Pima County’s Dependency Alternative Program (DAP)

1. Pima County’s Dependency Alternative Program (DAP) AADCP PROBLEM SOLVING COURT CONFERENCE March 29, 2019 Presented by: Stacey Brady JD, Division Director, Children and Family Services Pima County Juvenile Court Center Hon. Kathleen Quigley, Presiding Judge Pima County Juvenile Court Center Jenny Zelt, Supervisor, Family Drug Court Program Pima County Juvenile Court Center

2. PROBLEM SOLVING REQUIRES ACTION Identify a need in your community that could be addressed through collaboration. Make sure to recognize that the system can bend to the needs of the individual family versus the family bending for the system (Importance of family-centered, family empowering, and culturally competent programs). Identify and commit to taking the first step to address your community’s need.

3. What is a Dependency: DCS or a Private Party believes the child is unsafe in the parents’ care and files a petition. • Court/DCS involvement • Attorneys are appointed for each parent/guardian and the children • Behavioral health service provider assigned to each child through rapid response and often parents/guardians are enrolled with a behavioral health provider

4. Dependency Alternative Program (DAP) Goals • DAP is NOT intended to provide a short-term “band-aid” by putting temporary orders in place if a parent who is unsafe wants to continue parenting their child(ren)…that needs to be a services and likely dependency case with a reunification case plan. • The Program is NOT intended to be a free “legal clinic”. If there are not safety factors but a family is considering changing custody, they have the ability to utilize options at Superior Court downtown. • To prevent dependency actionswhen an alternative legal arrangement can provide safety and stability for the children and family. • To keep families out of the dependency system for at least one year.

5. Dependency Alternative Program: Why? • The DAP Program can provide a non-dependency alternative when all parties agree a custody change would provide safety and stability • Approx. 20% of the 1,351 dependency petitions were dismissedpre-adjudication in 2014. • 90 Pre-adjudication dismissal cases reviewed: • 41 closed with placement with a safe parent with parenting plan orders • 10 closed with an non-parent caretaker. • 13 private petitions with various outcomes • 17 DCS agreed to dismiss • 9 no dependency found following a trial

6. DAP:Outcomes – Case Studies First Case: DAP 2015001 (Judge Quigley) Arizona Kinship Support Services referral. Paternal grandmother filed a private dependency petition. Indian Child Welfare Case. Father in jail and mother did not want to parent children. All agreed to a Title 14 guardianship with grandmother. The family is still being served by AKSS Kinship Navigation Services.

7. DAP:Outcomes – Case Studies • DCS referral. • Child was a prior dependent child. • Both of the minor’s parents were deceased, and the minor was living for a period of years with a family friend. • The child had behavior health needs and the family friends were unable to legally authorize treatment for the child, or obtain medication. • There was no dry eye in the courtroom! The family reported that prior court experiences had been negative and difficult to deal with. They had a positive experience with DAP. • Title 14 guardianship orders were issued. • The successful resolution prevented a DCS dependency petition. • The case manager also had a positive experience and referred additional case.

8. DAP:Outcomes – Case Studies • DAP 20016008. DCS referral. • Parents are divorced with legal decision-making and parenting time orders. Parenting time is every other week. • Mother, a self-represented litigant, attempted to obtain a post-decree modification which was denied. • DCS received a report of physical abuse by the father. • DCS provided in-home services for a month and then referred to DAP. • DCS and parents participated in a settlement conference. All agreed to temporary orders for a modification with a return session in three months. • Return session held. Final parenting plan orders were issued.

9. DAP:Outcomes – Case Studies • DAP Stacey • Private petition filed by young adult brother regarding his minor sister. Modified temporary orders were issued. • The mother recently passed away, and the father lived out of state. The father did not have a good relationship with his children and had not exercised parenting time for a period of time. • The father, adult brother and minor appeared for DAP and participated in a shuttle settlement conference. Supportive kinship also appeared. • All agreed to a Title 14 guardianship. • Orders were entered and the dependency was dismissed. • Approximately 1 year later, the family appeared in court to ask that one of the kinship who appeared at DAP take over as Title 14 guardian.

10. These steps occur prior to adjudication and our research found it took an average of 141 days (almost 4 months)

11. DAP:Outcomes – Case Studies • DAP 2016012 (Jennifer) • Private petition filed by maternal grandmother and step-grandfather of two young children. • The mother and the fathers lived out of state. One putative father was incarcerated and had not established paternity. • The children had been living with the grandparents. • The mother and father of the youngest child planned to move to Arizona after completing rehab for substance abuse issues. • In Loco Parentis orders were issued, and the dependency was dismissed. • Follow-up publication hearing was scheduled.

12. Dependency Alternative Program: Why? • Pre-Adjudication dismissal is costly in time, money, and resources for the Court, DCS, service providers, and families. • Issues that brought the family to the attention of DCS were not being addressed • Access to Justice • Silo Court System v. Integrated Approach • Assisting self-represented litigants navigate the court system • DCS decision-making timelines

13. Dependency Overview • Through the parents’ and family’s eyes: • Subjected to an involuntary process that disempowers them in making decisions regarding their children’s welfare • Through the children’s eyes: • Suddenly there are system-imposed rules that interfere with normal activities and relationships • Through the systems’ eyes (Court & DCS): • Unnecessary cases in the dependency process results in less time for families who need Court and DCS attention, time, and resources. • Multiple hearings are required by law. • DCS must write multiple court reports and attend hearings and staffings, and meet with family and children regularly, where DCS intervention at this level is ultimately not necessary to ensure child safety • Increase in caseload sizes, impacting the ability to practice family-centered case management

14. A DAP case lasts an average of 7.0days from referral • vs. • a dependency case that lasts an average of682days if dismissed post-adjudication • and 141 days if dismissed pre-adjudication.

16. DAP Referral Sources

17. Day of DAP: Process • Families with kinship placements meet with AZ Children’s Association to assesses for services and inclusion in the Family Group Decision-Making (FGDM) study. • Families meet with an advisory attorney who advises on legal options, explains the process, and answers legal questions. • Families and professionals participate in a mediation, if needed, to negotiate a resolution. • If a full agreement is reached, the attorney assists with preparation and filing of legal documents. The Clerk’s office has modified filing procedures to accommodate DAP.

18. Day of DAP:Process The Hearing: • A hearing is held only if a full agreement is reached • Not intended for contested matters • Proceed to dependency process if no agreement is reached • If private dependency, petitioner moves to withdraw petition • Final or temporary orders After DAP: • Follow-up hearings and return settlement conferences, if needed • Court case file is flagged for data follow-up • AKSS offers kinship navigation services and FGDM for kinship placements • DCS case specialist keeps case open for two months for oversight and some supportive services

19. Day of DAP: Outcomes • DCS Referrals • A custody change between parents that satisfies the safety concerns assessed by DCS. This option is available to children of all ages. • An In Loco Parentis (Title 25) order that allows a non-parent (relative or kin) to care for the child long-term. In Loco Parentis means “in the place of a parent.” This option is available to children 8 and over. • No agreement by the parents/participants/DCS that provides for safety. In these instances a dependency petition will be filed. • Title 8 – if agreement • Private Petitions • The first two outcomes are the same • Title 14 • No agreement

20. DAP:Results

21. DAP:Results DAP Outcomes from 7/1/15 to 12/31/18

22. DAP:How we track our impact and success • Constant program evaluation • Participant Surveys • Tracking Case Outcomes • Legal case is flagged • DCS review to determine further contact • DAP Committee Meetings • Program Evaluation

23. Goal 1: • Without DAP, • 2016 • would have been the second highest year for petitions • * as of 6/16/17

24. DAP:Goal 2 • Goal: To keep families out of the dependency system for at least one year. • Outcome: We met our goal with 97.4% of DAP children remaining out of the dependency system for at least one year.

25. DAP:Outcomes • Improving Court Processes to Better Serve the Public • 203 cases were referred to the DAP program involving 308children • 88% success rate for all cases referred to the DAP program. • Of cases that proceeded to a dependency, many of those cases were dismissed within a few months • Overall client satisfaction rating of 97% • Conservative estimated put actualized financial savings in excess of $1,000,000.00

26. DAP:Outcomes • Dependency Alternative Program Client Survey Results • A total of 217 DAP participants completed a survey between December 2015 and July, 2018. • “Gave us the chance to communicate with each other to come up with a plan for our children.” • “The element of understanding in every aspect was great.” • “I feel like the most helpful thing was that I didn’t get put in a foster home.” • “I believe it is a great program, an asset to the community.” • “Decisions were focused on my son which was great.”

27. Dependency Alternative Program Client Survey Results 7/1/15 – 7/1/18 • Advisory Counsel • Did lawyer listen to you? 96% • Did lawyer treat you with respect? 98% • Was the lawyer helpful? 96% • Mediator • Did you understand what happened with mediator? 97% • Did mediator treat everyone with courtesy and respect? 98% • Court Staff – Were they helpful to you? 96% • Court Hearing – Was your case handled fairly? 98% • Overall did DAP meet your needs? 97%

28. Dependency Alternative Program (DAP) Growing Partnerships • Strong judicial leadership • Judge Quigley recognized great ideas and opportunities • Have the right people at the table, at the right time • Identify experts who are collaborative, flexible, and open-minded • If the group grows it is based on the need of the initiative • Development Stage • Implementation • Continue to grow partners

29. Dependency Alternative Program (DAP) • Arizona Supreme Court 2017 Strategic Plan Award for Protecting Children, Families, and Communities • Expansion efforts: • Arizona Supreme Court Vice Chief Justice Robert M. Brutinel’s, incoming Chief Justice, included in strategic plan for state-wide expansion • County site-visits and pilot projects

30. Dependency Alternative Program (DAP) How we got to YES

31. Identifying the challenges in your community and local legal systems What needs do you see in your community or court that inspire you to take action?

32. Addressing the challenges identified What is the first step you could take?

33. Thank you!Questions or Comments? Presenters Contact Information: Stacey Brady, JD, Pima County Juvenile Court Center sbrady@sc.pima.gov Jenny Zelt Department of Child Safety jzelt@sc.pima.gov