The Effect of Courtroom Dynamics on Child Maltreatment Proceedings

Juvenile justice reform and the courtroom workgroup: Issues of perception and workload

“…It is highly unlikely that any reform effort will change the culture of an entire workgroup. Yet, if indeed most judges are highly supportive of the detention reform effort, then judges as the most powerful member of the workgroup can set the tone for other members by collaboratively working on juvenile detention cases (see Knepper & Barton, 1997). Realizing that subversion can result from denials of detention requests, judges can assist law enforcement and probation in problem-solving placement issues and collectively thinking creatively about alternatives in order to reduce some of the workload and increase trust among workgroup members.…”

“…Smaller caseloads, however, do not preclude workgroups from establishing routines in case processing. In the relatively rural state of Kentucky, for instance, Knepper and Barton (1997) found that courts did not change their routines in processing adoption and child maltreatment cases, though federal legislation substantially changed the goals of the child welfare system. Courts continued to operate in the same manner as they had prior to implementation.…”

“…Of the workgroup members in juvenile court, judges consistently may hold the most power in the workgroup because court operation is embedded in the discretion of the judge acting as a parent and making decisions that are 'in the best interests of the child' (Knepper & Barton, 1997;Ulmer, 1994). Furthermore, unlike many states where detention decisions may be a probation function, detention requests in the study state required a judicial court order thereby appointing the judge as the ultimate decision maker.…”

An Examination of Oversight and Review in the Child Welfare System

“…The federal Child Welfare and Adoption Assistance Act of 1980 (P.L. 92-272) markedly expanded the judicial role in child welfare by calling for courts of juvenile jurisdiction to exercise an ongoing monitoring function of all cases in which children are placed in the protective custody of public agencies (Hardin, 1996;Knepper & Barton, 1997). The child welfare and legal literature contain ample documentation of factors that hamper the ability of courts to expedite the placement of children in safe and permanent homes.…”

Women Accused of Homicide: The Impact of Race, Relationship to Victim, and Prior Physical Abuse

“…A pattern of harsh sentences for battered women who kill in these jurisdictions may reflect an overall conservative and punitive tradition in that particular court, regardless of who killed whom or the circumstances surrounding the event. In other words, some areas are more politically conservative than others, and therefore some courtroom workgroups (the judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and others who work together regularly in a particular court jurisdiction) may be more punitive than others towards all crimes or certain kinds of crime (Hephner, 2002;Knepper & Barton, 1997). For this reason, data is needed that allows the comparison of legal outcomes for cases involving battered women versus female homicide defendant cases that did not involve the slaying of an allegedly abusive partner.…”