Resources
Family Law: Child Support Dockets Benefit from Using Problem-Solving Court Principles
by Joy Ashton

AUTHOR’S NOTE: This article is a product of the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement’s National Judicial/Child Support Task Force, which is comprised of state and tribal child support enforcement directors, judges, court administrators, and other professionals who are working on collaborative planning between the OCSE and the courts to solve common problems and improve performance. It originally appeared in the Winter 2006 edition of NCJFCJ’s Juvenile and Family Justice TODAY. The Task Force is interested in hearing from courts that are using or want to use problem-solving techniques with their child support dockets. Please contact Joy Ashton at NCJFCJ, at jashton@ncjfcj.org or Larry Holtz, OCSE, at lholtz@acf.hhs.gov.

Many thanks to Judge Karen Adam, Tucson, Ariz.; Justice Maura Corrigan, Michigan Supreme Court; Judge Chester Harhut, Scranton, Pa.; Dennis Jones, National Judicial College, Reno, Nev.; Chief Magistrate Peter Passidomo, New York, N.Y.; and Judge Kristin Ruth, Raleigh, N.C., for their assistance with this article.

Problem-solving courts are dockets that bring together resources to address a specific problem. Some examples of problem-solving courts include adult drug courts, juvenile mental health courts, tribal drug courts, girls’ courts, family drug courts, and gun courts. In 2004, the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators passed Resolution 22, which supports the use of problem-solving court principles and methods in all courts. Those principles include:

1. Integration of treatment and rehabilitation services with justice system processing;
2. Team approach with judge as the team leader;
3. Ongoing, frequent judicial interaction with case participants;
4. Frequent monitoring of behavior and application of rewards and sanctions;
5. Partnerships with public agencies and community-based organizations to facilitate the delivery of services;
6. Strategic use of standard and alternative sanctions; and
7. Ongoing training of judges and staff.

Although problem-solving court principles are more usually associated with criminal cases, it is possible to be responsive to the Chief Justices and apply problem-solving court principles to child support dockets. By adapting several of these principles, courts can increase the amount of money collected for children, reduce arrearages, facilitate parental involvement in the lives of their children, and increase judicial job satisfaction. This article will describe some creative measures being implemented by problem-solving judges around the nation to help ensure that children receive the emotional and financial support of both parents.

According to President Judge Chester Harhut of Lackawanna County in Scranton, Pa., “Child support is not a stand-alone system and cannot be totally successful without taking a holistic view of other factors that affect some of our clients. Drug and alcohol, work issues, and custody and visitation disagreements must be addressed in order for some clients to become better non-custodial parents. In Lackawanna County, the judicial staff has taken a hard stance on non-payment of support, while also realizing that not all delinquent payers are “deadbeat” dads/moms. Some of them are facing difficult circumstances in their lives and need help, not harsh punishment.”

A key principle of problem-solving courts is ongoing judicial leadership, which includes a judge’s ability as community leader to convene meetings that will be attended by IV-D workers, the bar, community service providers, and other stakeholders who can collaborate in systems change.

Chief Magistrate Peter Passidomo, New York, N.Y., witnessed a successful collaborative process take place in his jurisdiction when the court and child support agency got together to write a bill “that both parties could live with” to implement telephone testimony. Telephonic hearings are permitted for those who live an hour or more away from the court and farther than an adjoining county, which has made people more involved and connected to a case and has resulted in better compliance. Participation was prohibited unless they had provided all financial documentation requested (tax returns, pay stubs, etc.).

Another facet of judicial leadership is case management. Judges who apply a problem-solving approach to their child support docket know that you don’t achieve success without investing some time in supervision and oversight. Judge Karen Adam of Tucson, Ariz., says, “The case management techniques I learned while serving as a juvenile court judge have served me well in my current assignment on the family law bench. Both caseloads demand judicial intervention and involvement, and the best results occur when a judge is willing to roll up her judicial sleeves and become actively involved in the progress of the case.”

Judges should exercise leadership in ensuring that child support is ordered in every type of case where it is appropriate. By taking the initiative to ask questions in dependency, delinquency, guardianship, and family law cases, judges can assure that the important issue of a child’s financial support is not overlooked.

Another principle of a problem-solving court is close monitoring of and immediate response to behavior. Judge Adam describes this process of regular review hearings: “Within the first week of my assignment to the family law bench, I began a process of scheduling regular review hearings at which I monitor the parties’ progress in staying straight and sober, honoring custody and parenting time orders, distributing debts and assets, and paying child support and spousal maintenance.”

“If orders are not obeyed, sanctions follow immediately,” says Judge Adam. “The sanctions range from…the imposition of a fine for late drop-off or pick-up or continued drug or alcohol testing to incarceration for contempt.”

According to Judge Kristin Ruth, who presides in the Child Support Courtroom in Wake County (Raleigh), N.C., “The key to the problem-solving child support courtroom is the need for frequent reviews of the cases and the consistency of having one or two judges who will spend the majority of the time with these parents. The consistency of the dispositions, getting to know the parents and following their progress is imperative to solving some of their problems and helping them fulfill their financial obligations.”

In Wake County, electronic monitoring has proven to be particularly cost effective. “Electronic house arrest provides a monitoring service by using an ankle bracelet to ensure the non-custodial parent’s participation in the conditions set forth in the judge’s order,” says Judge Ruth. “The judge orders that the parent be ‘hooked up’ to an ankle bracelet so that the parent’s location will be constantly monitored. The parent is allowed to go to work, substance abuse classes or employment program classes, but otherwise will be confined to the four corners of his or her house. This program has been very successful, as a violation of the EMS will result in the parent being arrested and taken to the county jail. Not only does this program provide motivation to work, but saves the county millions of dollars each year. The cost of the EMS program is approximately $10 per day and the cost of housing an inmate in the county jail is $68 per day!”

There is a saying, “Programs don’t change people; relationships change people.” Not only does close case supervision allow for quick interventions where needed, but it also allows the development of a relationship between the non-custodial parent and the judge. Parents who know they have to show up and report their progress to the judge on a bi-weekly or monthly basis are often highly motivated to fulfill their responsibilities. The judge knows the parent’s name, and his or her children’s names, takes an active interest in the case, and offers words of encouragement when appropriate.

“This system works particularly well in the child support establishment and enforcement arena,” says Judge Adam, “where the cases might otherwise be lost in the bureaucratic morass attendant to programs associated with government agencies. It is one thing to be dismissive of a case manager or collection agent, and quite another to face a judge every month and answer questions about child support payments, especially when the judge has offered assistance and support from the start.”

Other principles of problem-solving courts are integration of services with judicial case processing, multidisciplinary involvement, and collaboration with community-based and government organizations.

President Judge Harhut describes some of the services available in Scranton: “Lackawanna County Court and the Domestic Relations Section refer these clients to the Family Center for assistance. The Center does an assessment of the client and recommends the appropriate course, meeting or workshop. Programs such as the Fatherhood Initiative, Parenting Program, and Employment Services help the client to become a better non-custodial parent by assisting them in getting and maintaining a job, having supervised visitation, and referrals to other community resources.” Judge Harhut reports that two years ago, 60% of the non-custodial parents who completed the recommended courses significantly reduced their arrears and 14% maintained more consistent payments. The Center can assist clients to develop a parenting plan, set goals to maintain or increase child support, or improve their scores on parent profile/assessments. Judge Harhut attributes the success to “the collaboration with community-based organizations whose mission it is to help families in the crisis of separation or divorce.”

In Tucson, the Responsible Parent Program helps obligors obtain employment, improve their job skills, locate housing, and arrange transportation. If there are substance abuse, alcohol, or mental health issues, Judge Karen Adam makes the appropriate referrals, and tracks progress at the regular review hearings. As with other family law cases, the consequences of non-compliance are delivered swiftly and surely. If child support has not been paid as ordered, without good cause, the obligor goes to jail from the courtroom. Sometimes, it is simply the requirement of a court appearance every month or a payment every week that prompts an obligor to become compliant.

Raleigh’s Working for Kids (WFK) program offers employment-related assistance to non-custodial parents who are having difficulty making required child support payments. The judge will order the non-custodial parent to participate in the program, adhere to any requirements for drug testing or life skill classes, and follow through with any possible employer interviews. The program assists the parent in overcoming many barriers to employment, such as a criminal record, substance abuse, transportation issues and job skill requirements. If the parent refuses to participate, he or she will be sentenced to a period of incarceration.

Parties are often given assistance sorting out disputes about visitation. Judge Ruth says, “One of the most common complaints that I hear as a judge in the child support courtroom is that the non-custodial parent is not allowed to see his or her children. If a parent is allowed to see their child or children they may be more inclined to pay their child support.” Through the use of the local mediation service, Carolina Dispute Settlement Services (CDSS), Wake County collaborated with CDSS and created a free service to provide mediation for parents who wanted visitation with their child or children. If the parties could not agree to mediate, then CDSS provides a “self-help” visitation packet that enables the parent to file their own complaint with the court system without bearing the cost of legal fees. This has proved to be very helpful and successful in a court where any money needed to be spent should be for the children’s necessaries, not legal fees.

Justice Maura Corrigan, Michigan Supreme Court, recognizes that child support cases would benefit from a systemic change that facilitates collaborative settlements in family law cases. “Tinkering with child support formulas will do nothing to prevent the damage that our traditional adversarial process inflicts on a disintegrating family,” says Justice Corrigan. “Worse, courtroom warfare actually makes it less likely that the noncustodial parent will provide future financial and emotional support to the children.” On this point, many of the courts described in this article provide non-adversarial ways for parents to resolve their disputes and reach their own agreement about child support and parenting plans.

Job satisfaction comes from the knowledge that you have made a difference for children and families. A problem-solving approach helps to reduce judicial burnout by highlighting the success stories.

In Wake County, N.C., an excited young man with a big smile says, “Judge Ruth, I got a job!” He is standing up straight, his clothes are neat and he looks the judge in the eye. Without saying anything more, his smile tells the judge that he feels good about himself and is proud to be able to financially help his children and himself. For Judge Ruth, it doesn’t get any better than that. She says, “If you’re looking to take a pro-active role in the disposition of cases, provide alternatives to incarceration, make use of your local community resource programs, and increase total collections and consistency of payments, then I challenge you to step into the world of the ‘problem-solving’ child support court.”

Managing the child support docket as a problem-solving court is effective on many levels. Through judicial and child support collaboration with public and private partners, resources are brought to bear on child support enforcement. Child support is paid and children and parents have a chance at establishing and maintaining relationships that might not otherwise have been encouraged and fostered. And, last but not least, judges have the opportunity, through intensive case oversight, to see the positive results of their efforts. By following the example of these judges from around the country, it is possible to apply problem-solving principles to your child support docket and see the results.

Joy Ashton, B.A., LL.B., is the Director of the Juvenile and Family Law Department of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ). She is responsible for the oversight of over $3 million per year in federal funding to provide training, technical assistance and publications to judges and other court service professionals in the areas of juvenile delinquency and family law. Ms. Ashton’s background is in educational and legal environments. Before joining NCJFCJ 8 years ago, Ms. Ashton practiced law with an emphasis on family law and the representation of juveniles in the justice system. Ms. Ashton has extensive experience in facilitation, faculty development, and adult-learning processes. Ms. Ashton earned her Bachelor of Arts degree with Honors in English Literature from the University of Saskatchewan, College of Arts and Sciences, Canada, and her law degree from the College of Law, University of Saskatchewan.

Copyright 1999-2012, National Association of State Judicial Educators
Contact Web Developer