Strategies to Reduce Delay Second Edition BY Ann L. Keith and Carol R. Flango KF 547 K45 2003 KF 59 3 K45 200 3 c.3 I Strategies to Reduce Delay Second Edition BY Ann L. Keith and Carol R. Flango Library National Centor fcr State Courts 300 Ncwpcrt Ave. Williamsburg, VA 23 185 This paper has been published by the National Center for State Courts -- to present current work from the organization’s staff, developed in cooperation with the courts and court leadership organizations. Support from the states along with seminar and conference fees, grants, contracts, and private support fund the mission of NCSC-to help courts r17zprovingthe ad’7zinist1~ationOf improve judicial administration by providing information, research, .justice through leadership and education, and consulting services. For more information visit NCSC’s service to state courts Web site at www.ncsconline.org. 0 2002, 2003 National Center for State Courts All rights reserved. First edition 2002 Second edition 2003 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, VA 23 185-4147 Web site: www.ncsconline.org ISBN: 0-89656-229-8 The first edition of this book was developed by the National Center for State Courts under a grant From the State Justice Institute (No. SJI-00-N-209). The points of view expressed do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Center for State Courts or the State Justice Institute. Expediting Dependency Appeals: Strategies to Reduce DeOay Second Edition PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FOREWORD TO THE FIRST EDITION INTRODUCTION SECTION I: PROJECT OVERVIEW SECTION II: PROMISING PRACTICES IN EXPEDITING PERMANENCY: EIGHT STEPS 1. Assess the Appellate Environment 11. Appoint a Leader 111. Assemble a Task Force 1V Develop a Plan c/: Drafta Rule VI. Implement Internal Operating Procedures VI/. Consider Strategies to lmprove the Appellate Process Vlll. Review and Refine the Process SECTION 111: STATE COURT HIGHLIGHTS APPENDIX A: STATE AND TRIAL COURT CONTACTS APPENDIX B: TELEPHONE SURVEY APPENDIX C: A PROCESS FOR EXPEDITING DEPENDENCY APPEALS APPENDIX D: STATE STATUTES AND COURT RULES APPENDIX E: IOWA’S PETITION AND RESPONSE FORMS I i www.ncsconline.org 0 iii Advisory Committee for the First Edition The Honorable Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Chair Alexander McNeil Justice Court Administrator The Supreme Court of Ohio The Appeals Court 30 E. Broad Street. I500 New Courthouse Columbus, OH 43266-041 9 Boston, MA 02108 Leslie D. Gradet Edward McSweeney National Conference of Appellate Court Clerks Staff Attorney Maryland Court of Special Appeals Vermont Supreme Court 36 1 Rowe Boulevard 109 State Street Annapolis, MD 21301 Montpelier, VT 05609-0801 Cy Gurney, MSW The Honorable Justice Charlotte Annc Perrctta Regional Administrator Commonwealth of Massachusetts North Carolina Guardian ad Litem Services Division The Appeals Court Superior Court Judges Chambers 1500 New Courthouse Durham County Judicial Building, 6th Floor Boston, MA 02 108 201 E. Main Street Durham, NC 27701 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Members Mary V. Mentaberry The Honorable Sharon McCully Director Third District Juvenile Court Permanency Planning for Children Department 450 S. State Street, Suite 209 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Salt Lake City, UT 841 14-04431 PO. Box 8970 Reno, NV 89507 National Center for State Courts Ted Rubin Carol R. Flango Consultant Project Director Toni Knorr Ann L. Keith Program Specialist Court Research Associate Deborah Siege1 Dawn Rubio Intern Senior Court Management Consultant State Justice Institute Ohia Grant SJI Project Monitor 1650 King Street, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 223 14 iv + Expediting Dependency Appeals The National Center for State Courts and the State Justice Institute originally published Expediting Dependency Appeals: Strategies to Reduce Delay in fall 2002. One thousand copies were distributed to the chief justices, state court administrators, and court improvement coordinators in every state. An online version was also published on the National Center’s Web site: www.ncsconline. org/WC/PubIications/KIS-ExpDepAppealsPub.pdf. Because of the urgent need to share effective strategies that reduce the time children spend with- out a permanent home, the National Center has updated the first edition to include revised court rules and procedures states have shared with our project since its first release. This second edition of Expediting Dependency Appeals: Strategies to Reduce Delay includes revised rules and forms from Iowa’s unique appellate procedures for children in need of assistance (CINA) and termination of parental rights (TPR) cases. We also welcome Idaho to the company of forty-three states that use aspects of an expedited appellate procedure for cases involving children. We encourage states to share their progress in expediting dependency appeals and will post accomplishments on the National Center’s Web site. For example, the Michigan Court of Appeals’ Dependency Appeals Work Group recently proposed significant reforms in court rules and adopted reforms in their appellate practices. As a product of Michigan’s concerted efforts to address this criti- cal area, the court of appeals has reduced its time to dispose of these cases by forty-six days. We hope that state courts and those who are dedicated to ensuring permanency for children will find this second edition helpful in reducing the time children spend in limbo before crossing the threshold into permanent homes. www.ncsconline.org + v D This report on expediting dependency appeals is the result of a collaboration between the National Center for State Courts and the State Justice Institute, with information, contributions, and assislance fiom the appellate courts in all fifty states (see Appendix A). The project’s advisory committee included representatives from state supreme courts, intermedi- ate appellate courts, a juvenile court, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. The committee analyzed surveys of the state courts and developed a process for appellate courts to use when implementing an expedited procedure for dependency appeals. In addition to the conimittee members and state court contacts, the following individuals contributed their expertise and experi- ences: Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye of the New York Court of Appeals contributed suggestions to the process for expediting dependency appeals and included the project on the Conference of Chief Justices’ Child Welfare Committee’s agenda, and Connie Crim, clerk to Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Supreme Court of Ohio, assisted with the coordination and communication between the National Center and Justice Stratton. The authors would also like to express their appreciation to the Appeals Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for their hospitality during the project’s site visit-in particular, to Associate Justice Charlotte Anne Perretta, Chief Judge Christopher Arnistrong, Court Administrator Alex McNeil, Clerk of Court Ashley Ahearn, and Assistant Clerk Chris Micchia. Dr. Victor E. Flango, vice-president of the National Center, presented the importance of outcome measures to the project’s committee and participated in the site visit to the Appeals Court of thc Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Bill Hewitt, principal court research consultant at the National Center, contributed ideas and suggestions to the project regarding transcript and record production. The National Center’s Education and Technology Center’s Ray Foster and Kevin Mittler answered technical questions about courtroom technology for the committee during their meeting in Williamsburg. Sara Lewis and Chuck Campbell copyedited the final publication and coordinated its printing. Finally, we are very gratehl for the State Justice Institute’s support and to Ohia Grant, project monitor, for her help, guidance, and enduring patience to see this project to completion. vi 0 Expediting Dependency Appeals We are very pleased to present the final report on Expediting Dependency Appeals: Strategies to Reduce Delay. This project has been exciting and rewarding, as we have studied what different states are doing to expedite appeals while, at the same time, challenging the states to get started now if they do not have such an effort already under way. The federal government enacted the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) in 1997 to reduce the length of time courts take to find permanent homes for children removed from the custody of their birth parents. The goal is to prevent these children from languishing in the foster care system. Although the focus of the ASFA legislation is on the trial court level, the appeals process is part of the permanency process. An appeal may considerably extend a child’s placement in foster care. While several months or a year may seem a reasonable period for an appeals process to an adult, it is an eternity in the life of a child. Because we recognized the delay in permanency an appeal can cause, we wanted to study the efforts states have already undertaken. How did they get started? What were their roadblocks? How did they succeed? This report is the result of that research and, hopefully, a useful tool that you can use to start your efforts or improve your existing plan. It is a labor of love because the lives of these children are so precious and their moments in childhood must not be wasted. Please join me in meeting this challenge. The Honorable Evelyn L. Stratton Justice Ohio Supreme Court www.ncsconline.org vii Expediting Dependency