G/\ 11uo.~'1 fJ\\ \!\'\Cl. t~ Guidelines for Georgia Courts in Child Deprivation Cases Guidelines for Georgia Courts in Child Deprivation Cases Letter from the Chief Justice 3 Development Team 5 Introduction 7 The Need for Guidelines 7 General Issues 8 Three Main Areas of Focus 8 Representation 8 Caseflow Management 9 One Family/One Judge Model 9 Specific Guidelines for Each Hearing Stage 10 72-Hour Hearing 10 Adjudicatory Hearing 11 Dispositional Hearing 11 Review Hearings 12 Permanency Placement Hearing 13 Termination of Parental Rights Hearing 13 Post TPR Guidelines 14 Timeline 15 May 1998 Sponsored by the Georgia Supreme Court Child Placement Project @ Printed on recycled paper. RECEIVED FEB 14 2000 "~LD1 orcruqmQ.ei\nPtsfl:"(' letter from the Chief Justice To all Judges with Juvenile Court Jurisdiction: Georgia's juvenile court judges are the gatekeepers for our state's foster care system and should hold all parties accountable in a child's deprivation proceeding. It benefits the state to have very clear procedures to aid judges in making critical determinations about a child's abuse or neglect case. In consultation with the authors of the ((Resources Guidelines" and the faculty ofthe National Council ofJuvenile and Family Court Judges, judges from the Judicial Responsibility Workshops have developed and published ((Guidelines for Georgia Courts in Child Deprivation Cases." It is important that juvenile court judges support and follow these guide- lines. The authors have worked hard to develop this document and are to be commended for their efforts to improve the judicial system. I personally thank you, our juvenile court judges, for your dedicated efforts in protecting Georgia's children. Guidelines for Georgia Courts in Child Deprivation Cases Development Team These aspirational guidelines were developed by the judges attending two Judicial Responsibility Workshops sponsored by the Georgia Supreme Court Child Placement Project. Judge John W. Beam Jr., Juvenile Court of Chatham County Judge J. Lane Bearden, Juvenile Court of Gordon County Assoc. Judge Luz Cloy, Juvenile Court of Bryan, Evans, Liberty, Long, McIntosh and Tattnall Counties Judge Virgil Costley (retired), Covington Judge G. Bryant Culpepper, Macon Judicial Circuit Judge Stephen E. Franzen, Juvenile Court of Gwinnett County Presiding Judge Martha K. Glaze, Juvenile Court of Clayton County Judge George Hearn, Juvenile Court of Walton County Judge Cliff Jolliff, Juvenile Court of Hall and Dawson Counties Judge Sanford Jones, Juvenile Court of Fulton County Judge R. Michael Key, Juvenile Court of Troup County Presiding Judge James Morris, Juvenile Court of Cobb County Judge Robin Nash, Juvenile Court of DeKalb County Assoc. Judge Robin Shearer, Juvenile Court of Clarke County Chief Judge Hugh W. Stone, Enotah Judicial Circuit Attorneys Michelle Barclay of the Child Placement Project and Melinda Shepherd of the Council of Juvenile Court Judges worked in conjunction with the judges to develop these guidelines. The judges attending the Judicial Responsibility Workshops are committed to assisting with implementation of the guidelines as well as evaluating the results, as are the staff of the Council of Juvenile Court Judges and the staff of the Georgia Supreme Court Child Placement Project. For more information, please call the ClCl at 404-657-5020 or the CPP at 404-656-3470. Special thanks go to the staff of the National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges, especially Mary Mentaberry, and the faculty of the National Council who gave so generously of their time and knowledge to Georgia: Barbara Seibel, Judge Richard Fitzgerald, Judge James Payne, Judge John Steketee, Ron Apol, and David Dorr. Guidelines for Georgia Courts in Child Deprivation Cases Introduction Fourteen of Georgia's judges with juvenile court jurisdiction were brought together for two workshops to develop guidelines for child deprivation cases. This brief manual was developed from the four-day discussion and was substantively guided by the National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges' "Resource Guidelines" manual and faculty. The workshop and the manual development were funded by the Georgia Supreme Court Child Placement Project. The format of this manual, by consensus, is designed to be short and concise and yet provide enough details to help a judge properly process child deprivation cases. These guidelines are non-mandatory and aspirational, yet much thought and debate went into their formation, and judges are urged to read and consider these guidelines for deprivation cases. While every deprivation case is important, these guidelines were primarily developed for the cases where the Department of Family and Children Services takes a child into custody. The Need for Guidelines Children in deprivation cases come before juvenile courts for protection from further harm and for timely decision-making for their future. Juvenile court judges are the gatekeepers of our state's foster care system and must ultimately decide whether families in crisis will be broken apart and children placed in foster care or whether placement can be safely avoided. As a result of recent changes in federal and state law, Georgia's juvenile courts now take a far more active role in the decisionmaking of deprivation cases. The issues coming before the courts are more complex, requiring more hearings and more people. To perform their expanded oversight role, courts need a clear vision of juvenile court procedures in child deprivation cases. In 1995, with Georgia's foster care system holding 16,000 children in custody, the Georgia Supreme Court began a study to get a statewide view of how child deprivation cases are processed. The study revealed that the process of deprivation cases differs dramatically across the state. Some of the interviews and survey results stated that the process is driven by the strongest personality in the court. Other court participants, including many judges, expressed frustration about the lack of current information on practice to provide a context in which judges and others can evaluate and improve practices within their own courts. When information on diverse practices is shared, the best of each style can be incorporated into practice in all jurisdictions. Consistency in process of deprivation cases is more likely to lead to consistent results, ensuring that all juvenile court participants across the state will be treated similarly and can hold the same expectations about juvenile court. Meeting these expectations is even more critical today since the number of children in foster care has continued to grow. On the day of the first workshop in September 1997, Georgia had 19,372 children in state custody. Guidelines for Georgia Courts in Child Deprivation Cases General Issues Lack of uniformity in the process of deprivation cases is a problem nationwide. In response, the National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges wrote a manual called the "Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases." The purpose of the guidelines is to set forth the essential elements of properly conducted court hearings. These guidelines are meant to influence future administrative and funding decisions concerning juvenile courts. They are intended to help correct the gaping discrepancies that presently exist between the legislative demands and judicial resources for child deprivation cases. In reviewing the "Resource Guidelines" it was decided that there were three broad areas Georgia should focus on improving. In addition, specific guidelines were developed for each hearing stage of a deprivation case. The Three Main Areas of Focus for the Georgia Guidelines: 1) Ensuring that parents and children are represented in deprivation and termination of parental rights hearings Representation The following should be imple- mented in the area of representation of parents and children: A guardian ad litem (GAL), which may be either an attorney or a specially trained volunteer, should be appointed for the life of the case to speak in the best interest of the child. The GAL should be present at every hearing, including the 72-hour hearing. Ideally, the same GAL will represent the child throughout the case for consistency. The GAL should have access to sufficient information such as court records, reports, case plans, and any other documents that the court deems necessary in order to make an informed recommendation to the court. Parents should be appointed an attorney upon their request at the earliest stage possible, especially if the parent has a mental health problem. While parents must meet the qualifications for appointment, barriers to representation should be kept to a minimum. Delays in the appointment of an attorney should be avoided, as they delay permanency for the child. 2) Improving caseflow management by following timeframes 3) Promoting the concept of One Family/One Judge Guidelines for Georgia Courts in Child Deprivation Cases Casetlow Management The following should be implemented under caseflow management: All judges must know and follow the time limits set by statute. The orders following a hearing should be issued in a timely manner, optimally while the parent(s) are present in the court facilities so they can take the written orders home with them. At the latest, parents should receive the orders within 5 days of a hearing, with the exception of termination of parental rights hearings where more time may be necessary. Court orders should include who is present and their attorney, absent parties and how they were served, each and every finding of a deprivation even if there are stipulations, the next review date, and special conditions set, such as visitation, treatment issues, etc. The court should have a firm and effective policy on continuances that keeps the child's best interest in mind. Sometimes a short continuance is in the best interest of the child because more time can allow further investigation of a case or allow a child to return home with intensive family services under court oversight. However, continuances should not be allowed because hearing dates prove inconvenientfor attorneys and parties. Continuances should be reserved for occasions when attorneys or parties are ill, essential witnesses cannot be located, or service of process has not yet been completed. Ideally, the court should adhere to the timeline demonstrated on the last page of these guidelines. Review hearings should occur frequently enough to ensure that the agency and the parents are following the plan. The review hearings may need to be held more frequently than the statute provides as this allows the opportunity for early incentives for immediate compliance with the caseplan and early consequences for noncompliance. Judicial review helps a case progress by requiring the parties to set timetables, take specific action, address a child's immediate needs and make decisions. Review hearings are necessary because continuation of a child in foster care for an extended time has a negative effect on a child and family. One Family/One Judge Model The One Family/One Judge model should be promoted as the best model for deprivation cases because a unique judicial perspective is developed by a single judge hearing all matters related to a single family's court experience. Therefore, the judge who hears the case in the 72-hour hearing should also preside at every subsequent hearing. The rationale for this assertion is as follows: 1) The orders will be more consistent as the goals and expectations will remain constant. It prevents parents from repeating excuses for lack of progress, wasting valuable court time, and slOWing down permanency. 2) Families will know what is expected of them. Parties can rely on the court's direction without concern that a different judge at the next hearing will interpret the case differently. 3) The judge's long-term perspective will identify patterns of behavior exhibited over time by all parties involved in a case, preventing a judge from too heavy a reliance on social service agency recommendations. 4) Following cases through to completion allows judges to develop greater specialization in the area of child deprivation law. Guidelines for Georgia Courts in Child Deprivation Cases Specific Guidelines for Each Hearing Stage 72-Hour Hearing This emergency hearing is held within 72 hours of a child's removal from the home. It is critical that this hearing be timely and thorough. Time is of the essence in child abuse and neglect cases and any opportunity to prevent a child's case from continuing its path into the system should be seized. Once a child is removed it becomes logistically and practically more difficult to help a family resolve its problems; thus, all guidelines developed for this hearing seek to prevent the child from entering the system or to ensure faster permanency for the child. Therefore, the following should be implemented in the 72-hour hearing: 1) An exhaustive search for the father and available relatives should begin upon removal of the child so that information is available at the time of the hearing. Obtaining this information early allows the court to place the child with other family members or more quickly rule out these family members as placements, decreasing the likelihood of disrupting a non-family placement for the child later. Locating the putative father early may increase the number of acceptable relative placements. 2) Ideally, attorneys should be appointed in advance of this hearing, but at a minimum, appointments of necessary counsel need to be made at the 72-hour hearing. 3) The hearing needs to be more than a paper decision. It needs to address reasonable efforts, if appropriate, in a meaningful way. If the court determines that reasonable efforts are reqUired to be made, the court must decide whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to prevent the need for the child's removal from the home and whether, within the short time available, the agency has made reasonable efforts to make it possible for the child to safely return home. 4) If possible, the hearing date for the next hearing needs to be set while all parties are present at the 72-hour hearing so that parties have proper notice of the next step of the process. 5) Ideally, the people who need to be present before the judge are parents (including the putative father), relatives with legal standing, assigned caseworker, special assistant attorney general (SAAG), GAL, and parents' attorney(s). 6) Key judicial decisions that should be addressed at the hearing to develop the safety plan which can be used by the Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS) as the guide to the caseplan are: Should the child be returned home immediately or kept in foster care prior to the adjudicatory hearing? What services will allow the child to remain safely at home? Has DFCS made reasonable efforts, if required, to avoid protective placement of the child? Is the placement proposed by DFCS the least disruptive and the most family-like setting that meets the needs of the child? Are orders needed for examinations, evaluations, or immediate services? 7) The order should include the above elements of the safety plan and should record the appointment of attorneys, whether parents voluntarily agreed to services, reasonable cause for removal or lack thereof, the next hearing date (if applicable), and whether parents agreed to a waiver of the adjudicatory hearing. The order needs to be completed and given to the parties in a timely manner, ideally at the close of the 72-hour hearing but no later than 5 days after the hearing. d Guidelines for Georgia Courts in Child Deprivation Cases Adjudicatory Hearing The court should ensure that the The adjudicatory hearing is the trial parents know the time and the place of the facts. The outcome of adjudica- of the 30-day caseplan meeting and that tion controls whether the state may they understand the importance of intervene over the objections of the their presence. family. The standard is clear and con- vincing evidence. The following should Dispositional Hearing be implemented in the adjudicatory Disposition is the stage of the juve- hearing: nile court process in which, after find- 1) The parties. should not be permit- ing that the child is within the juris- ted to waive findings of facts at this diction of the court, the court deter- hearing even if there is a criminal charge mines who should have custody and pending against a party. The orders must control of the child. This hearing is have either a stipulation to the facts usually held immediately folloWing the alleged, or the court must hear evidence adjudicatory hearing. All parties present which is reflected in the order. Adjudi- at the adjudicatory hearing need to be catory findings of abuse and neglect present at the dispositional hearing. The should be the benchmark against which folloWing should be implemented in later case progress is measured. Adjudi- the dispositional hearing: catory findings are the basis for the 1) Ideally the caseplan should be caseplan and must be detailed in the completed at the time of this hearing court order. They will be equally impor- so that all parties involved, including tant to case review later. the GAL, can address the goals for both 2) The exhaustive search for father the family and for DFCS, and so that it and relatives started before the 72-hour can be reviewed in detail by the court. hearing will have identified these par- Courts should not simply incorporate ties, and they should be present at the the plan into the court order. Review- hearing. ing the caseplan in court ensures that 3) Appropriate representation for the parties clearly understand the parents and children will be present. expectations of the caseplan. If the dis- 4) The following persons should be positional hearing is held at the same present at the hearing: parents (includ- time as the adjudicatory hearing and ing putative father), relatives with legal the caseplan is not ready to be presented standing, assigned caseworker, SAAG, to the court at this time, it is recom- GAL, and parents' attorney(s). mended that the court either continue 5) Key decisions to be made are: the dispositional hearing or set the case Are the allegations of the petition for judicial review within 30 days of the proved by clear and convincing dispositional hearing so that all parties r evidence? can meet back in court to review the 1 Is there a legal basis for contin- plan. ued court intervention? 2) There should be one consolidated Have reasonable efforts, if re- caseplan for the family from the court quired, been made? and the agency. No agency should be a 6) This hearing should be held operating from plan outside the ap- within 10 days of the filing of the peti- proval of the court. tion and should be completed (that 3) Any modifications to the plan means signed order) within 30 days after need to be carefully considered by the the child is removed, because a speedy court and the agency so that the sys- adjudication can reduce the length of tem does not keep placing goals out of time that a child spends in foster care. reach of the parents. Guidelines for Georgia Courts in Child Deprivation Cases 4) Key decisions for the dispositional hearing: What is the appropriate statutory disposition of the case and the long-term plan for the child? Where should the child be placed? Does the caseplan reasonably address the problems and needs of the child and the parents? Does child support need to be addressed? What visitation should be ordered? When will the case be reviewed? 5) Ideally, the date of the first review hearing should be set at the close of the dispositional hearing while all parties are present because it gives the parents a target date for completion of their goals, it ensures notice to all parties, and decreases the likelihood of a continuance. 6) This hearing should be completed (that means signed order) by 60 days after the child is removed at the very latest. Review Hearings The following guidelines address judicial reviews only. Since panel guidelines are already established, these review hearing guidelines are targeted for courts who do not have citizen review panels. No value judgment is implied about the choice of citizen review panels or judicial reviews. Review hearings are court proceedings which take place after disposition in which the court reviews the status of the case. Reviews examine progress made by the parties since the conclusion of the dispositional hearing and provide an opportunity for correction and revision of the caseplan. The purpose of review hearings is to make sure that the case progresses and children spend as short a time as possible in temporary placement. 1) Review hearings need to occur frequently enough to ensure that the agency and parents are complying with the caseplan. 2) The first review should be held no later than 90 days after entering the dispositional order. 3) Ideally, the people who need to be present before the judge are: parents, including the putative father; parents' attorney; relatives with legal standing; all caseworkers who have worked on the case; SAAG; GAL; and the child or children. 4) Key decisions made at the review hearings are: Whether there is a need for continued placement of a child. Whether the court-approved, long-term permanent plan for the child remains the best plan for the child. Whether the agency is making reasonable efforts to rehabilitate the family and eliminate the need for placement of a child. Whether services set forth in the caseplan and the responsibilities of the parties need to be clarified or modified due to the availability of additional information or changed circumstances. Whether the child is in an appropriate placement which adequately meets all physical, emotional, and educational needs. Whether the terms of visitation need to be modified. Whether child support needs to be addressed. Whether any additional court orders need to be made to move the case toward successful completion. What time frame should be followed to achieve reunification or other permanent plan for each child? Guidelines for Georgia Courts in Child Deprivation Cases Permanency Placement Hearing When a child's case lasts approxi- mately a year from the finding of deprivation, at some point within those 12 months the court will hold a hearing that will focus on the permanent placement of the child. The Official Code of Georgia Annotated mandates that the hearing take place within a year, but the hearing can be held earlier. The hearing historically has had many names, from a motion-to-extend hearing to a 12-month hearing. Unlike review hearings, which involve routine oversight of case progress, permanency planning hearings represent a deadline within which the final direction of the case is to be determined. The following should be implemented to ensure the permanency direction of the case: 1) Each court is responsible for reviewing the status of the case before the order for custody expires. Fulfilling this responsibility will prevent custody orders from expiring without court knowledge or intervention; it prevents cases from "slipping through the cracks." There are several ways to do this. One way is to set a date for the permanency hearing at the dispositional hearing while all the parties are present. This date should be set for several weeks before the custody order will expire. It puts the parents on notice of their final deadline to complete the caseplan. This date also puts DFCS on notice that this case must be brought before the court before the order expires. Another way to do this is to use a computer system to track cases and notify DFCS that a custody order is about to expire. 2) A permanent placement needs to be found or a petition to terminate parental rights needs to be filed no later than 18 months from removal of the child. Ideally, a permanent placement would be found in 12 months, but 18 months should be the outlying date to prevent a child from staying in the system indefinitely-"foster care drift." Termination of Parental Rights Hearing Termination of parental rights (TPR) cases arising from child deprivation cases are among the most difficult a judge can face. There is a strong possibility that a case will result in TPR when intensive, in-home services cannot safely be proVided, or are attempted but fail to prevent removal. There are risks to a child in terminating parental rights, however. If the decision is mistaken, a child may needlessly be deprived of a chance to return home, to keep contact with parents, and to have lifelong relationships with members of an extended family. On the other hand, failure to terminate parental rights may deprive a child of the chance for a permanent substitute home. The longer children wait, the more difficult it becomes to find permanent homes for them, and they are more likely to suffer serious emotional and psychological harm. Delays in the court process can mean missed opportunities and consequences with devastating effects on the life of a child. Therefore, the following should be implemented in the TPR hearing: 1) When a citizen panel review recommends the filing of TPR, and DFCS does not object to the recommendation, or when DFCS indicates during a judicial review or during a non-reunification hearing that a TPR petition should be filed, DFCS should file the petition within 30 days from the review date. If 30 days pass and no petition is filed, the court should hold a hearing to show cause why the action was not timely commenced. This show cause review is not a contempt action and is not a hearing on the merits of the action. Rather the review is merely for the purpose of reviewing the procedural posture of the case and to make certain that DFCS is making reasonable efforts to produce a permanency plan. Guidelines for Georgia Courts in Child Deprivation Cases 2) From the filing of a petition to terminate parental rights, a hearing needs to be held, a decision made, and an order signed within 90 days. 3) The TPR petition should strictly follow O.C.G.A lS-11-82. The exhaustive search for all parties involved in the case which started before the 72-hour hearing will have identified the parties to the procedure. Notice should be sent pursuant to O.C.G.A lS-11-83 to direct their attendance at the hearing. 4) After a party indicates that he or she wants to participate in the TPR process, counsel should be appointed as soon as possible so as not to delay the proceedings. Ideally, for consistency, this should be the same lawyer for the family as in the earlier proceedings. O.C.G.A lS-11-8S requires that an attorney must be appointed for the child who is the subject of TPR. That attorney may also serve as the GAL. S) Key decisions made at TPR are: Whether statutory grounds for TPR have been satisfied. Whether TPR is in best interest of the child. 6) Parties in court should be verbally informed of the key decisions when appropriate at close of the hearing. 7) The TPR order should contain sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law for appellate review. Post TPR Guidelines 1) A GAL should stay with the child's case post-termination until a permanent placement for the child is established. 2) Within 30 days following a hearing where parental rights are terminated, DFCS should file an adoption plan or other placement plan with the court. The plan should outline any known potential placement for the child. If no specific placement is known, then the plan should include an outline of the action to be taken to effect a permanent placement for the child. 3) While O.C.G.A lS-11-90 only requires yearly reviews, judges are urged to review the case every 90 days until the child is adopted or long-term placement is achieved. 4) In order to accelerate an appeal process, judges should make every effort to ensure that the transcript is prepared within 30 days of notice of appeal. S) The timeliness so necessary in TPR cases at the trial level is also of great significance at the appellate level. The appellate courts of Georgia are urged to give priority to the appeals of child deprivation cases as well as termination of parental rights cases because speedy decisions are uniquely important to abused and neglected children who are without permanent, stable families. 6) Judges should make every effort to ensure that the adoption petition is filed within 6 months after a child is placed in an adoptive home. 7) Legislators are urged to review and simplify Georgia's adoption law so that it is easier to understand and allows the most expedited process. Guidelines for Georgia Courts in Child Deprivation Cases Ideal Judicial Timeline for Deprivation Cases When Caseplan Calls for Reunification Day 1 Child is removed Days 3-4 Days 15-30 Emergency Hearing Adjudicatory Hearing Upon a judicial finding of deprivation, a 12-month permanency timeline begins. Days 15-60 Dispositional Hearing 1st Review Days 105-1 50 }--------+---------II~ 3 months after Disposition 2nd Review Days 195-240 }--------+---------II~3 months after Disposition Within 12 months after a finding of Deprivation, a Permanency Placement Hearing must be held to address the status and the next step of the child's case. Georgia Supreme Court Child Placement Project 244 Washington Street, S.W. 572 State Annex Building Atlanta, GA 30334 www.state.ga.us/Courts/Supreme/cppwebl.htm