Families in waiting: Adult stakeholder perceptions of family court Corey Shdaimah a,1 , Alicia Summers b,2 a University of Maryland School of Social Work, 525 W. Redwood St., Baltimore, MD 21201 b National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, P.O. Box 8970 Reno, NV 89507 abstract article info Article history: Received 10 April 2014 Received in revised form 3 June 2014 Accepted 3 June 2014 Available online 16 June 2014 Keywords: Family courts Dependency Delinquency Parent perspectives Judicial continuity This study examines perspectives of adults (primarily parents) who participated in juvenile delinquency or de- pendency hearings at the family division of the Baltimore City Circuit Court. Most respondents understood the court process, felt that their voices were heard, and were satisfied with their treatment. While the majority re- ported fair treatment, parents were more likely than non-parents to report that judges were sometimes or usu- ally unfair. Respondents with the same judge were more likely than respondents with multiple judges to feel that the judge cared about how they and their children were doing and less likely to feel that the judge does not know enough about the case to make a fair decision. These findings provide support for the one family, one judge docketing system, which was implemented in Baltimore's dependency cases. Observations and open-ended re- sponses revealed concern about the chaos and discomfort of the court waiting areas. Concerns included lack of seating, space or activities for young children, and food as well as stress, confusion, and long wait times. Study findings call for more attention to the environment, which impacts stakeholder experiences of and ability to func- tion optimally in the court process. © 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 1. Introduction 1.1. Baltimore City's model court In 2007, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City Juvenile Family/Juvenile Docket began implementation of model court practices (Dancy & Gary, 2008), which were also espoused by the Maryland's Foster Care Court Improvement Project (Foster Care Court Improvement Project, Dept. of Family Administration, & Administrative Office of the Court, 2007). Baltimore City was recognized as a Child Victims Act Model Court site in 2005 (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2013). The court worked to identify and implement those practices that were outlined in the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) Resource Guidelines (NCJFCJ, 1995) that were best suited to the needs and resources of Baltimore City. These Guidelines, designed to address the changing role and context of family court practice, which were influenced by both increasing caseloads and expanded statutory obligations in child welfare cases (p. 10), focused on court processes (p. 12). The Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Family Division/ Juvenile Docket, has jurisdiction over delinquency, child welfare, and guardianship/adoption (Kershaw, n.d.). It has three judges and eleven masters in chancery; in dependency cases, masters oversee the child in need of assistance matters while judges hear termination of pa- rental rights cases. In fiscal year 2011, 5166 new petitions were filed (Hargadon, Kershaw, & Hendrick, 2011). Sixty-six percent of these were delinquency petitions, 26% were child in need of assistance peti- tions (CINA), and eight percent were termination of parental rights petitions (TPR). The court held 58,409 hearings, of which 50% were de- linquency, 46% were CINAs, and four percent were TPRs. The courts saw a declining caseload over a five year period in 2011 that has continued into the present (Kershaw & Hendrick, 2013). It has also seen an in- crease in the proportion of delinquency cases relative to child welfare cases (CINA and TPR). Although the Baltimore City court adjudicates both dependency and delinquency matters, at that time they adopted model court practices only in dependency cases. These practices included efforts to reduce case backlogs in TPR hearings and the institution of a docketing system whereby the same judicial decision maker would hear CINA cases throughout the duration of the case, beginning from the first hearing after the emergency petition hearing, referred to as a shelter care hear- ing (Tanner, 2009). 1.2. Single judicial decision maker models as a best practice There is a small but growing literature on various model court prac- tices. One strain of this examines the single judicial decision maker model, which is generally referred to as the One Family, One Judge (OFOJ) model. Flango (2000), of the National Center for State Courts, has identified one judge, one family models where a single judicial decision maker hears a family's case from beginning to end, as one component of what she calls the “family friendly court.” Proponents of judicial continuity believe it fosters better decision making through Children and Youth Services Review 44 (2014) 114–119 E-mail address: cshdaimah@ssw.umaryland.edu (C. Shdaimah). 1 Tel.: +1 410 706 7544. 2 Tel.: +1 775 784 7570 (direct), +1 775 784 6012 (main); fax: +1 775 327 5306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.004 0190-7409/© 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Children and Youth Services Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth