To promote open and safe access to court hearings for families and professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic, juvenile and family courts across the United States shifted towards virtual hearings in child welfare cases. Drawing on findings from a four state court observation study conducted pre and post emergence of the pandemic, as well as from a national survey of court professionals and a survey of parents, we reflect on the experiences of courts and court participants with virtual hearings in child welfare cases and specific impacts on hearing quality. Findings indicate that despite stakeholder perceptions, there is little difference in the quality of hearings with respect to judicial engagement and discussion. Differences were found however, in the attendance of fathers and relatives at hearings, with less fathers and relatives attending virtual hearings. Parents had mixed experiences with the virtual hearing process. Professionals noted challenges, as well as strategies for overcoming challenges, to engage parents and ensure their access to virtual hearings.
AdelsteinJ.KeithD. (2020). Initial court responses to COVID-19 leave a patchwork of policies. Brennan Center for Justice. https://perma.cc/FMV9-A7PG
2.
AlexanderM.UnruhL.KovalA.BelangerW. (2021). United States response to the COVID-19, January-November 2020. Health Economics Policy and Law Journal, 17(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133121000116
3.
BakerA. (2007). Client feedback in child welfare programs: Current trends and future directions. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(9), 1189–1200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.05.003
4.
BannonA.AdelsteinJ. (2020). The impact of video proceedings on fairness and access to justice in court. Brennan Center for Justice
5.
BohannanT.NeversK.SummersA. (2015). Hawaii courts catalyzing change case file review and court observation pre and post benchcard: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. NCJFCJ.org
6.
Brennan Center for Justice. (2020). Courts’ responses to the Covid-19 crisis. Brennan Center for Justice
7.
BridenbackM. L. (2016). Study of state trial courts use of remote technology. National Association for Presiding Judges. napco4courtleaders.org
8.
Capacity Building Center for Courts. (2020). Conducting effective remote hearings in child welfare cases. Capacity building center for courts. American Bar Association. CBCC (hhs.gov)
9.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023). CDC museum COVID-19 timeline. CDC David J. Spencer Museum
DavisR.Matelevich-HoangB. J.BartonA.Debus-SherillS.NiedzwieckiE. (2015). Research on videoconference at post-arraignment release hearings: Phase I final report. ICF International. Research on Videoconferencing Use in Hearings (ojp.gov)
DiamondS. S.BowmanL. E.WongM.PattonM. W. (2010). Efficiency and cost: The impact of video conferenced hearings on bail decisions. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100(3), 869–902. https://doi.org/10.2307/25766111. northwestern.edu
EppsW. J.HayterC. D. (2021). Zoomed in to justice: Remote proceedings during a pandemic. The Judges’ Journal, 60(3), 10–14.
16.
FontS. (2021). What lessons can the child welfare system take from the COVID-19 pandemic? American enterprise institute for public policy research. Pandemic.pdf (aei.org)
17.
GatowskiS.MillerN.RubinS.EscherP.MazeC. (2016). Enhanced resource guidelines: Improving court practice in child abuse and neglect cases. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Enhanced Resource Guidelines - NCJFCJ
18.
JointTechnology Committee. (2020). JTC quick response: Strategic issues to consider when starting virtual hearings. Joint technology committee of the conference of state court administrators. National Association of Court Management, and National Center for State Courts. ncsc.org
19.
JurvaG. (2021). The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on state and local courts study 2021: A look at remote hearings, legal technology, case backlogs and access to justice. Thomson Reuter Institute. Pandemic Courts Study 2021 (thomsonreuters.com)
20.
KunkelT.BryantK. (2022). Briefs: Do remote hearings help or hurt access to justice?Judicature, 106(1), 2–4. duke.edu
21.
KunkelT.RayB.BryantK. (2022). Virtual services in judicially led diversion programs: Participant findings. National Center for State Courts and Rulo Strategies. ncsc.org
22.
MacgillS.SummersA. (2014). Assessing the relationship between the quality of juvenile dependency hearings and foster care placements. Family Court Review, 52(4), 678–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12120
23.
National Center for State Courts. (2016). Use of telephonic and video conferencing technology in remote court appearances. National Center State Courts. telephonicvideotechnology.pdf (ncsc.org)
National Center for State Courts. (2021a). National scan of remote-first and remote-friendly court rules. A resource from the pandemic rapid response team. National Center for State Courts. Remote-Virtual-Lists.pdf (ncsc.org)
National Center for State Courts. (2021c). The use of remote hearings in Texas State Courts: The impact on judicial workload. National Center for State Courts. TX-Remote-Hearing-Assessment-Report.pdf (ncsc.org)
28.
National Center for State Courts (2022). Study of virtual child welfare hearings: Facilitating trauma-responsive virtual hearings for dependency cases. National Center for State Courts. Retrieved fromTrauma-Responsive-Virtual-Hearing.pdf(ncsc.org)
RussellJ. R.SummersA. (2013). Reflective decision-making and foster care placements. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(2), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031582
33.
SummersA. (2017). Exploring the relationship between hearing quality and case outcomes in New York. New York State Unified Court System Child Welfare Improvement Project. CWCIP_Linking_Quality_Outcomes_Report.pdf (nycourts.gov)
34.
SummersA.GatowskiS. (2018). Nevada hearing quality study: Examining the quality of child welfare court hearing practice in Nevada. Nevada Administrative Office of the Court Improvement Program. NV_Statewide_Report_Final.pdf (nvcourts.gov).
35.
SummersA.GatowskiS.FromknechtA.TrowbridgeS. (2021). Compendium of measures and data sources: Understanding judicial decision-making and hearing quality in child welfare (OPRE report 2021-95). Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and, Families U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Compendium of Measures and Data Sources (hhs.gov)
36.
SummersA.GatowskiS. I.GuellerM. (2017). Examining hearing quality in child abuse and neglect cases: The relationship between breadth of discussion and case outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 82, 490–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.10.018
WoodS. M.RussellJ. R. (2011). Effects of parental and attorney involvement on reunification in juvenile dependency cases. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(9), 1730–1741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.026
39.
WoodS.SummersA.DuarteC. (2016). Legal representation in the juvenile dependency system: Travis county, Texas’ parent representation pilot project. Family Court Review, 54(2), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12218
40.
YoonS.CoxeK.BungerA.FreisthlerB.DellorE.LangaigneA.MillisorJ. (2020). Feasibility of engaging child welfare-involved parents with substance use disorders in research: Key challenges and lessons learned. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 16(4), 451–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2021.1899099
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
