A court without judgement

A woman, with drawn cheeks and well into her forties, steps out of the jurors box and takes a seat before Judge William Davis in his Siskiyou County courtroom. She just had a relapse, another hurdle in a life-long struggle with drugs and alcohol that contributed to her sons entrance into foster care six years ago.

I have support, the woman says while fidgeting, now seated at a table before the bench. But something is missing here, and I know that.

Its not a failure to say that you need something beyond what you are getting, Judge Davis says calmly. That actually takes courage. I dont want to scold or berate you about using. I just want to help you.

I know that, the woman says.

The jury box is almost full. Ten parents, all to children involved with this countys juvenile dependency system, come here as often as once a week as they fight the substance addictions that contributed to their children entering foster care.

In Siskiyou County these proceedings are called Family Dependency Treatment Courts. In other jurisdictions they are called Family Drug Treatment Courts (FTDC), or other variations on the same theme. The prevailing philosophy driving the nations 300 or more family drug courts is to offer families on the brink therapeutic support instead of the punishment and sanctions that courts typically dole out. Since the first Family Drug Treatment Court was started in 1993, the consensus among many leading family court judges is that they have been critical in positively changing the life trajectories of otherwise hurting families.

A four-site study on the effectiveness of FTDCs produced by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children stated that: FTDC parents, compared to comparison parents, entered substance abuse treatment more quickly, stayed in treatment longer and were more likely to be re-unified with their children. The study revealed that 43 percent of FTDC children were re-unified with their parents as compared to 32 percent of those children from comparison parents.

While the report also showed that parents who didnt comply with drug treatment programs lost custody at higher rates than comparison parents, results like these and other studies showing cost savings have fueled a national effort to expand the courts.

Drug court is one of the most wonderful innovations we have in our court system, says Judge Leonard Edwards, who retired as the presiding judge of Santa Clara County Juvenile Court in 2006. Edwards is widely regarded as one of the nations top experts on juvenile courts and has been a prolific advocate of the efficacy of family drug courts.

There is something about a human being coming before another human being - a judge who normally dispenses justice, punishes, has harsh things to say - but in this context has positive things to say, Edwards says of the unique judge-participant dynamic he has seen in his own Santa Clara drug court and in the years since his retirement spent working as a judge-in-residence for Californias Administrative Office of the Courts helping improve juvenile courts in Californias 58 counties.

Originally posted here:
A court without judgement