Vol 3, No. 1 - Spring 2004

Inside This Issue:

Working at the Roots: The Link Between Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, and Animal Abuse

Interview with Judge Satterfield, D.C. Family Court

Greenbook Implementation Initiative Focuses on Collaboration in Dependency Courts

Building a Better Court:  Measuring and Improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in
Child Abuse and Neglect Cases

Resource Corner

Visit NCSC's Online Bookstore!

Titles include Developing a Domestic Violence Policy for the Workplace, 2003 Report on Trends in the State Courts, Problem-Solving Courts: Models and Trends, Caseflow Management: The Heart of Court Management ... and more.

We want your Feedback!

     The Family Violence Community of Practice would like to hear from you.  Do you have any suggestions for topics we should cover in the newsletter?  Just drop us a note so that we can better address the needs of the court community and those who serve families affected by domestic and family violence.  Contact: Madelynn Herman (mherman@ncsc.dni.us).

Working at the Roots: The Link Between Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, and Animal Abuse 1 
By Gregory Tooman

"I am sometimes asked, ‘Why do you spend so much of your time and money in talking about kindness to animals, when there is so much cruelty to men?' And, I answer, I am working at the roots." 2 
-- George Thorndike Angell (1823-1909), Attorney and Founder of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

The relationship between domestic violence and child abuse has been long studied and well documented. Less well understood is the relationship between animal abuse and these types of family violence. 

Given that there are no mandatory reporting requirements for animal abuse, large sample data and national statistics relating animal abuse to family violence are not known. However, a few studies have shown that animal abuse, child abuse, and family violence often occur together. 

The La Crosse, Wisconsin Community Coalition against Violence reported that among 72 women using domestic violence prevention services, 68 percent had seen their partners maltreating companion animals (that is, pets).3 

In a 1983 survey of families with substantiated child abuse and neglect, 60 percent of the respondents reported also having pets that were abused or neglected. The rate of reported animal abuse was highest (88 percent) in families where child physical abuse (rather than neglect) was present.4

Animal abuse among children has been related to the frequency of parent's use of corporal punishment, having been a victim of sexual abuse, or having witnessed domestic violence.5
Given the limited but provocative data showing the relationship between domestic violence, animal abuse, and child abuse, it appears obvious that signs of animal abuse should be considered a "red flag" indicator of wider family violence. In fact, one might go as far as to say that animal abuse should be considered a form of family violence. After all, 87 percent of American households consider a companion animal a "member of the family."6 

Responding to animal abuse as family violence is complicated by differing ideas of what defines animal abuse. Ascione suggests the following definition of animal abuse: "Socially unacceptable behavior that intentionally causes unnecessary pain, suffering, or distress to and/or death of an animal."7

All 50 states have some form of animal abuse laws. Most states categorize it as a misdemeanor offense, while thirty-six states have felony-level statutes for certain forms of cruelty to animals. The legal definitions of animal abuse, and even the types of animals that are covered by these statutes, differ from state to state.  Some only apply to specific acts, such as dog fighting. 

Combating the coexistence of animal abuse and other types of family violence must proceed on multiple fronts. Domestic violence shelters must become more accepting of companion animals that may accompany women and children. There are impediments to accepting animals at domestic violence shelters, however. Responsibility for the care and feeding of these animals, and the possible liability issues if another resident were to be harmed by someone's animal have led to great reluctance of shelters to take in animals. 

Requiring that the animal be boarded away from the shelter creates additional risks to the victim, such as the abuser becoming aware of the location of his alleged victim via open records obtained from the facility where the animal is boarded, or the possibility that the alleged abuser will demand the return of the pet, which is considered his "property" - and the subsequent abuse the pet as retaliation for the victim's leaving. The consequences of not providing a place for the animals of battered women is very real: forty-three percent of the respondents to a survey of domestic violence shelters in Ontario, Canada stated that concern over their pet's welfare prevented them from leaving the abusive relationship sooner.8

Since animal abuse can be an underlying factor in further family violence, veterinarians and animal shelters should be mandated reporters of animal abuse, with accompanying shield laws to protect animal care professionals from liability. Currently, only Idaho, Colorado and West Virginia have veterinarian mandatory reporting laws. The West Virginia law reads: "It is the duty of any licensed veterinarian and the right of any other person to report to a humane officer any animal found, reasonably known or believed to be abandoned, neglected or cruelly treated as set forth in this article, and such veterinarians or other persons may not be subject to any civil or criminal liability as a result of such reporting."9

Investigating animal abuse should become a routine part of the child protection system. The cross-training of animal control officers and child protection workers should occur so that signs of child abuse and animal abuse (respectively) can be uncovered in the homes they visit. Children's attorneys in dependency cases should also be more aware of the possibility that animal abuse is part of the home environment of an abused child. Boat suggests asking the following questions of children/youth who come from abusive environments:

"Do you ever worry about something bad happening to your pet or animal?"

"How many pets would you say you or your family has had?"

"Do you still have all of them?  If not, where are they?"10 

Once animal abuse has been uncovered, its existence should be routinely factored into the assessment of risk of imminent harm and safety when judges determine whether to place a child out of the home. And judges should be more aware of the deleterious effect that witnessing animal abuse has on children.

Companion animals should routinely become a part of protection orders, so that animals can be protected along with other family violence victims, and be placed out of the reach of the abuser. Statutes concerning protective orders should be amended to include companion animals as part of a victim's "essential personal effects" or "belongings."11

Animal abuse and other types of family violence should be tied together in court proceedings. State v. Bellows (1998, WL 173073, Wis. App.) tried a defendant for both child neglect and animal abuse. The appellate court affirmed that the two charges should be considered at one trial, finding that they were part of the same "act or transaction." This type of linkage should be routine, as currently animal abuse charges are often dropped in the plea bargain process.

Integrative approaches to the treatment of family violence are on the rise. Understanding the link between animal abuse and other forms of family violence is a missing piece of this puzzle, and must be addressed to fully serve those who have become victims, whether they are children, adults, or companion animals.

1  Portions of this article were taken from Harper, C.J., Tooman, G.D., & Rainey, J. "The Link Between Animal Abuse and Domestic Violence," Paper presented at the 25th National Children's Law Conference, The National Association of Counsel for Children, Orlando, Florida Sept. 28, 2002.
2  George Thorndike Angell, Autobiographical Sketches And Personal Recollections [a|c1892]
3  Ascione, F.R., Weber, C.V., & Wood, D.S. (1997).  The abuse of animals and domestic violence: A national survey of shelters for women who are battered.  Society and Animals, 5(3), 205-218.
4  DeViney, E., Dickert, J., and Lockwood, R. (1983). The care of pets within child abusing families.  International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems 4, 321-329
5  Flynn, C.P. (1999). Exploring the link between corporal punishment and children's cruelty to animals. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 971-981; Friedrich, W.N., Grambsch, P., Damon, L., Hewitt, S.K., Koverola, C., Lang, R.A., Wolfe, V., and Broughton, D. 1992. Child Sexual Behavior Inventory: Normative and clinical comparisons. Psychological Assessment, 4, 303-311; Ascione, F.R. (1998). Battered women's reports of their partners' and their children's cruelty to animals.  Journal of Emotional Abuse 1:119-133.
6   Hutton, J. S. (1983). Animal abuse as a diagnostic approach in social work. In A. H. Katcher and A. M. Beck (Eds.), New Perspectives on Our Lives With Companion Animals (pp. 444-447). Philadelphia, PA.: University of Pennsylvania Press.
7  Ascione, F.R. (1993). Children who are cruel to animals: A review of research and implications for developmental psychopathology. Anthrozoos, 6, page 228.
8  Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2000, September).  Press Release: Ontario SPCA Releases Disturbing Results of Women's Shelter Survey.  Newmarket, Ontario: Author.
9  West Virginia Code 7-10-4a, 1994.
10  Boat, B.W. (1999). Abuse of children and animals:  Using the links to inform child assessment and protection. In F.R. Ascione and P. Arkow (eds.) Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, and Animal Abuse: Linking the Circles of Compassion for Prevention and InterventionWest Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, pp. 83-100.
11  Gentry, D.J. (2001).  Including Companion Animals in Protective Orders: Curtailing the Reach of Domestic Violence.  Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 13(1), 97-116.

Gregory Tooman is a Research Associate at American Humane. For more information on the link between animal abuse and other types of violence, contact: The National Resource Center on the Link Between Violence to People and Animals, 63 Inverness Drive East, Englewood, CO 80112-5117, 877-LINK-222 (1-877-546-222), link@americanhumane.org.

An Interview with Judge Satterfield, D.C. Family Court
By Madelynn Herman

Since 2001, Judge Lee Satterfield has presided over the District of Columbia Family Court.  The Family Court has 31 judges (15 associate judges and 16 magistrate judges).  The D.C. version of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (DC ASFA) of 1997 and the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 have led to mandates that include the consolidation of dockets under the new Family Court and the establishment of case performance standards.

Q:  What has the D.C. Family Court done to improve the performance of courts' handling of child abuse and neglect cases? 

A:  The most critical thing that we have done to improve the performance of the courts handling of child abuse and neglect cases is to go to the one-judge/one-family management approach to family cases.  The one-judge/one-family model allows us to get a better picture of the family, which allows us to make more informed decisions.  In addition to dependency cases, we handle custody, support, divorce, juvenile, mental health, and civil domestic violence cases. There are no conflicting orders when we handle all these case types. 

Q:  What were your biggest challenges in getting the D.C. Family Court started?

A:  Our system was fragmented before.  One of our requirements was to consolidate all family court cases, which meant hiring more judges to hear cases.  In the beginning, space was our biggest challenge.  We were able to get quite a few judges on board right away.  We just did not have the physical space for them to sit.  Hearings had to be held in other rooms of the court complex.  We eventually renovated to create new hearing rooms to accommodate the new judges.  Finding resources to accomplish everything was also a challenge.  Most recently, we are implementing a new case management system in the Family Court that will also eventually be implemented in the entire court. Our new case management system began in August of 2003 and this is our most recent challenge.

Q:  In your opinion and experience at this time, how have the case outcomes for children and their families changed since the implementation of ASFA and the Family Court Act? 

A:  We have expedited the handling of cases in terms of resolving legal issues and getting to permanency issues faster.  Kids are not remaining in foster care as long.  We've added judicial officers and started a child protection mediation program which helps resolve legal issues before getting to court. We modified our court order forms to make them uniform, which assists in complying with ASFA requirements.  This helps speed permanency issues.  It also holds the child welfare agency more accountable.  We have also done quite a bit of training with the various stakeholders-social workers, GALs, lawyers, etc.  Additionally, we hold an annual inter-disciplinary conference with our third to take place this September.  The level of teamwork among the various agencies has increased a great deal which has improved case outcomes for children.

Q:  What have been your biggest successes thus far and the biggest challenges yet to resolve?

A:  Our biggest success thus far has been better collaborative relationships with stakeholders.  Some of our successful programs include a Family Treatment Court for substance abusing mothers--which was started last year, and a self-help clinic for pro se litigants involved in divorce and custody cases.  Our biggest challenge is to sustain the programs that we have created.  Funding issues are always a concern.  We must always be working toward 100% compliance with ASFA.  We must continuously evaluate our programs and make sure that what we're doing works before moving onto the next project. 

Q:  Do you have any advice or words of wisdom for other courts wanting to improve outcomes for children?

A:  Focus on certain principles that will guide you throughout the process-consider safety first and then permanency issues.  These principles should be aligned with dignity and respect for the people before you.  This should be done in the most expeditiously way possible, always providing for due process. 

Q:  If you were asked to recommend one single change for a court to implement that would improve outcomes for children, what would that one change be?

A:  I would say going to the one-judge/one family model.  Previously, the system was fragmented and judges had to buy into this new model.  But they have embraced it and it has helped them make better decisions, which has improved outcomes for children.

Greenbook Implementation Initiative Focuses on Collaboration in Dependency Courts
by Martha Wade Steketee

Can child protection services work with domestic violence service providers to enhance the safety of multiple victims in violent homes? Can courts protect children when their mothers are being battered without re-victimizing the mother? These issues have challenged courts for decades, and led to the development and release of a 1999 report, Effective Intervention in Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment Cases: Guidelines for Policy and Practice (the "Greenbook"), which provides recommendations to guide interventions for battered women and their children and the systems serving them, including child welfare agencies, domestic violence service providers, and dependency courts.

In early 2000, The Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), in collaboration with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), issued a "call for papers" to solicit proposals for projects from communities interested in implementing the Greenbook Guidelines. Ninety responses were received from states, regions, counties, and cities. Eleven community semi-finalists were invited to DC in June 2000, and representatives from the Federal funding agencies and the evaluation team conducted site visits in eight of these communities in September and October 2000. The project implementation demonstration sites were announced December 12, 2000: Santa Clara County (San Jose), CA; San Francisco, CA; Lane County (Eugene), OR; El Paso, County (Colorado Springs), CO; St. Louis County, MO; and Grafton County (Plymouth), NH. Each site was required to involve the local dependency court as well as the public child welfare provider(s), and domestic violence service provider "systems" in their applications. Different entities took the lead in these applications in the resulting initiatives: the local court in St. Louis and Grafton Counties, public child welfare in Lane, San Francisco, and Santa Clara Counties, and a domestic violence service collaborative in El Paso County.

The Greenbook Implementation Initiative has involved "groups of groups" (funders, technical assistance providers, evaluators, and interested others) from the project's beginning. The national and local efforts supporting this project continue to involve many parties by design and by necessity, acknowledging the complexities in dealing with the institutional, professional, and philosophical barriers to teamwork and decision making in cases where there is child maltreatment and battering of caretaker adults in the same family.

The Initiative is supported by a number of Federal agencies in the Department of Justice (Office for Violence Against Women, Office for Victims of Crime, National Institute of Justice, and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention), and in the Department of Health and Human Services (Children's Bureau and the Office of Community Services in the Administration for Children and Families; Division of Violence Prevention, Centers for Disease Control, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation). Foundation partners have included the David and Lucile Packard, Edna McConnell Clark, and Annie E. Casey Foundations.

A partnership to provide technical assistance to the project sites is led by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence Department, along with the Family Violence Prevention Fund and the American Public Human Services Association. These groups provide local and cross-site training and technical assistance to address individually identify project development needs as well as facilitating site visits to model programs around the country and other cross-site exposure to promising practices. Early evaluation results indicate that the sites credit this partnership as pivotal in success in the sites, demonstrating creativity, responsiveness, and flexibility in meeting local site needs.

The National Evaluation of this effort is now in its fourth year of funding, primarily from the National Institute of Justice. The partners in the implementation initiative evaluation include Caliber Associates (Fairfax, VA), Education Development Center (Newton, MA), and the National Center for State Courts. This team works closely with the Federal partners and the Technical Assistance providers. Staff members from the NCSC have been involved in the national evaluation of this initiative from its inception. The evaluation design includes both process evaluation and outcome evaluation components to measure the extent to which demonstration sites' collaborative efforts result in system change and improvements in safety, repeat abuse, and batterer accountability. The National Evaluation has one report completed and awaiting final release by the National Institute of Justice (covering the time period through June 2002), and a second report currently being drafted (covering the time period through June 2003). Some local sites have issued their own interim progress reports in the past two years.

For more information about the Initiative in general, check out the Initiative web site at: http://www.thegreenbook.info. Information about contacting the implementation sites can be obtained at this site.

For further information about the Greenbook National Evaluation, contact Martha Wade Steketee at 703-841-5614, msteketee@ncsc.dni.us

Building a Better Court: Measuring and Improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases
By Dawn Marie Rubio

Each year, three million children are victimized by parents or caregivers.1 One million children are confirmed by the investigating child welfare agencies as abused or neglected. Of these one million abused or neglected children, 15 percent require court intervention and oversight. At no time in recent history has the court played such a critical role in the safety, permanency, and well-being of abused and neglected children. Court decisions include the necessity of removal from the home, the length of time in foster care, whether the child will return home, and permanent residence.

Optimal court performance is essential for the court to effectively and efficiently make decisions of this magnitude. Without the ability to assess performance, establish performance benchmarks, and monitor progress, however, courts will be unable to achieve the system reform needed to meet the increasing caseload demands and, more important, improve outcomes for abused and neglected children. This is where the work of three distinctive, yet similarly-focused agencies, becomes significant.

Through a unique four-year partnership funded by the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, the National Center for State Courts, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and the American Bar Association's Center on Children and the Law worked together to build court capacity for performance measurement self-evaluation, and process improvement. The result of this coordinated effort is Building a Better Court: Measuring and Improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases a guide for courts to evaluate their effectiveness and efficiency in child welfare proceedings. Evaluation focus areas fundamental to court performance and court improvement listed in the publication include: performance measurement (to set up baseline performance indicators, identify areas for improvement, and monitor progress in meeting objectives and goals); and judicial workload measurement (to track current court judicial resources and related resources and plan for future resources to meet optimal court performance in child welfare cases). A key feature of the guidebook is that it is complementary to and strengthens current federal child welfare reform legislation and initiatives including the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (PL-96-272), the Children and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs), the state Program Improvement Plans (PIPs) , and the Court Improvement Program (CIP). After applying the concepts and utilizing the evaluation instruments identified in the guidebook, courts should have reliable measures of court performance and judicial workload in child welfare cases and the ability to develop further evaluation processes to monitor court improvement.

Building a Better Court: Measuring and Improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases will soon be available for purchase from NCSC's Web site bookstore. For more information about the project, contact Victor E. Flango, Director, Research Division, National Center for State Courts, gflango@ncsc.dni.us.

1  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Child Maltreatment 2000 (Washington, D.C.: Administration for Children and Families 2002).

Resource Corner
By Madelynn Herman

State-by-State Resources and Trends on Child Abuse

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, every day in the U.S. three children lose their lives due to child abuse. In the year 2000, an average of 2,400 children per day children were found to be victims of child abuse. Overall, one million reports of child abuse and neglect were substantiated in 2000 and 150,00 of those cases required court action. The courts have increasingly shown an interest in improving outcomes for child abuse and neglect cases and are doing this in part through increasing efficiency in processing dependency cases, monitoring of foster care cases more closely, and enhancing relationships with child protection agencies.

The resources provided below answer some of these questions. Does the definition of child abuse vary by state?  Which states allow public access to child abuse and neglect hearings? What is the major federal legislation on child abuse?Are there standards for excellence for child protective services? How can we improve court performance and judicial workloads in child abuse and neglect cases? How can dependency appeals be expedited? And what are some of the current trends in child abuse and neglect? 

The National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information provides a host of state-by-state information and resources, including:

• State Laws Related to Child Abuse and Neglect. 
• Statutes-at-a-Glance: Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect.
• Major Federal Legislation Concerned with Child Protection, Child Welfare, and Adoption. 

The Child Welfare League of America provides a host of excellent resources for child protection agencies and courts, including:

• Standards of Excellence in Child Welfare Services. 
• Foster Care in the Next Century.

Recent National Center for State Courts articles and publications include:

• Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton. "Developing Strategies for Courts to Help Move Children Quickly Through the Appeals Process."
• Victor E. Flango. Measuring Progress for Improving Court Processing of Child Abuse Cases. 
• Kay Farley. "Public Access to Child Abuse and Neglect Hearings."
• Judge Cindy S. Lederman. "Miami's Infant and Young Children's Mental Health Program: A Place Where the Healing Begins." 
• Ian M. Bowling. "Infant Abandonment and Safe Haven Legislation."

For additional resources on family violence-related topics see the NCSC CourTopic Database at: http://www.ncsconline.org/WCDS/Topics/topic1.asp?search_value=Family%20Violence To request information from the NCSC call 800-616-6164. To inquire about technical assistance, please contact Dr. Brenda K. Uekert at 757-259-1861.

National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue  Williamsburg, VA 23185
  1331 17th St., Ste. 402  Denver, CO  80202-1554 
2425 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 350  Arlington, VA  22201

Association Services  (800) 616-6165
Consulting  (800) 466-3063
Education  (800) 616-6206
Government Relations  (800) 532-0204
International Programs  (800) 797-2545
Publications  (888) 228-6272
Research  (800) 616-6109
Technology  (888) 846-6746
 
Information  (800) 616-6164
Subcribe to NCSC E-newsletters
www.ncsconline.org
webmaster@ncsc.dni.us
Copyright © 2003 The National Center for State Courts. All Rights Reserved.