This qualitative study brings together the voices of parents and their representatives, including attorneys, social workers and parent advocates, to understand the lived experiences of child welfare involved parents as they navigate Family Court, and how to improve it. The findings suggest that these courts are difficult to navigate for both parents and their representatives, and are often experienced as punitive and unsupportive spaces. The findings also reveal a strong congruence between how parents and their advocates wish the courts to operate (and how they sometimes do), and the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ), which recognizes the emotional and psychological toll legal proceedings can take and suggests ways to minimize that harm. Parents' relationship with their judge and the judge's ability to understand and connect with them are identified as transformative factors in the courtroom. Key Points for the Family Court CommunityThe fast paced and often harsh environment populated with multiple actors make navigating the Family Court system challenging for both parents and their representatives.Contextual factors, such as trauma, and race and class bias multiply the often negative and anti-therapeutic effects of Family Court.Judges have a key role in mediating these contextual factors, and providing a supportive and therapeutic environment for adjudicating claims of child maltreatment Specific behaviors that exemplify TJ are identified, and suggestions made as to how they can be applied in the court room.

No abstract

Family courts have been criticized for failing their core mission of rehabilitating families. Structural inequalities embedded in the family court system, combined with the role of adversarial judges and resource constraints, have contributed to the creation of a problematic environment for parents and families. In this paper, we examine the strategies that legal teams (attorneys, legal social workers and parent advocates) employ to serve child welfare‐involved parents in navigating this complex system. Interviews were conducted with 32 participants employed by public defender organizations in a large Northeastern city. We called on thematic analysis to identify three distinct themes: (1) Keeping the Lines of Communication Open (the importance of regular communication between parents and attorneys); (2) Strategic Use of Parent Voice (the intentionality behind when and how parents should speak directly to the judge); and (3) Parents as Chameleons (the grooming of parents to meet certain judicial ideals of parenthood). We identified several strategies to empower child welfare involved parents as they pursue legal permanency for their children: (a) ameliorating communication barriers between parents and their legal team members; (b) preparing parents to amplify their voices in the courtroom; and (c) using more general language to co‐manage parental appearance and presentation.

No abstract

This pilot study integrated quantitative and qualitative data to examine the feasibility of implementing a modified version of a multiple family group behavioral parent training intervention (The 4Rs and 2Ss for Strengthening Families Program [4Rs and 2Ss]) in child welfare (CW) placement prevention services from the perspectives of participating caregivers ( n = 12) and CW staff ( n = 12; i.e., 6 caseworkers, 4 supervisors, and 2 administrators). Quantitative surveys were administered to caregivers and CW staff followed by semi-structured interviews to examine the feasibility of implementing the modified 4Rs and 2Ss program as well as factors impacting feasibility. Results indicated that quantitative benchmarks for high feasibility were met in all assessed areas (e.g., family recruitment, caseworker fidelity ratings, CW staff feasibility ratings) except for family attendance, which was markedly lower than desired. Factors facilitating feasibility included agency and research support, intervention ease-of-use, perceived benefits to existing CW practice, and logistical support (e.g., food, transportation, child care) promoting attendance. Factors hindering feasibility included conflicts between research-based eligibility criteria and existing client population demographics, research-related processes resulting in delays, CW staff role conflicts, added workload burden, complex family issues, and power differentials inherent to CW services which complicated families’ voluntary participation.