Juvenile Court: Then and Now

Hon. Bernadette Conway
CAJ Juvenile Matters
1 Court Street
Middletown, CT
Bernadette.Conway@jud.ct.gov
Early American Juvenile Jurisprudence

1640’s—Massachusetts Stubborn Child
Law:
“if any child or children above sixteen
years old, and of sufficient understanding
shall CURSE or SMITE their natural
FATHER or MOTHER he or she shall be
put to death, unless. . .the Parents have
been very unchristianly negligent in the
education of such children. . .”
Old v. New: Discussion Points




How do we define child? Sixteen years old =
‘stubborn child’ in 1640. Now under eighteen
years old with RTA legislation; suit of armor v.
fMRI’s
Educational neglect defense available in 1640 v.
Juvenile Court’s involvement in educational
issues in 2013
The broadening definition of parent from
‘natural parent’. Permanent Guardianship,
Adoption
Death penalty for a 1640 status offender v.
developing and strengthening parent-child bond
in 2013
Modern Juvenile Court
“Juvenile Court is the original problem-solving
court. . . Originated as a reform, the juvenile court
combines social and legal attributes to serve public
interests related to children and families. It was
founded in recognition that children are different
from adults, and that the law should address
children’s issues from a perspective that
acknowledges those differences. The juvenile court
was envisioned as the setting where societal
intervention on behalf of children would take place
if parenting had failed to ensure that children are
properly raised. The hallmark of juvenile court is
individual justice. . .” Judge Leonard P. Edwards
(orig, pub. 1992)
Raise the Age Legislation

Fully operational as of July 1, 2012.
Sixteen years old (since 2010) and
seventeen years old (in 2012) have been
fully absorbed into the juvenile court
system. Better outcomes. Next slide
shows recidivism rate and is defined as
any new arrest or referral to court,
including status offenses AND criminal
charges in adult court.
Mental Health

Detained JJ children in need of a
psychiatric evaluation at Solnit (Riverview)
now have an average wait of ten days.

Having a clinical coordinator in every
court streamlines identifying and
addressing the mental health / emotional
needs of JJ pop.

Pre-adjudication intervention available;
participation voluntary.
Traumatized Children

TARGET psychoeducation for emotion
regulation

Trauma Focused-Cognitive Behavior Therapy

Entering MOA with DCF to establish learning
collaboratives for all juvenile courts with
targeted providers

In the community: Invaluable collaboration
with EMPS: (44% increase in EMPS utilization
at SBDI schools); EMPS mobile crisis utilization
tripled, while ambulance calls decreased by up
to 22%
JJJ Strategic Plan Stakeholders
Ongoing work with Local Interagency Service
Teams (LISTS)
 Youth Service Bureaus
 Juvenile Review Boards
 Judicial beginning to share JJ population data
with SDE to better service JJ kids as they
transition back into community
 Judicial alerting DMHAS about 16 year olds
allows a two year head start for transition
purposes
 Juvenile Information Sharing Guide on Judicial
website

Early Intervention Program

Judicial and DCF established MOA for
program, effective October 1st, targeting
twelve year old and younger population
referred for status offenses or delinquency

National and state research shows that the
key indicator for recidivism is the age of first
referral

Focus on accessing needing services for
child and family through Probation or DCF,
especially educational supports, to divert
from court
School Based Arrests

Judicial collaborating with many others and
enlisting the assistance of CHDI to decrease
SBA

Results of data from initial sample of
participating SBDI schools in SYs 2010-2012
show a 50-69% decrease in SBA per school and
an average decrease of in-school suspensions of
9% (out of school suspension 8%)

Data from all 17 participating schools for SY
2012-2013 reflect a 19% decrease with one
inner-city school enjoying a 92% decrease
Permanent Guardianship

Enhances permanency and therefore
stability for the child and his/her family

Permits ongoing contact when
appropriate between child and bio
family without threat of reinstatement
litigation

Alternative permanency plan to TPR
Adoption

A happy and seamless transition from
probate court

National Adoption Day: Nov. 22nd

Goal to conduct at least one adoption
hearing in every juvenile court in CT on
Nov. 22nd
Moving Forward

Continue to work with various stakeholders to
obtain the optimal outcome for every juvenile
court involved child in CT (individualized justice as
defined earlier)

Learning, and when appropriate, integrating into
judicial policy and procedure new advances in social
and neuro science (societal intervention—the
armor v. fMRI)

Ongoing data collection and analysis sets up
‘problem solving’; core function of juvenile court

Three Branch Initiative launch in 2014—mission to
work on permanency, supportive housing and
mental health
PRESENT DAY CHILD PROTECTION
Questions?