than two
years.
With these mechanisms in place, and with continued
training and monitoring, it is hoped that fewer cases
would need to be addressed by a PCRV process, but that
the PCRV hearing would remain in place as an option
for a judge who sees the need for judicial oversight
to ensure permanency for all children in a reasonable
amount of time.
|
