Ohio provides a process for conducting permanency hearings that meets or exceeds the federal requirements.
Policy
The following ORC Sections contain requirement for conducting permanency hearings:
ORC§ 2151.413 (D)(1) provides that an agency must file a motion with the juvenile court for permanent custody of any child who has been in temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period, unless the agency documents a compelling reason why permanent custody would not be in the child’s best interests.
ORC §2151.417 (C) and Ohio Rules of Juvenile Procedure 36 and 38(B) provide that in all cases where the court issues a dispositional order and the child is in foster care or in the home of the non- custodial parent, the court shall hold a review hearing one year after the earlier of the date on which the complaint in the case was filed or the child was first placed into shelter care, and that subsequent periodic review hearings will be held every 12 months thereafter until the child is adopted, returned to the parents, or the court otherwise terminates the child’s placement or custody arrangement. Ohio Rule of Juvenile Procedure 23 prohibits continuances for juvenile cases except when imperativeto secure fair treatment for the parties. Practice
The Ohio Department of Job & Family Services’ Child Protective Services Worker Manual details agency practice in relation to permanency planning. Each SAR received by the court contains a summary of the child’s current “permanency goal status.” This section of the agency’s review includes recommendations regarding the child’s current custody arrangement and indicates whether the child’s permanency goal needs to be amended. This section also includes estimated dates on which the child may be returned home, protective supervision may be terminated, permanent placement may be made, or the case may be closed.
Juvenile Court judges refer to Ohio's Dependency Docket Bench Cards (available athttp://www.sconet.state.oh.us/publications/JCS/benchcards/), which act as a quick reference resource for judges and include detailed check-off provisions relating to permanency hearings. The check-off list includes such reminders as:
o
Review (permanency) hearings must be held within one year after the earlier of the date on which the complaint was filed or the child was first placed into shelter care, and shall be scheduled at the time of the dispositional hearing.o
Subsequent review hearings shall be held at least every 12 months until the child is adopted, returned to the parents, or the court terminates the child’s placement or custody arrangement.o
Written requests or motions for extension, termination, or modification of dispositional orders must be filed no later than 30 days prior to the earlier of either the date of termination or the date of the initial annual review hearing.Changes in Performance/Practice
Statewide
Although Ohio courts historically have been diligent in conducting timely permanency hearings, various practices to ensure compliance have been adopted since the last Statewide Assessment. For example, magistrates who conduct these hearings now comply with the Resource Permanency and
Adoption Guidelines on Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases developed by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. These Guidelines assist juvenile and family court judges in assessing and implementing improvements in the handling of child abuse and neglect cases from inception through permanency.
The Supreme Court of Ohio has been active in addressing abuse and neglect issues and in responding to critical needs in this area. Since the last Statewide Assessment, the Court has:
o Instituted the Subcommittee on Responding to Child Abuse, Neglect and Dependency of the Advisory Committee on Children, Families and the Courts, to research and formulate recommendations for systemic improvement.
o Created a Family Law Case Manager position to interface with the Department of Job & Family Services and other state child welfare organizations and to provide technical assistance to juvenile courts.
o Worked on the development of training curricula for the Ohio Judicial College and developed an annual two-day training conference for all new judges
o
Published a Desktop Guide for Juvenile Court Clerks (found athttp://www.sconet.state.oh.us/publications/JCS/JBPManual.pdf) to assist juvenile court clerks in implementing best practices and effective procedures.
With more frequent and effective reviews, agencies are more successful in completing permanent custody filings in a timely fashion. An example of the early steps that support timely permanency hearings is the Reunification Assessment: 30 days prior to any court hearing where the agency is anticipating the child will be returned home, the agency must complete a Reunification Assessment to help determine the child’s and parent’s readiness for reunification. The Reunification Assessment provides a structured review of child safety, compliance with court orders, family conditions and dynamics, resources, strengths and protective capacities, child vulnerability and necessary interventions.
Local Snapshots
Ohio counties have also adopted strategies to help ensure timely permanency hearings. Prior to 2004, in one Ohio county hearings were sometimes carried on the docket well past 18 months, and decisions sometimes took longer than 90 days. A concerted effort has been made in that county to prioritize the hearings and decisions on permanent custody cases.
In another county, a policy has been established to ensure all permanent custody cases are transferred to the permanency unit within 10 days of TPR (unless there is an appeal, in which case the first appeal must be heard prior to the transfer).
Process to Ensure Collaboration
Collaborative efforts to ensure timely court process, spurred by the Beyond the Numbers initiative, are evident throughout the state. In one county, for example, representatives from the court, the PCSA, the prosecutor's office, the volunteer GAL program and the defense bar meet quarterly to discuss barriers to permanency. The PCSA and prosecutor's office closely monitor continuances to ensure they occur on a limited basis.
Another jurisdiction has established a Court Management Committee that meets monthly to discuss court management implementation issues. The Committee includes representatives from the Prosecutors office, the local CASA program and the local agency. Another jurisdiction has formed an integrated service partnership, which focuses on pooling resources for services to children and families. In yet another jurisdiction, the judge meets monthly with local agency representatives to discuss case processing timelines and other issues affecting the court’s management of cases.
Ohio’s Guardian ad Litems are key collaborators in advocating for abused, neglected, and dependent children in the court system. New Guardian Ad Litem Standards, developed by a task force of the
Supreme Court of Ohio after extensive study, currently are being finalized. These standards will establish a high quality standard for representation and a more consistent level of service from county to county.
Evaluation
Almost 70% of the respondents to the Ohio Statewide Assessment Survey self-reported that permanency hearings are nearly always held on a timely basis. The responses by individual by stakeholder groups were as follows:
Respondents also reported varied means of monitoring the timeliness and effectiveness of the reviews. For example, many counties rely on databases or other technology-related systems to track timelines and scheduling. One county reported that its court database tracks timelines for adjudicatory, dispositional, annual review and permanency custody hearings; by paying attention to the timeframes, this county reduced the time it takes for each phase of the process.
While a number of counties reported strict timeline compliance, the most common barriers to timeliness reported by other counties were hearing continuances and scheduling conflicts.
Strengths and Promising Approaches
Statewide
An “Education Specialist” position with the Ohio Judicial College – the first such position dedicated to assisting non-judicial personnel -- has been established to collaborate with ODJFS and provide training on ASFA requirements to court personnel.
The Supreme Court of Ohio offers on-site analysis and technical assistance to help courts improve case processing and assure timeliness of proceedings.
Timeliness of Permanency Reviews
Percentage of listed stakeholder groups that reported the 12-month
permanency review is held in a timely manner 90-100% of the time
92.9% 80.0% 72.7% 93.1% 50.0% 100.0% 81.3% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Judge Magistrate Court Personnel PCSA Administrator
PCSA Caseworker
Agency Attorney CASA
Stakeholder Group Percentage
The development of specialized dockets, which serve to enhance both the timeliness and quality of outcomes, is a trend throughout Ohio. The state is a national leader in the number of Family Drug Courts for serving substance addicted parents.
The use of mediation as a tool in resolving permanency issues is also expanding. For example, cases in Clark County are frequently mediated prior to a pending permanent custody motion.
Local Snapshots
In one Ohio county, service of abuse/neglect complaints and motions is accomplished through the clerk’s office, and service for other hearings is completed by case managers in the courtroom at the conclusion of the hearing (by hand-delivery to those parties that are present and mailed to those who are not). In addition, two jurisdictions improved notice delivery by encouraging a greater focus on service of process issues and developing a plan regarding service.
Some counties have instituted rules or policies to proactively address common causes of delay. For example, one court has set a nine-month permanency hearing requirement to prompt the parties and agency to more quickly determine the appropriate permanency goal and ensure readiness at the 12- month milestone.
In one model court jurisdiction, magistrates have attended training offered through the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges; the court conducts internal specialized trainings on child permanency practice quarterly.
In another county, the court conducts regular status hearings for more complex cases in which families have multiple service needs. This court also has a specialized docket for families with alcohol and drug dependency issues. Progress with the treatment plan is initially reviewed weekly. Additional strengths identified included the following:
Quality of Reports: The accuracy and comprehensiveness of information on which courts and agencies rely in permanency decision-making is generally high. For example, over 80% of stakeholders responding to the Ohio Statewide Assessment Survey indicated that case review documentation, agency recommendations, psychological evaluations, CASA reports and medical reports received were always or usually accurate and thorough.
In particular, judicial respondents to the Ohio Statewide Assessment Survey generally gave positive ratings on the quality of this critical information, as indicated below:
Judges' Ratings of Quality of Information/Reports Available at Permanency Review Hearings
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Agency Rec om mend atio n Case Rev iew Do cum entat ion GAL Re port CASA Repo rt Psyc holo gica l Ev alua tion Drug & A lcoho l Repo rts Medi cal Re ports Doc ument ation of Pa rticip atio n in Se rvic es Ser vice Prov ider Repo rts Docu menta tion o f Com plian ce w ith Cas e P lan Oth er Type of Report/Information P e rcen tage Always Thorough, Accurate, & Reliable Usually Thorough, Accurate, & Reliable Sometimes Thorough, Accurate, & Reliable Rarely Thorough, Accurate, & Reliable
Collaboration: Multi-disciplinary training opportunities offered jointly by the Supreme Court of Ohio and ODJFS have fostered county-level reform efforts to improve the timeliness and quality of permanency reviews.
Timeliness: Supreme Court of Ohio comparative data from 2005 and 2007 indicate that the timeliness of case resolution has improved. For example, although new filings of abuse, neglect and dependency cases increased from 14,827 in 2005 to 15,423 in 2006, the number of such cases pending beyond time guidelines decreased from 1,458 to 1,204 during the same time period (2005 & 2006 Ohio Courts Summaries, available at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/publications/default.asp).
Barriers
In some counties, dates for the permanency hearing are assigned prior to the one-year anniversary and typically scheduled for one hour. This can present a barrier to timeliness if the issues raised by motion at the hearing necessitate a contested, more extensive hearing to be scheduled. If multiple attorneys are involved, the scheduling of follow -up hearings can be even more difficult.
Anecdotal reports indicate that in some instances lack of preparation or appropriate motions by the agency or parties has caused delays. As a result, continuances of hearings that were timely scheduled have been required. On the other hand, although the majority of Ohio courts hold permanency hearings on a timely basis, isolated reports indicate delays may be attributed to issues such as overloaded dockets. One county reported that it has taken up to 6 months for a court date to be set after the filing of a motion, and up to two months after the hearing for an entry order to be made.
Continuances appear to be one of the primary reasons for delays of permanency hearings, along with scheduling conflicts and the inability to serve process on a necessary party. 73% of agency administrators responding to the Statewide Assessment Survey reported that continuances were the top reason for delays. Continuances may be occasioned by lack of necessary information; 64% of
magistrates responding to the Statewide Assessment Survey reported the unavailability of needed information as the number one reason for delays of permanency hearings.