Court Improvement Project Committee
2004 Reassessment Report
As one of the conditions of continuing funding for court improvement initiatives, the North Dakota Judiciary has completed a "reassessment" of where the judiciary is in terms of compliance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.
I.Identification of Methodology and Identification of Rules and Legislation
A.Methodology.
The reassessment methodology involved two primary initiatives, participation in the Department of Human Services Program Improvement Plan and Management Reviews within the juvenile courts. The Court Improvement Project Committee also contracted with the North Dakota Native American Training Institute to assess needs relating to the Indian Child Welfare Act.
1.Department of Human Services Program Improvement Plan
As part of its response to a federal review, the Department of Human Services is conducting annual onsite reviews in each of the eight human service regions. Those reviews include case file reviews, interviews with personnel, and key actors meetings. The key actors meetings included separate meetings of county social service and regional human service personnel, schools and educational personnel, and a legal subgroup. The legal group, sponsored in part by court improvement funds, included law enforcement, defense attorneys, prosecutors, lay guardians ad litem, juvenile court directors, juvenile court referees, and district court judges.
G:\WP\Connie\Louie\Court Improvement Project\2004 CIP Reassessment Report.wpd
2004 CIP Reassessment Report - Page 1
In case file reviews, the Department identified 23 program areas in terms of compliance with federal standards. Those areas include.
1.Timeliness of initiating investigations of reports of child maltreatment.
2.Repeat maltreatment.
3.Services to family to protect child(ren) in home and prevent removal.
4.Risk of harm to child(ren).
5.Foster care reentries.
6.Stability of foster care placement.
7.Permanency goal for child.
8.Reunification, guardianship, or permanent placement with relatives.
9.Adoption.
10.Permanency goal of other planned permanent living arrangement.
11.Proximity of foster care placement.
12.Placement with siblings.
13.Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care.
14.Preserving connections.
15.Relative placement.
16.Relationship of child in care with parents.
17.Needs and services of child, parents, foster parents.
18.Child and family involvement in case planning.
19.Worker visits with child.
20.Worker visits with parent(s).
21.Educational needs of the child.
22.Physical health of child.
23.Mental health of child.
The results of those reviews in terms of percentage that meet federal standards can be found in Attachment1.
G:\WP\Connie\Louie\Court Improvement Project\2004 CIP Reassessment Report.wpd
2004 CIP Reassessment Report - Page 1
The group meetings also allowed the Department to collect anecdotal data and opinions from key actors relating to issues in implementing provisions of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. A listing of the issues identified can be found in Attachment1.
2.Juvenile Court Management Review.
The second methodology of the assessment process involved Management Reviews of juvenile courts. The North Dakota Judiciary is divided into seven judicial election districts which do not completely coincide with the eight human service regions. The judiciary is in the process of organizing the judicial districts into four administrative regions. Because of time and budget constraints, the onsite Management Reviews were limited to the four largest juvenile courts in the state, out of the 12 juvenile court offices. These four courts, however, account for nearly twothirds of the cases filed with the courts (Reasons for Referral to Juvenile Court Services- Attachment2).
While the issues facing the more urban courts often differ from the more rural courts, the jurisdiction of the four courts include rural counties that are located some distance from the more urban service delivery regions. In short, by reviewing the four largest courts, a court representing each judicial administrative region in the state was included as well as the counties from the most urban to the most rural.
The Management Reviews were conducted by a team of two juvenile court officers, two directors of juvenile court, two secretarial staff, a trial court administrator, and the assistant state court administrator for trial courts. The team conducted onsite interviews with all juvenile court personnel and other persons who interact with the juvenile courts. Prior to the onsite review, questionnaires were sent to county social service directors, human service directors, state's attorneys, guardians ad litem, judges, law enforcement, public schools, defense counsel, and other identified individuals or agencies asking for comments and/or concerns relating to the operations of the juvenile court.
G:\WP\Connie\Louie\Court Improvement Project\2004 CIP Reassessment Report.wpd
2004 CIP Reassessment Report - Page 1
As part of the management review, key actors were interviewed with questions relating to the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Since the courts had the information from the Department of Human Services Program Improvement Plan in terms of service issues and technical compliance, these reviews concentrated on "quality" of proceedings and implementation barriers rather than on technical compliance. The interviews concentrated on the court's ability to address safety issues, address efforts to prevent removal from the home, reunification efforts, and timeliness of proceedings. In short, the interviews attempted to ascertain whether the judge or referee was receiving adequate information to make an informed decision at key points in the process (Sample Management Review Report - Attachment3).
3.Review of the Court Improvement Project in North Dakota
A "reassessment" indicates a review of where the state is at in terms of the original assessment of needs which has served to guide the Court Improvement Project since 1999. It is proper then that we look at those issues which were originally identified, what progress has been made, and what issues remain, or what new issues have arisen. This is done in context of the reassessment requirements as found in AppendixE of the federal grant request.
As will be documented in the following text, much has been accomplished in terms of legislation, court rules, and cooperative protocols addressing key issues of children in foster care. These accomplishments are, in large part, due to the cooperative nature between the Department of Human Services and the North Dakota Judiciary, and the inclusion of key actors in establishing policy and legislation.
G:\WP\Connie\Louie\Court Improvement Project\2004 CIP Reassessment Report.wpd
2004 CIP Reassessment Report - Page 1
In 1998, the Department of Human Services established an Adoption and Safe Families Act Implementation Committee which included representation from the courts, county social services, prosecutors' offices, defense bar and others. At the same time, the courts were beginning the initial assessment under the Court Improvement Project. The Court Improvement Project Advisory Committee also included crossagency representation. The different bodies coordinated legislative efforts before the 1999 Legislature, resulting in significant legislation as documented in this report. In 2000, the judiciary and Department of Human Services folded the two committees into the Court Improvement Project/Adoption and Safe Families Act Implementation Committee. That committee is chaired by District Judge Lee Christofferson and Paul Ronningen, Director of the Children and Family Services Division of the Department of Human Services.
The CIP/ASFA Committee is appointed by the Chief Justice and the Director of the Department of Human Services. It is charged with continued review of issues relating to children in foster care. The Committee recommends policies, procedures, or protocols to ensure continued emphasis in this area. Within the courts, recommendations are made to the Juvenile Policy Board. That Board has authority to establish procedures within the juvenile court and to recommend administrative policies within the judiciary or proposed legislation to the Supreme Court. Within the Department of Human Services, recommendations are made to the Director of the Department.
The membership is inclusive, now including representatives of district judges, juvenile court staff, judicial referees, county social services, prosecutors, defense counsel, lay guardians ad litem, foster parents, county social services, human service regional offices, and the state Department of Human Services. In addition, the Indian Child Welfare Act representative from each of the four tribal entities is a member of the committee (Membership List - Attachment4).
B.Identification of Legislation and Court Rules Relating to Quality of Decisions.
A number of significant pieces of legislation have been passed affecting the decisions and timeframes of deprivation cases. The most significant legislation was passed in 1999.
G:\WP\Connie\Louie\Court Improvement Project\2004 CIP Reassessment Report.wpd
2004 CIP Reassessment Report - Page 1
Chapter 282 of the 1999 North Dakota Session Laws (Attachment5) enacted the following:
1.A definition of "reasonable efforts" (Section5). For the first time, the standard by which the court is to consider to determine if an agency had made reasonable efforts to prevent removal or make it possible to return the child safely to the home is defined. Basically, it requires proof by the agency that the agency, absent aggravated circumstances, has provided reasonable and available services.
2.The legislation provides that the determinations must be made on a casebycase basis and that the determinations must be in compliance with Titles IVB and IVE of the Social Security Act (Section5).
3.The safety of the child is considered by clarifying that "aggravated circumstances" relieve the agency and the court from requiring certain reasonable efforts. Those aggravated circumstances include acts of violence, sexual assault, abandonment, child abuse, or failure to make substantial and meaningful efforts to secure treatment for addictions, mental health, or behavior disorders (Section3).
4.Established that the court will review the continued placement of a child within 12 months of entering foster care in the form of permanency hearings (Sections3 and 7). The findings that a court must make before continuing any placement are spelled out, including the need to determine a permanent plan for the child and to consider return to the home, or compelling reasons not to return the child to the home or to move for termination of parental rights. The same legislation requires that the court review issues related to independent living skills if the child is 16 years of age or older.
G:\WP\Connie\Louie\Court Improvement Project\2004 CIP Reassessment Report.wpd
2004 CIP Reassessment Report - Page 1
5.Termination of Parents Rights. The same legislation substantively modified law relating to termination of parental rights, including the provision that the court may terminate if the child is in foster care 450 out of any 600 days, or that the parent has committed certain violent or sexual offenses against a child to which they are the parent (Section9). The legislation also specifies that a petition to terminate parental rights must be filed when the child is abandoned, when the parent has been found to have committed certain violent or sexual offenses against their child, or the child has been in foster care for 450 out of 600 days absent compelling reasons.
C.Identification of Timeframes.
The 1999 legislation also established new timeframes that shorten the length of court orders to one year and requiring permanency hearings within one year of the child being placed in shelter care. The law also requires that a determination of reasonable efforts be made within 30 days of a child being placed in care.
Legislation in 2001 and time standards adopted by the Supreme Court further defined court processing time standards and provided monetary requirements. The 2001 legislation required that shelter care hearings be held within 96 hours of the child being placed in shelter care, that a petition be filed within 30 days of a child being placed in shelter care, and a hearing on the merits be held within 60 days of a child being placed in shelter care. Prior to this legislation, nonjudicial determinations allowed 30day temporary custody orders which could be extended without court review (See Chart A and Attachment 7).
G:\WP\Connie\Louie\Court Improvement Project\2004 CIP Reassessment Report.wpd
2004 CIP Reassessment Report - Page 1
The rules adopted by the Supreme Court further provided that the order of disposition of the case be entered within 150 days of the child entering foster care. Significantly, the court included juvenile court cases in its docket currency standards and case management policies. These standards require that judges document the reasons for any case exceeding the adopted standards and that the cases are managed consistent with all court cases (Attachment6).
Chart A
Summary of Rules and Statutes
Designed to Achieve Safe, Timely, and Permanent
Placement of a Child
A.Safety of the Child
G:\WP\Connie\Louie\Court Improvement Project\2004 CIP Reassessment Report.wpd
2004 CIP Reassessment Report - Page 1
§27-20-02(3), N.D.C.C. / Defines "aggravated circumstances" under which an agency does not have to provide services to prevent removal or to reunify the family. Includes abandonment, physically assaultive behavior and sexual abuse, or imprisonment cause longterm separation from the child.§272032.2, N.D.C.C. / Provides that reasonable efforts are not required if "aggravated circumstances" exist.
§272020.1, N.D.C.C. / Provides that a petition for termination must be filed within 60 fays of a conviction of a child's parent for certain assaultive or sexually abusive behavior against the child.
§272017, N.D.C.C. / Allows the court to order any person to vacate a home before a child is returned from foster care.
G:\WP\Connie\Louie\Court Improvement Project\2004 CIP Reassessment Report.wpd
2004 CIP Reassessment Report - Page 1
B.Reasonable Effort Determinations
G:\WP\Connie\Louie\Court Improvement Project\2004 CIP Reassessment Report.wpd
2004 CIP Reassessment Report - Page 1
§272032.2, N.D.C.C.Defines the responsibilities of the agency in providing reasonable efforts and what the court must consider in determining if reasonable efforts have been made and when reasonable efforts must be made. Supreme Court Administrative Policy409 / Requires that a determination of whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal must be made within 60 days of the child entering foster care.
G:\WP\Connie\Louie\Court Improvement Project\2004 CIP Reassessment Report.wpd
2004 CIP Reassessment Report - Page 1
C.Permanency of the Child
G:\WP\Connie\Louie\Court Improvement Project\2004 CIP Reassessment Report.wpd
2004 CIP Reassessment Report - Page 1
§272002(13), N.D.C.C. / Defines what the court must consider in determining permanent plan for the child.§272030(f), N.D.C.C. / Defines when a court may make a permanent living arrangement for a child.
§272002.13(f), N.D.C.C. / Requires the court to determine what independent living skills should be provided if the child is 16 years of age.
§272020.1, N.D.C.C. / Defines when a petition of termination of parental rights should be sought.
G:\WP\Connie\Louie\Court Improvement Project\2004 CIP Reassessment Report.wpd
2004 CIP Reassessment Report - Page 1
D.Timelines of Proceedings
G:\WP\Connie\Louie\Court Improvement Project\2004 CIP Reassessment Report.wpd
2004 CIP Reassessment Report - Page 1
§272017(2), N.D.C.C. / Requires that a shelter care hearing be held within 96 hours of a child being placed in shelter care.§272017(3), N.D.C.C. / Requires that children be kept in shelter care for no more than 60 days.
§272022, N.D.C.C. / Provides that if a child is in shelter care the petition must be filed within 30 days and the hearing on the merits must be conducted within 60 days of the child entering shelter care.
§272036, N.D.C.C. / Provides that court orders are no more than 12 months in length and that a permanency hearing must be held within 12 months of a child entering foster care.
G:\WP\Connie\Louie\Court Improvement Project\2004 CIP Reassessment Report.wpd
2004 CIP Reassessment Report - Page 1
§272020.1, N.D.C.C. / Defines when a child is considered to have entered foster care.Unified Judicial System Policy 409 / Provides that in cases where child is placed in shelter care:
1.A shelter care must hearing must be held within 96 hours.
2.The petition must be filed within 30 days of initial placement.
3.The hearing on the merits must be held within 60 days of initial placement.
4.The final order must be filed within 150 days of initial placement.
Administrative Rule 12, North Dakota Supreme Court Administrative Rules / Includes juvenile court cases in the judicial system docket currency program. Requires judge to document a plan to dispose of any case that exceeds 150 days and what action is being taken to resolve the case.
G:\WP\Connie\Louie\Court Improvement Project\2004 CIP Reassessment Report.wpd
2004 CIP Reassessment Report - Page 1
E.Termination of Parents Rights.
G:\WP\Connie\Louie\Court Improvement Project\2004 CIP Reassessment Report.wpd
2004 CIP Reassessment Report - Page 1
§272020.1, N.D.C.C. / Provides that a petition for termination of parental rights must be filed if:1.a child is in foster care for 450 out of 400 nights;
2.the parent has committed certain violent or sexual assaultive offenses;
3.the child is abandoned;
4.defines when a child is in foster care;
5.defines compelling reasons for not pursuing termination of parental rights.
G:\WP\Connie\Louie\Court Improvement Project\2004 CIP Reassessment Report.wpd
2004 CIP Reassessment Report - Page 1
F.Identification of Addressing Whether a Proceedings Is Administrative or Judicial, Legal Representation, Admissibility of Evidence.
Right and Protection of Parties.
G:\WP\Connie\Louie\Court Improvement Project\2004 CIP Reassessment Report.wpd
2004 CIP Reassessment Report - Page 1
§272003, N.D.C.C.Provide juvenile court with exclusive jurisdiction over dependency matters.§§272013 through 272016, N.D.C.C. / Provide that a child taken into custody will have a shelter care hearing within 96 hours and will be returned home unless for safety and protection of child.
§272017, N.D.C.C. / Requires notice and right to attorney to all parties at shelter care hearing.
§272022, N.D.C.C. / Provides that all parties must receive proper notice of hearing
§272026, N.D.C.C. / Provides right to counsel for all parties and requires counsel for child if parents interests differ from child.
§272027, N.D.C.C. / Provides that a party is entitled to introduce evidence and to crossexamine witnesses.
Notification of foster parents or preadoptive parents is not addressed by court rule or state statute.
G:\WP\Connie\Louie\Court Improvement Project\2004 CIP Reassessment Report.wpd