ILNews

Courts offer CHINS facilitations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Because mediations have become commonplace in family law cases, it may come as no surprise that a number of Indiana counties have been implementing a similar strategy to determine if a child is a child in need of services, or CHINS.

In fact, a few CHINS facilitations were mentioned in the grant proposals for family court projects around the state.

But unlike mediations for divorces or other family law issues that involve two parties, their lawyers, and a mediator, CHINS facilitations can include the parents, their attorney, service providers, a Indiana Department of Child Services lawyer, a court-appointed special advocate, and the facilitator. Sometimes, relatives of the children and foster parents will participate. Add to that the supervisor for the DCS attorney and/or the CASA supervisor in some cases, and a room can fill up quickly.

However, all of these voices are necessary, say those familiar with CHINS facilitations, because it is a chance for each to have a say in the agreement, including the parents, and possibly avoid a fact-finding hearing.

For instance, in LaPorte County, CHINS facilitations have taken place since 2003, according to director of juvenile court services Krista MacLennan. She said about 100 CHINS facilitations take place there every year. The LaPorte County program started, MacLennan said, after the magistrate for the juvenile court at the time learned of a similar program in Allen County.

Other programs around the state include CHINS facilitations in Bartholomew and Jackson counties, which started in 2004 and 2007, respectively, and are part of the same family courts project. Johnson County started doing CHINS facilitations three years ago.

The hope for this and other CHINS facilitation programs is to help families reach agreements about allegations, in lieu of a fact-finding hearing, in a way that will expedite the process and help relieve the courts of some of their CHINS cases. It also gives the families some ownership in what they agree to for the future.

This could include necessary services that the parents would be required to participate in, and if the parents opposed any of the suggestions of the people in the room, they would get a chance to express their concern during the facilitation, MacLennan said.

Magistrate Nancy Gettinger agreed.

“From the court’s perspective … it’s a more efficient use of the court’s time if the parties can agree. It also empowers the parties to be a part of the process. This way, things are not happening to them, but they’re asked to engage and help decide what it is they need to be doing,” she said.

She added compliance is higher, and it’s more difficult for a parent in an agreement to later say they didn’t understand or agree to what was discussed at a facilitation.

In cases where the parents deny the allegations, if there are criminal charges pending and they don’t want to admit to anything that could affect their criminal case, or if DCS attorneys suggest to a judge that they don’t think those involved can reach an agreement at a facilitation, the parties will still need to go to court for a fact-finding hearing.

Magistrate Gettinger, formerly an attorney for DCS, said she can also appreciate the perspective of DCS attorneys in these facilitations.

“At the beginning of these cases, we don’t have crystal balls to know everything. We aren’t sure when the parents agree to something in a facilitation that they’ll follow through. … As a Department of Child Services attorney, I needed to make sure these kids were safe on behalf of the state of Indiana, so I wasn’t willing to give up too much.”

She said her perspective had slightly changed since she became a magistrate.

“As a magistrate, I think this is great. It doesn’t mean that just because they have an agreement it’ll go swimmingly, because there are things I don’t know about every case,” she said, “but it helps.”

She and MacLennan said that most facilitations end with an agreement from everyone in the room.

But on the rare occasion someone in the room doesn’t sign off, such as the CASA or a CASA’s supervisor, “that speaks volumes to me. I have to weigh that in my decision to sign off on the order,” Magistrate Gettinger said.

Tammi Hickman, director of the Johnson County CASA Program, said she appreciates that CASAs have a voice in these facilitations.

In her county, Hickman said around 95 percent of all new CHINS cases were facilitated. As director, she attends facilitations for cases where DCS tells her a CASA should be placed on the case. She said there are typically four of these facilitations that take place every Monday.

Hickman said it is also helpful that the CASA meets with families after they’ve already set their agreement. Because the parents have been involved with the agreement, they are also more cooperative.

In LaPorte County, after Magistrate Gettinger signs off on an agreement, she meets with the parties.

“They have to listen to my speech that the agreement is signed, sealed, delivered. My job is to make sure the agreement gets implemented. I tell the parties, ‘I need to make sure the department does what it needs to do, and you need to do what you need to do,’” she said.

She also tells parties that if they are not in compliance or end up in court down the road, they will have a different experience.

“If after a year they are not any further along than they are today in doing what the agreement says they will do, they are looking at a different plan because the kids can’t live with that uncertainty,” she said.

MacLennan added the facilitations also save time by cutting out one of the typical steps in CHINS cases.

“What had happened prior to this, there would be an initial hearing where the Department of Child Services would present evidence and the court would determine if it was a CHINS case. The family would then be ordered to work with the Department of Child Services on a plan, and that could take another 30 to 45 days. Now we’re doing it all in the first 30 days. We’re creating the plan at that time,” she said.

MacLennan also said that in most cases the parents have counsel at the facilitation, whether it’s someone who is appointed to represent them or someone they pay. In most cases, the parties have met with counsel prior to the hearing.

In LaPorte County, facilitations are also used for cases that involve permanency planning. While these aren’t as successful as the CHINS facilitations, “I know we’ve avoided some drawn-out termination of parental rights hearings because we encouraged families to voluntarily terminate their rights,” MacLennan said.

A similar program in Bartholomew and Jackson counties, overseen by Pat McSoley, the coordinator/mediator for the family court project for Bartholomew, Brown, Jackson, and Lawrence counties, is experiencing success with CHINS facilitations similar to that recorded in LaPorte and Johnson counties.

Since his programs started in the last few years, “I would say one of the main differences is an increase in communication between the parents, service providers, and DCS,” McSoley said. “And I think that another difference is the parents are getting into service programs much quicker in the process.”

He added facilitations are also less adversarial, “making it more of a cooperative process for reunification of the family.”

As a result, McSoley said he has received positive feedback from the families. “One of the things we try to stress is we want their participation. We always ask if there are any services that aren’t being discussed and let them have a say in the ownership of the plan put into place.”

Like the others, McSoley said these facilitations were important because they can speed up the process.

“Any county with any significant number of CHINS cases should do this,” Hickman added.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT