The Case for a Family Drug Treatment Court

Transcription

1 The Case for a Family Drug Treatment Court VAADA Conference February 2013 Dr. Stefan Gruenert CEO Odyssey House Victoria

2 The Problem There were over 3000 new applications for the protection of children in Victoria in Also more than 7000 secondary applications to extend or vary existing orders: this is a13% increase on the previous year. Lack of follow up, support and co ordination of treatment recommendations means that most parents do not comply Section 319, Children Youth and Families Act 2005 Children s Court may make a permanent care order if the child s parents have not had care of the child for a period of at least 6 months, or for periods that total at least 6 of the last 12 months Many applications therefore result in removal of children from parental care (often permanently).

3 The Problem The goal of family reunification recognised to be in the best interests of children, (in policy and by legislation), is rarely achieved. Around 50 70% of children placed in care via the Children s Court have one or more parents with an AOD problem Out of Home Care System is over stretched 44% increase in demand over 10 years, hard to recruit carers, more children placed with each carer Long delays in making a decision (around Permanency Planning) leads to poor outcomes for children, and shifting goal posts for parents On average, each child stayed in care for 18 months, some in 3 or 4 placements in a single year psychological impact of family separation

4 Vulnerable Children s Inquiry, 2012 The Vulnerable Children s Inquiry (Cummins, Scott, Scales 2012) found: a decline in stability of placements for children children are most vulnerable when parents have problems such as AOD, mental health and family violence further traumatisation can occur for families through the court processes due to the adversarial nature Recommendations included: need for specialist listings and docketing processes in Children s Court less adversarial model & strategies for better collaboration between AOD, CP and family services increased investment in reunification initiatives and more timely permanent care when reunification is not viable.

5 What is a Family Drug Treatment Court? Family Drug Treatment Courts (FDTC): are specialist non adversarial, problem solving courts for child protection cases where one or more parents misuse of alcohol and other drugs is a key issue for child safety & wellbeing have a central goal of achieving reunification of families, or earlier permanency decisions if this fails provide parents with intensive support, treatment and comprehensive access to services for the whole family usually involve Stabilization, Rehabilitation, Re unification, Consolidation phases which culminate in a Graduation

6 Elements of FDTC Programs Diverse range of programs but common elements include: 1 year voluntary programs parents understand what they are signing up to Holistic Assessments, Drug testing, Sanctions & Rewards, Strength Based A skilled Team of multidisciplinary professionals Including child and adolescent psychiatrists, lawyers, AOD Caseworkers Links to AOD outpatient and some residential treatment programs Links to a range of other services including FDV, housing, relationship counselling, MH, health, child care, education etc

7 Elements of FDTC Programs Use of a docket system (1 person from start to finish) for monitoring and review Magistrate has a direct relationship with parents through frequent hearings/reviews Some also include use of: NA/AA Parents/Graduates as Peer Mentors

8 FDTC Outcomes Operate successfully in USA and UK Over 300 Family Drug Treatment Court programs throughout the United States (Huddleston and Marlowe, 2011), and one program in the UK USA typically greater use of AA, lawyers, residential treatment, sanctions and rewards, and cases come later to Court. UK used 12 month supervision orders following graduation No Family Drug Treatment Courts in Australia, although 10 Criminal Drug Courts in 2011 Research (Oliveros & Kaufman, 2011) indicates they are more effective than business as usual in terms of: 1) savings due to a reduced use of Foster Care 2) increased chance of parent s recovery from AOD 3) chance of reunification of child with parents

9 FDTC Outcomes Marlowe and Carey s (2012) review found that FDTC participants: were twice as likely to go to treatment had 20 to 30 percent higher completion rates children spend significantly less time in out of home care placements, such as foster care. family re unification rates were 20 to 40 percent higher had 33% fewer arrests with drug charges over time when compared to control groups

10 What s Next? A Steering Group is developing and advocating for a FDTC within the Children s Court of Victoria Proposing a 3 year pilot with a Comprehensive Evaluation 50 Families per year, 1 new family per week Court to operate 1 day per week from existing Infrastructure Minister Wooldridge expressed that the Government is considering it Already some commitment to provide staff from existing resources (CP and AOD) and links to services

11 Acknowledgements Much of this presentation is based on: The Winston Churchill Fellowship (2011) of Magistrate Gregory Levine (with Barbara Kamler) A Study of Family Drug Treatment Courts in the United States and the United Kingdom: Giving parents and children the best chance of reunification Melbourne Advisory Group Members including: Annette Jackson; Fran O'Toole; Leah Hickey; Robyn Miller; Cath Williams; Elisa Buggy; Kasey Tyler; Kylie Kilgour; Stefan Gruenert; David Best; Judy Small; Paul Bird