Jason Morin

Family Drug Court

Introduction

Family drug courts (FDC) are an integrated entity comprised of the court, child welfare agency, treatment providers, community partners, and often faith-based organizations. It was modeled after the adult drug court which first appeared in Miami. [1] There are three key components of FDC: integrated efforts, communication/data sharing, and community partnerships. The civil court proceedings coalesce with the child welfare and substance use disorder (SUD) treatment case plans, and the format of the court ensures accountability for all parties involved. The goals and definition of success for FDC are the safety and permanency of the child. Depending on the needs and resources of the jurisdiction, outside funding may be necessary for the SUD treatment services, the creation of an administrative position, and, if necessary, a part-time judge. FDC outcomes for families and systems involved are markedly improved from standard practice.

Integrated Efforts

The model streamlines the efforts of the court, treatment providers, and social services agencies. It is the responsibility of social services to ensure the safety of the child. If the child’s well-being is compromised, in whole or part, due to SUD, the parents are usually referred to addiction treatment providers. The social workers are responsible for ensuring that the parent complies with the benchmarks of their child welfare case plan, which may include regular meetings with social workers, supervised visits with the child, and parenting courses. The treatment providers are only concerned with the therapeutic aspect of the case plan. In FDC, the two efforts are intrinsic with each other, and officials from each organization are in close communication regarding the participant’s progress. This ensures that the court has information to hold the parents accountable for their behavior and can make an informed determination regarding the best interests of child.

Data Sharing

Uniform releases are signed which allows the sharing of administrative data and other vital information between the three agencies. This ensures accountability for everyone involved and eliminates duplicated efforts. Lack of communication and data sharing plague cases of child maltreatment involving SUD therapy, which causes delays or otherwise impedes upon the court’s ability to hold the parents accountable and determine the permanency of the child.

Community Partnerships

Partnerships with community and/or faith-based organizations can provide vital components of recovery and continual support that SUD affected parents may not be able to receive from social services, treatment providers, or the court. Additionally, these partnerships would provide much needed services to FDC participants which would accrue no additional costs.

In some FDCs, attendance to meetings with Alcoholics Anonymous and/or Narcotics Anonymous serve as essential elements in participants’ treatment case plans. Community organizations, such as the YMCA, could also provide volunteers who could be personal

1

Jason Morin

accountability coaches, or sponsors, for the participants. The organizations could also provide professional and soft-skills training to these individuals in order to increase the prospects of obtaining and maintaining employment. If applicable, faith-based organizations could also provide any of the services that non-religious, community organizations could provide. Faith is a fundamental aspect of one’s identity for many people. For faith-centered people involved in FDC, the church could be a place of strength and refuge amid a crisis that threatens the very unity of their family. Substance abuse is often an attempt by the user to self-medicate an underlying mental health condition or traumatic experience. [2] A faith-centered environment could surround the participant with people that they may feel comfortable confiding about issues which they may not want to disclose to a therapist, social worker, or judge. This could be considered a form of therapy in its own right.

The availability and extent of the assistance from community and/or faith-based organizations as supplemental support systems to the FDC will vary by location. However, these kind of partnerships will augment the prospects of FDC participants to overcome SUD and hold their families together.

Structure

The court is structured in a manner to provide participants with access to the services they need while establishing benchmarks to measure progress towards case resolution. Participants attend weekly drug screenings, parenting classes, employability courses, individual therapy sessions, AA/NA meetings, and bi-monthly court appearances.

There are also monthly or bi-monthly meetings between the court administrator, social services, and treatment providers to discuss any issues and work towards resolution. It is at these meetings that individual cases are discussed and recommendations are prepared for the judge(s).

Participants are scheduled to appear before the judge once or twice per month. Prior to each hearing, the judge meets with the administrator, treatment providers, and social workers to hear recommendations for cases. In court, the judge discusses the recommendations and gives the participant the opportunity to provide feedback. Other FDC participants are present and their reactions to participants’ feedback (facial expression, body language, eye movements, etc.) can be used as additional input regarding the sincerity of the testimony.

Goals: Child Safety & Permanency

The goal of family drug court is to ensure the safety and permanency of the child. Positive drug screenings alone should not be grounds for dismissal nor should successful treatment completion always be prerequisite for reunification. The ability of the parent to safely care and provide for child must be determined by the judge. The court is usually able to determine the sincerity of the parents within six months. For parents who make no effort, the termination of parental rights usually ensues. For parents who fail, but try again, the court will work with these parents during the rehabilitation process towards the ultimate goal of reunification. Regardless of outcome, the child’s permanency is quickly achieved, which saves further trauma from being inflicted on the child, and prevents administrative backlogging of child welfare, SUD treatment and court cases.

2

Jason Morin

Funding/Costs

FDC has three primary costs: treatment services, an administrator, and possibly an additional judge. Public and/or private grant funding may cover these costs, nevertheless, some FDCs covered costs without grants. Judge Nolan Dawkins’ FDC in Virginia established a partnership with local treatment providers which had subsidized treatment for FDC participants. Subsequently, the treatment providers and social services pooled resources to create an FDC administrator upon realizing the mutual benefits of their collaboration. However, most CBCs would need funding either for the treatment services and/or the FDC administrative position. Judge Owens of Iowa supported the establishment of a 501©3 to fund their needs. Funding can often come from philanthropic and/or faith-based organizations. A part-time judge may also be necessary, as FDC is time-consuming.

Results

Available data regarding FDCs nationwide demonstrates on average: higher treatment completion rates [20-30%], lower recidivism, greater compliance with court orders, fewer days in out-of-home care, higher reunification rates [20-40%], fewer terminations of rights, fewer re-entries into foster care, and net cost-reduction averaging $5,000 - $13,000 per family.[3]

Specialized programs may be necessary for parents afflicted by the most malevolent of narcotics. From 2010 – 2014, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) initiated the Children Affected by Methamphetamine (CAM) Grant Program. Methamphetamine is one of the deadliest and most addictive narcotics. Users frequently find themselves in a downward spiral of unemployment, homelessness, incarceration, and even death. The CAM project involved 1,850 families (3,592 children, 2,445 adults) in twelve locations. Around one-sixth of children were reunified within three months, 68.2% of CAM children were reunified in less than a year, and around half of parents (42%) successfully completed treatment. Only 2.3% of children experienced further incidents of child maltreatment within six months of program enrollment, and only 7% of reunified children re-entered foster care after two years (SAMSA, 2014).[4]

3

Jason Morin

Citations

1. http://www.nadcp.org/learn/what-are-drug-courts/drug-court-history

2. Conway et al. National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (2006).

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/comorbidity-addiction-other-mental-illnesses/why-do-drug-use-disorders-often-co-occur-other-men

3. Marlow, D., Carey, S. "Research Update on Family Drug Courts." 1 May 2012. Print.

4. Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSA) (November, 2014).

Grants to Expand Services to Children Affected by Methamphetamine in Families

Participating in Family Drug Treatment Court. Children Affected by Methamphetamine

Brief. Washington D.C.

https://ncsacw.samhsa.gov/files/CAM_ Brief _2014-Final.pd

4