INNOVATION IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION

• Date: 01 July 1991
• Published date: 01 July 1991
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.174-1617.1991.tb00234.x
• Author: Margaret Shaw,W. Patrick Phear

INNOVATION IN

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Case Status Conferences for

Child Protection and Placement Proceedings

in the State of Connecticut

Margaret Shaw

W.

Patrick Phear

This article reports on a study of the case settlement process used in the Connecticut Superior

Court Family Division

to

resolve child protection and placemenr disputes.

Key

elements

of

the

formally titled Case Status Conference are presented and evaluated

for

their effectiveness and

eficiency through interviews with regal andjudicinlpmfessionals familiar with theconferencing

procedure.

In

1987,

the State

of

Connecticut Superior

Court

Family Division imple-

mented an innovative procedure for determining the best interests

of

children

involved

in

child protective and placement proceedings. The procedure,

formally called the Case Status Conference, convenes all the interested par-

ties

in

each case involving possible out-of-home placement for children, in-

cluding the child, his or her parents, their respective attorneys,

the

state’s

attorney, the state agency social worker, and guardians ad litem, to review

the

case

in

a nonadversarial setting and ensure that all parties understand the

current

situation, particularly the legal and social service issues involved.

Using mediative dispute resolution techniques, court service officers (CSOs)

help the parties to clarify, communicate, and understand their own and the

others’ underlying needs and interests and facilitate resolution of any dis-

agreements about the child’s placement and/or service plan,

as

well as the

adjudicatory basis of the case. Agreements reached during the conference are

subject to judicial review.

This

report documents Connecticut’s experience with the Case Status

Conference procedure. Child protective and placement disputes have proved

to be among the most difficult and wrenching to resolve, both for the

courts

and for the individual parties involved. It is hoped that dissemination

of

information about Connecticut’s new procedure for handling these disputes

Authors’

Note:

This study wasfunded

by

the National Institute

for

Dispute Resolution

FAMILY

AND

CONCILIATION

COURTS

REVIEW,

Vol. 29

No.

3,

July

1991

270-290

0

IYYI

Sage

Publications,

Inc.

270

Shaw,

Phear

/

CASE

STATUS

CONFERENCES

271

and about how

it

is

actually working in practice will encourage other juris-

dictions to consider, replicate, and/or refine this approach.

BACKGROUND

Since

1980,

with the passage of the federal Adoption Assistance and Child

Welfare Act (Public Law

96-272)

setting guidelines for state foster care

operations, state courts with jurisdiction over protective services cases have

been required to review the case of every child placed in foster care or

otherwise assigned to the legal guardianship of the state at least every

6

months and to establish a permanent plan for the child within

18

months of

out-of-home placement.

P.L.

96-272

was amended in

1983

to require state

courts to make formal findings that “reasonable efforts” have been made

to

prevent or eliminate the need for out-of-home placement prior

to

making

such a disposition.

At the risk of losing eligibility for federal Title

IV-E

subsidies for foster

care operations, state authorities have been grappling with ways to meet these

requirements. One

of

the ways that the states have responded

is

by requiring

the court making an out-of-home disposition to hold full formal hearings

involving all the significant parties

to

a case prior to an out-of-home dispo-

sition. The case must also be reviewed every

6

months while the child remains

in

placement. This permits the court to examine directly what preventive and

reunification efforts have been made at various points in the process and

to

ensure that all the social and legal issues involving the child, his or her current

living arrangement, and his or her family have been aired.

The court’s formal hearings typically involve full procedural protections

for

all

the parties, including the rights to present evidence, to cross-examine

adverse witnesses, and to be represented by counsel. Although intended to

be focused on the best interests of the child, the court’s procedures tend to

engender an adversarial atmosphere

in

the proceedings. Even if cases are

ultimately settled pretrial, parties develop entrenched positions early on in

the process, with many destructive results.

For

one, parents and their children

are pitted against one another, and the family

unit

is potentially weakened.

In

addition, the possibility of effective provision of services is decreased Not

only

is

the timing of services delayed but mental health professionals must

prcpare to testify against the parents with whom they will later need to work.

The proceedings tend to be subject to court delays and continuances and are

therefore time consuming and expensive to operate, as well as detrimental to

the well-being of the families involved. The costs

in

terms

of

time and