Expediting Dependency Appeals:
Strategies to Reduce Delay

Effective Practice

As trial courts become more cognizant of children's needs, they have reduced time standards for dependency cases.  Only recently, however, has attention turned to appeals involving children.  Appellate courts are now streamlining procedures for handling dependency cases. 

Issues

1. What types of dependency cases should be included in an expedited process?  

2. How can states implement an expedited process?

3. What type of legal process do states use to expedite dependency appeals?

4. What stages in the appellate process cause significant delay?

Implementation

Case types that may be classified as dependency appeals include termination of parental rights, adoption, abuse and neglect, custody, children in need of assistance, domestic violence actions with custody issues, guardianship of a minor and visitation appeals.  Many states expedite more than one case type.  In fact, most states expedite two or more case types, and many expedite any appeal that involves a child-related issue. 

The National Center for State Courts has developed a guide, "A Process for Expediting Dependency Appeals," that outlines the steps a state may take to implement an expedited process for dependency appeals.  The guide describes the following eight steps for assembling a task force and developing strategies to reduce delay during all stages of an appeal - from notice of appeal to final decision:

1. Assess the Appellate Environment

2. Appoint a Leader

3. Assemble a Task Force

4. Develop a Plan

5. Draft a Rule

6. Implement Internal Operating Procedures

7. Consider Strategies to Improve

8. Review and Refine the Process

The legal process each state uses to expedite dependency appeals may be an internal operating procedure (IOP), court rule, statute, or even a constitutional amendment.  States that use an internal operating procedure (twenty-one states) report that the process is more flexible and specific aspects of the process may be assigned to specific individuals.  States that have formalized an expedited process with a court rule (twenty-three states), statute (fifteen states), or constitutional amendment (one state) chose those options to ensure that appeals are routinely and formally expedited by law.  However, many of the rules and statutes are written in vague terms; for example, "a termination of parental rights appeal should be expedited," without guidance as to how the expedition should be conducted.  Some states have more than one legal process.  For example, Georgia has a constitutional amendment, state statute, and internal operating procedures.

Specific aspects of the appellate process that produce delay and should be addressed include production of the transcript and record, briefing schedules, continuances, calendaring, oral argument and conferencing, decision writing and issuance of the decision.

History of Use/Replication

The appellate process, like many current lower court practices, is steeped in tradition.  While many of the traditions work very well for the vast majority of appeals, the same traditions may damage children involved in dependency and neglect appeals.  Appellate courts are beginning to set aside some established procedures while developing special methods to expedite dependency cases.  Appeals concerning relinquishment, adoption, dependency, and abuse and neglect cases are being expedited in many courts by limiting time extensions and setting specific time goals to ensure the appeal is resolved within a prescribed, short period of time.

Forty-three states currently report at least some aspects of an expedited appellate procedure.  Six states report not having any type of expedited appellate procedure, and one state reports that an expedited procedure is pending implementation.

Evaluations

Keith, Ann L. and Flango, Carol R. Expediting Dependency Appeals:  Strategies to Reduce Delay, Williamsburg, Virginia:  National Center for State Courts, 2002.

Contacts

Carol R. Flango, Knowledge and Information Services Director, National Center for State Courts, 757-259-1886, cflango@ncsc.dni.us.

Ann L. Keith, Court Research Associate, National Center for State Courts, 757-259-1589, akeith@ncsc.dni.us.

Further Reading

Keith, Ann L. and Flango, Carol R.  A Process for Expediting Dependency Appeals.  Williamsburg, Virginia: National Center for State Courts, 2002.

Wawrose, Susan C. "'Can We Go Home Now?'  Expediting Adoption and Termination of Parental Rights Appeals in Ohio State Courts."  Juvenile Appellate Practice and Procedure 4 (Forthcoming Spring 2002).

Hoffman, Richard B.  and Mahoney, Barry.  Managing Caseflow in State Intermediate Appellate Courts: What Mechanisms, Practices, and Procedures Can Work to Reduce Delay?  Denver, Colorado: Justice Management Institute, 2001.

Adoption and Permanency Guidelines:  Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases.  Reno, Nevada:  National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2000.

Hanson, Roger A. Appellate Court Performance Standards and Measures.  Williamsburg, Virginia:  National Center for State Courts, 1999.

Hardin, Mark, Rauber, Diane Boyd, Lancourt, Robert, Hemrich, Veronica E. (Ed.).   State Court Assessments, 1995-1998:  Dependency Proceedings, v. 4 Timely Judicial Decisionmaking.  Washington, D.C.: ABA Center on Children and the Law, 1999.

Rauber, Diane Boyd, England, Sharon S., Hemrich, Veronica H (Ed.).  Court Improvement Progress Report, 1999.  Washington, D.C.:  ABA Center on Children and the Law, 1999.

Stratton, Evelyn Lundberg.  "Expediting the Adoption Process at the Appellate Level."  Capital University Law Review 28 (1999): 121-139.

The Vermont State Initiative on Protecting Abused and Neglected Children:  A Plan to Achieve Permanence for Abused and Neglected Children in State Custody/ submitted to the Vermont Supreme Court.  Vermont:  State Initiative on Protecting Abused and Neglected Children, 1997.

Hanson, Roger A. Time on Appeal.  Williamsburg, Virginia:  National Center for State Court, 1996.

Resource Guidelines:  Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases, Reno, Nevada:  National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1995.