CHITTENDEN FAMILY TREATMENT COURT

Transcription

1 CHITTENDEN FAMILY TREATMENT COURT By Hon. Dean B. Pineles Presiding Judge of the Chittenden Juvenile Court and the Chittenden Family Treatment Court [For publication in the Vermont Bar Association Journal, 2004] Rachel (not her real name) is a 23 year old mother of two children: a girl, Mandy, age three and a boy, Damon, nine months. The father of the children is in jail, serving a sentence for domestic assault on Rachel. Late one afternoon, Mandy was observed by neighbors wandering unattended in the street as cars passed by. The police were called and the child was taken to safety. The police then went to Rachel s apartment and, after knocking loudly several times, looked through the half opened door and observed a young woman passed out on a couch with a syringe, spoon and other drug paraphernalia nearby. Damon was crawling on the floor in a soiled diaper. The police notified the Department of Children and Families (formerly the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services) and a social worker was sent to Rachel s apartment. Rachel was finally aroused and, as she began to grasp the situation, admitted that she was a heroin addict. The DCF worker called a judge who issued an emergency detention order placing the children into the state s custody. The DCF worker also arranged for an emergency foster home placement pending the outcome of the detention hearing which would be held the following day in Chittenden Family Court. Prior to the hearing the Deputy State s Attorney assigned to the juvenile division of Chittenden Family Court filed a CHINS petition (CHild In Need of Supervision) alleging that the children had been subjected to parental neglect which placed them at risk of serious harm. Attached to the petition were supporting affidavits from the investigating police officer and the DCF worker outlining the details of the previous day and providing additional information known to the police and DCF about Rachael, her children and the father. 1

2 At the detention hearing, Rachel appeared with court-assigned counsel. The children were represented by an attorney from the Public Defender s Office and a Guardian ad litem. The father appeared by phone from the correctional center. The state was represented by the Deputy State s Attorney who had filed the petition. At the hearing, the mother admitted that she had a serious substance abuse problem and needed help. She expressed a willingness to engage in treatment and any other services that would enable her to regain custody of her children. She did not contest the issuance of a detention order. She did ask that the children be placed with her mother who had been supportive of her and the children during her struggle with addiction. DCF had already contacted the grandmother and had determined that she was an appropriate placement. Mother agreed to have a substance abuse assessment with a licensed professional to determine the scope of her problem and the appropriate treatment. The court then scheduled a status conference two weeks hence. At the status conference, the court and the parties reviewed the substance abuse assessment which described Rachel s drug history and concluded that she was opiate dependant. The assessment recommended that Rachel engage in intensive outpatient treatment in the community. It also recommended that she consider a plan of methadone maintenance through the Chittenden Center in Burlington. Further, it recommended that Rachel participate in the Family Treatment Court. Rachel, with the advice of counsel, decided that these were reasonable recommendations and agreed to follow them. After the judge carefully explained her rights at this stage of the proceeding, she then entered a formal admission to the petition, agreeing that her substance-induced behavior had placed the children at risk. The court then adjudicated the children in need of care and supervision and set the matter down for a disposition hearing. The court, with Rachel s consent, issued an interim order incorporating the recommendations of the assessment. This allowed the case plan to begin at once, rather than waiting for the disposition hearing several weeks away. Among other things, the 2

3 order required Rachel to attend a drug court orientation with the Family Treatment Court case manager and one of the DCF social workers assigned to the drug court. At the orientation, which lasted for an hour and a half, Rachel was informed of the FTC s mission statement, which reads as follows: In order to achieve safety and permanency for children in a timely manner, and to facilitate recovery for parents, the mission of the Chittenden County Family Treatment Court is to provide intensive, comprehensive, long-term treatment and other needed services, on a voluntary basis, to substance abusing parents and/or other primary care givers who acknowledge in court that their substance abuse has adversely affected their children s safety and well being. She was then informed of the details of the drug court program. She was told that the program typically lasts for at least a year; that it is divided into three phases, each of which lasts at least three months; that during phase I she would be required to appear in court weekly and to submit to at least three drug tests each week; that she would be expected to follow her treatment plan and to attend at least three AA/NA meetings a week; that she would be rewarded for good performance and sanctioned for poor performance; and that she would be expected to sign an agreement, after consultation with her attorney, acknowledging the program requirements and agreeing to comply. Following the orientation, Rachel was given time to decide whether she wanted to enter the program. A couple of days later, after talking again with her attorney, she notified the DCF worker that she was interested in joining the program. Her decision was then communicated to the judge and, following a brief hearing, Rachel was accepted into the program. She was told to report for her first drug court session on the following Tuesday afternoon when drug court holds its regular weekly hearings. Prior to the drug court session that Tuesday afternoon, the drug court team met in chambers to discuss each of the twelve cases that were scheduled for hearing that day. The team consisted of the judge, the case manager, the Deputy State s Attorney, a representative of the Public Defender s Office, a Guardian ad litem, the DCF case 3

4 workers, a representative of Howard Center for Human Services on behalf of treatment providers, and the Chittenden drug court administrator. Attorneys representing the parents are welcome to attend, but are not required to do so. Each case was discussed in turn, with the case manager and DCF worker giving a brief summary of how each participant had done during the preceding week. The team was informed of the results of the drug tests, whether each participant had attended all the required treatment sessions and support groups, whether there had been any notable successes or failures in the person s life, and whether there were any issues regarding the children that had to be addressed. Not surprisingly, two of the clients had produced dirty urine screens. The team then discussed the appropriate sanctions and agreed that each of them would be admonished by the judge and would be required to write an essay by the following week describing the circumstances of the drug use, what strategies would be used in the future to resist the temptation and how a relapse could affect reunification. All decisions by the team are reached by consensus whenever possible, although the judge retains decision making authority. The team also learned that one of the participants had finally been accepted at the methadone clinic and another had been accepted into the Lund Family Center s residential program for young mothers. Yet another participant had learned that she was pregnant, while another had just achieved 90 days of clean time. Still another had completed all the requirements for Phase I and would be advancing to Phase II that day. The team concluded this staffing session by reviewing and approving Rachel s treatment plan. The court hearing then commenced. Each of the twelve participants, eleven mothers and one father, was present in the courtroom, including Rachel. One of them had a sick child with her who was fussy. The judge gave the child a stuffed animal which quieted her down. The judge then called each case in turn. Each participant was expected to come forward to a podium in front of the bench. The case manager and DCF 4

5 worker would then briefly summarize the client s progress and the judge would engage in a brief discussion with the person, either congratulating or admonishing as the case might be. The first case called was the mother who was moving to Phase II. The judge congratulated her on her progress and presented her with a certificate of completion. Everyone in the courtroom then clapped in acknowledgment of her achievement. She broke into a huge smile and thanked members of the team for their support. When the judge reached the first of the two clients with the dirty urine screen, the woman explained that she had not used any drugs and that she was mystified how her screen could be positive for opiates. She thought that it could have resulted from the poppy seed bagel she had eaten shortly before the test. Several of the participants in the back of the courtroom were shaking their heads back and forth, suggesting that this explanation was nonsense, as the judge knew already. The judge told the client that this explanation was unpersuasive and that true recovery from addiction involved honesty with oneself and others. The judge then imposed the sanction which had been discussed in chambers. Rachel s case was the last to be called. She approached the podium nervously, not knowing quite what to expect. The judge put her at ease, reviewed her treatment plan with her and welcomed her to the program. She was told that she would begin her urine screens immediately and would be expected to start her treatment program at once. The session concluded with cake and cookies to honor the woman who was advancing to Phase II. The Chittenden Family Treatment Court or FTC opened its doors a little more than two years ago in November As the above discussion indicates, a family treatment court (or drug court) is a problem-solving court, based on a therapeutic model of justice, as opposed to the traditional fact finding/decision making model with which most attorneys and judges are more familiar and comfortable. Its purpose is to enable parents with serious drug problems to establish drug free lives and, if possible, to be reunited 5

6 with their children. The stakes in these cases are very high. The children of drug addicts are typically removed from the home and placed in state s custody at the beginning of the case and remain there as the case unfolds. Under current law, the court is required to make permanency decision about placement within roughly one year. (1) If parents are not well on their way toward rehabilitation within that time period, they risk having their parental rights terminated. And a year is a very short time to conquer a serious drug addiction Drug courts are based on the premise that treatment works and that more treatment works better. A fundamental notion is that persons are more likely to comply with treatment if it is mandated by the court and if compliance is monitored through regular court hearings and frequent drug tests. Criminal drug courts began to emerge in the late 1980s out of frustration with the ineffectiveness of the traditional process of merely punishing rather than treating drug offenders. The movement spread rapidly across the country. In the mid-90s, drug courts began to develop for the juvenile delinquent population. More recently, the model has been applied to abuse and neglect cases in family court, targeting parents like Rachel. This is the population served by the Chittenden Family Treatment Court The growth of drug courts has been exponential. As of late 2003, there were almost 1200 operational drug courts in the United States. (2) Adult criminal drug courts and juvenile delinquency drug courts constituted the vast majority; only about 10% were family drug courts. (3) The remarkable growth of drug courts can be attributed to the fact that they have proven to be successful. Research, particularly in the criminal context, shows that these specialized courts have reduced criminal recidivism, saved millions of dollars in the justice system, increased retention rates in treatment, and have made treatment more affordable. (4) At present, Vermont has two operational criminal drug courts, one in Chittenden 6

7 District Court and the other in Rutland District Court, with others on the drawing board. The Rutland drug court was successful in its application for a three year federal grant. The only fully functioning family drug court is the Chittenden Family Treatment Court. There are ten key principles that define all drug courts: (5) * integration of drug treatment into case processing * use of a non adversarial approach to problem solving * early identification of potential drug court participants through substance abuse screening and assessment * availability of adequate treatment and rehabilitation services * monitoring of abstinence by frequent drug testing * use of incentives and sanctions in response to good and bad behavior * ongoing judicial oversight through regular court appearances. * ongoing evaluation to measure program effectiveness * interdisciplinary education and training * development of partnerships among the court, public agencies and community organizations to address the multitude of needs facing drug court participants. The Chittenden Family Treatment Court adheres to this set of principles. At any given time there are about a dozen participants in the FTC program, generally with representation in each of the three phases. Those in phase II and III come to court less often and have fewer urine screens. Over the two years of the program s existence, some 36 clients have been enrolled, all but two of whom were women. While the program welcomes men, the inescapable fact of life is that mothers are almost always the custodial parents, at least among the population served in the abuse/neglect docket. The participants tend to be young-- early 20s on average with one, two or three children. The drug of choice is often heroin or other opiates such as pain killers like oxycontin. Cocaine, benzodiazepine, marijuana and alcohol are also popular. While 7

8 drug addiction may be the problem that brings the case before the Family Court, it is usually only one of a multitude of problems. Often, the participant will be under supervision by the Department of Corrections because of a criminal conviction, usually drug related. She is likely to be the victim of domestic violence or sexual abuse. She often has a relationship with a drug user, who may or may not be in jail. She may also have serious health problems like hepatitus C, or mental health problems such as depression. There are almost always concerns about housing. If the participant has a residence, it is often in a drug-infested neighborhood. If the person is without a residence, she may be relegated to couch surfing with old friends who are still using drugs. Without stable housing, a treatment plan is much less likely to be effective. To address the housing problem, the Family Treatment Court has entered into an agreement with the Burlington Housing Authority whereby participants in good standing are entitled to local preference for section 8 vouchers. Also, in cases of financial need, participants can qualify for a grant through the Agency of Human Services to cover the security deposit. Several of the FTC participants have been able to take advantage of these services. The Family Treatment Court has also established linkages with other service providers in the community to assist participants in finding employment, going back to school, obtaining medical and mental health services, obtaining a license, ending a violent relationship, learning parenting skills and locating housing. One very important resource is the Lund Family Center in Burlington which has a residential program for young women and their children. In addition to a stable and safe residence, the program offers drug counseling, day care, parenting classes, transportation and other services. Many FTC participants have lived at the Lund Center with their children. Another important resource is Howard Center for Human Services. The FTC case manager is an employee of Howard. FTC participants can obtain substance 8

9 abuse assessments through HCHS, and can attend its individual counseling program or its Intensive Outpatient Program. The Chittenden Center methadone program is also under the auspices of HCHS in collaboration with the Day One program at Fletcher Allen Health Care in Burlington. There have been seven graduates who have successfully completed all phases of the FTC, including a husband and wife. Indeed, this couple was honored by the New England Association of Drug Court Professionals at its annual conference in Boston in August Another recent graduate was a workshop participant at the annual Vermont Substance Abuse Conference at Lake Morey in late October. She spoke eloquently about how the program had enabled her to become clean, to become a good mother to her children, to regain her self-respect and to have hopes and dreams for the future. She now plans to further her education. The team is extremely proud of all the graduates. Unfortunately, not every FTC case ends successfully. Indeed, about half of the participants end up quitting or being discharged at some point during the program. This usually occurs early in the program when it quickly becomes clear that the parent is just not ready to make the commitment to being clean and sober. While one would think that reunification with a child would be a powerful incentive, the addiction is sometimes even more powerful. Occasionally, discharge does not occur until much later in the program when it finally becomes apparent, after many chances, that the participant will not succeed. These can be painful decisions, given the time and effort invested in the participant. The Family Treatment Court remains a work in progress, even after two full years of operation. The participant population continues to present new challenges, virtually on a daily basis, requiring the team to rethink and refine is policies and procedures on an ongoing basis. Nevertheless, the team remains dedicated to the program and believes that the successful outcomes, some of which have been dramatic, will continue to outweigh the failures. There is nothing more gratifying 9

10 than seeing a parent work very hard over a prolonged period of time to regain a clean and sober lifestyle and ultimately be reunited with his or her child. Endnotes V.S.A.sec National Drug Court Institute, Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Courts, Vol. I, No. I, at1, Table I (May 2004). 3. Id. at 9, Table II. 4. Id. at Id. at 5, Figure I. Submitted by Dean B. Pineles, Presiding Judge of the Chittenden Juvenile Court and the Chittenden Family Treatment Court 10