Court-level stakeholders’ reunification decisions and perceived role in parents’ readiness to support early emotional development post-abuse and/or neglect

ABSTRACT

Caregiver – child dyads exist within systems that may reinforce and/or establish structures to support holistic needs, awareness of roles, and capacity-building efforts. Systems can be challenged in fortifying such structures, however, following substantiated abuse and/or neglect. In the current study, the author surveyed 27 family court judges and judicial hearing officers collectively presiding over ~2800 birth-5 cases (~39% response) in one Mid-Atlantic state in the United States. Despite court-level stakeholders’ pivotal role in reunification, it is unclear how they perceive current processes, existing barriers, and proposed initiatives targeting emotional development post-abuse and/or neglect. Findings and implications are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Emotional development
• reunification
• abuse/neglect
• court-level
• family court judges
• parent-child

It is well established that direct care providers and primary caregivers play a pivotal role in nurturing emerging emotional development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Edwards, 2018; Graziano, Reavis, Keane, & Calkins, 2007). At the same time, it is important to explore how court-level stakeholders, including family court judges and judicial hearing officers, view and broach roadblocks to adhering to relevant processes and putting expectations in place to support biological parents and foster (resource) parents in this role following substantiated child abuse and/or neglect. This paper will orient readers to ways of supporting early emotional development, nuances unique to the Child Welfare System that may adversely impact emotional growth, and insights from a sampling of family court judges and judicial hearing officers. It is important to explore satisfaction with and ways of improving perceived roadblocks to address potentially missed opportunities for court-level processes to establish/require certain expectations to promote more intentional dialog and outreach between caseworkers and foster/biological parents on shared roles in early emotional development during foster care placement and following reunification with biological caregivers.

Supporting early emotional development

Despite increased awareness of the need to prioritize adaptive emotional growth, more must be done to bolster caregiver capacity-building and lessen emotion dysregulation and behavioral concerns in the early childhood years (Dunlap et al., 2006; Powell, Fixsen, & Dunlap, 2003). In addition to being linked with numerous child outcomes (e.g., Alink et al., 2006; Denham, 2006; Herndon, Bailey, Shewark, Denham, & Bassett, 2013; Raver & Knitzer, 2002), emotion dysregulation has been associated with parental caregivers’ “diminished confidence in childrearing abilities, depression, feelings of isolation and stigmatization, increased caregiver stress, marital discord … and/or poor family-provider communication” (Edwards, 2018, p. 20).

From a strengths-based perspective, it is beneficial to focus on individual/family assets and be mindful that key adults in a child’s life tend to do the best they can with the information, training, and holistic resources/supports they have available at that time. These adults may not consider how detrimental it is when providing inconsistent care and/or may not be as familiar with less punitive ways of responding (e.g., Garner et al., 2012). They likely do not realize how certain responses can negatively affect the developing brain (e.g., Garner et al., 2012), and how this may in turn “contribute to deficits in cognition, executive functioning, and the body’s stress response” (Edwards, 2018, p. 27).

Outreach is warranted to help vested stakeholders understand that emerging emotional competence necessitates gradual skill building across three main components: emotion knowledge (inferring/labeling emotion), emotion expression (the way in which emotions are displayed behaviorally), and emotion regulation (one’s ability to self-soothe and control impulses) (Denham et al., 2003). Via modeling, discussion, and/or access to information on emotion coaching, cross-disciplinary professionals can empower key adults to help early growth by “responding supportively, verbally labeling emotions, using empathy, and teaching children to understand and regulate their emotions” (Wilson, Havighurst, & Harley, 2012, p. 57). Emotion coaching can lead to heightened sensitivity to others’ emotional cues and a reduction in aggressive behaviors (e.g., Garner, Dunsmore, & Southam‐Gerrow, 2008; Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1996; Hooven, Gottman, & Katz, 1995; Wilson, Havighurst, & Harley, 2012). Others have similarly found adults’ positive expressiveness and responsiveness to “buffer or protect young children from the negative impact of varying environmental stressors” (Edwards, 2018, p. 28; Raver & Spagnola, 2002) and help to break the “intergenerational cycle of harsh parenting” (Schofield, Conger, Gonzales, & Merrick, 2016, p. 1).

Navigating the child welfare system

More concerted attention on shared roles in early emotional development is needed across all settings, with this paper focusing on the Child Welfare System. Substantiated abuse or neglect can result in temporary or permanent removal from one’s immediate family and being placed in a less familiar setting with relatives or unknown adults. Depending on multi-faceted nuances that may ensue along this process, this complex series of changes may lead to an increased risk of adverse outcomes such as social withdrawal, strained peer interactions, lower academic achievement, defiance, posttraumatic stress disorder, or lower self-esteem (Erickson & Egeland, 2002; Melville, Kellogg, Perez, & Lukefahr, 2014; Salzinger, Feldman, Hammer, & Rosario, 1993). Youth in foster care are at risk for “poor developmental outcomes, challenging behavior, and increased mental health problems” (Edwards, 2018, p. 27; Harden, 2004; Harman, Childs, & Kelleher, 2000; Vig, Chinitz, & Shulman, 2005). Throughout this ordeal, growth in emotional development may likely be interrupted. While those with more severe challenging behavior and those exposed to greater risk factors (e.g., different types of abuse, severity) may be at a greater risk of adverse long-term outcomes (Benedict, Horner, & Squires, 2007; Edwards, 2018), even a handful of incidences of verbal abuse each year can be harmful.

Nationally, we continue to have children re-entering foster care in the year after reunification (USDHHS, 2017; Wulczyn, 2004), which can further complicate adult-child attachments and adversely impact early emotional development (see Finster & Norwalk, 2021). Wulczyn, Parolini, Schmits, Magruder, and Webster (2020) reported national reentry rates following reunification ranging from 11–38%, with infants and teens most likely to experience reentry. In another analysis that looked at a sample of 8107 reunified children, Goering and Shaw (2017) found that 14% reentered foster care within 18-months (Mean: 6.36 months).

In a preceding analysis that included survey and focus group data from a sampling of caseworkers working directly with foster and biological parents in the Child Welfare system (Edwards & Panlilio, 2023), individual- and system-wide roadblocks were discussed. In addition to desiring more targeted trainings and cross-agency partnerships, one noteworthy issue was that court-level processes were perceived to hinder caseworkers’ availability to better support these families with emotional development post abuse and/or neglect. Some felt that caseworker concerns with parent – child interactions (e.g., parent’s readiness to use a sensitive/responsive parenting style) are not sought, valued, or considered as judges render decisions. As one focus group respondent noted, “many families only want to put forth the effort to do the minimum that court requires for reunification and only change what they’ve been told to change”. Participants were concerned that, in this particular state, parents can reunify with their child without being mandated to complete any parenting class. Participants also felt there were missed opportunities to better address this issue during foster care placement as well as post-reunification. It was suggested that court-level stakeholders would benefit from education on the importance of emotional development (e.g., “ … you want the best for the children. This is regarding their welfare and their safety … but yet, the emotional aspect of the entire ordeal is not high up in the charts [that the judge reviews] or as important as it really is. So it’s kind of swept under the rug … ”). Aligned with this concern, Goering and Shaw (2017, p. 36) noted that “Children reunifying against the recommendations of Children and Family Services had the highest odds of reentry”.

Purpose

The current analysis focuses on self-reported views and practices among court-level stakeholders. This aligns with Bronfenbrenner’s (2001) bio-ecological systems theory, which reinforces the importance of not overlooking varying indirect levels of influence on a child and family unit. Following substantiated abuse/neglect, court-level stakeholders exist and play a pivotal role within a family’s exo-system. As explained by Sharpe (2014, p. 247):

There are some settings or events that influence the child’s socialization even though the child has no direct role in them. Bronfenbrenner calls these ecological contexts the Exosystem. The Exosystem has an indirect effect on the child, because the influence from the Exosystem usually impacts the child as it “trickles” down through other people in the child’s life. New laws, government reform, environmental regulation, social unrest, financial upheaval, business and industry are a few examples of contexts that can dramatically effect a child’s life and experiences even though the child may know nothing about them.

The processes court stakeholders follow and considerations that factor into their decisions can significantly impact placement and reunification for individual caregiver-child dyads. Further, investigating anonymous survey responses is anticipated to fill a notable gap in understanding (Edwards & Panlilio, 2023) and have important implications for larger-scale improvements. As noted by Ranjan and Dmello (2022, 1883), “As the ecological level rises to the exo-system or community responses, it calls for (i) building infrastructure and capacity; (ii) improving/enforcing systems, policies, and procedures in existing programs; and (iii) creating laws and policies that mandate education … ”. Further, from a theoretical perspective, interest in tapping into court-stakeholders’ perceptions aligns with Schema theory (Marcus, 1977; Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977). This framework supports the notion that perceptions drive behavior. By asking questions about personal satisfaction with existing processes, factors that inform their reunification decisions, perceived court-level roadblocks, and views on proposed initiatives, one can arguably obtain a closer glimpse of what may occur in practice. As Stalans and Lurigio (1990, p. 335) noted, Schema theory “can be applied to clarify the interrelationships among beliefs … goals, and decisions … ”

As a field, we know it is important to consider voices of key partners who work across direct and indirect contextual levels of a child’s ecology (Bronfenbrenner, 2001). Wulczyn (2004, p. 98) lamented as to how “relatively little is known about reunification decision making and the process of reintegrating children into their families,” and there continues to be efforts to look at this international issue from multiple vantage points. For example, Bai, Collins, Fischer, and Crampton (2022) interviewed providers and biological caregivers in the United States following a child’s reentry into foster care, O’Connor Funcheon and Brady (2022) interviewed a sampling of social workers and social care workers in Ireland to examine what they recommend to better support birth parents and improve reunification efforts, and Teixeira, Narciso, and Henriques (2022) collected focus group data from child protection professionals in Portugal on perceived barriers to successfully reunifying families.

At the same time, there is a notable dearth in the literature specific to court-level stakeholders’ awareness of or perspectives on this topic (e.g., recognition of their role in reinforcing and/or forming structures that, in turn, may bolster access to holistic needs, improve caregivers’ awareness of their role, and build caregiver capacity in promoting emotional development for children navigating the Child Welfare System). As noted by Edwards (2004, p. 170), “ … the work of our juvenile and family court judges is critical to the future of our nation … [they] are charged with keeping children safe; restoring families; finding permanency for children; and holding youth, families, and service providers accountable … [they] intervene in crises and figure out the best response on a case-by-case, individualized basis … ”. As noted by Kelly (2000), it is important to consider the context in which these decisions are made, particularly given how court stakeholders may show what Kelly refers to as “ambivalence” or a contradictory/fluctuating stance in terms of how they view parent–child relationships and the extent to which they want to intervene (e.g., delay reunification). As found with other groups of stakeholders (e.g., healthcare providers, childcare providers, educators, caseworkers, social workers), there may likely be within-group variability in perceptions and responses among court-level stakeholders based on various demographic and/or contextual variables. For example, perhaps more seasoned professionals view a topic differently based on experience (Denham et al., 2003; Edwards, Kaiser, & Stapel-Wax, 2021; Mulvihill et al., 2002). It is also important to consider variation in how males and females respond (Edwards & Gallagher, 2016; Walbert et al., 2016), and how perceptions may vary based on race/ethnicity (Sabin et al., 2009). Further, those with a high volume of cases may have a narrower bandwidth for embracing new/additional approaches (Quinn & Nackerud, 2019). In addition, it is important to consider access to training, which can affect awareness of an issue and willingness to accept proposed changes (e.g., Baker-Ericzén et al., 2009; Schlichting et al., 2007). In the current study, Family Court Judges and Judicial Hearing Officers in one state were surveyed to explore the following guiding questions:

1. Satisfaction: To what extent are they satisfied with current processes (i.e., foster care placement, reunification, and support of early emotional development)?

2. Clarity on Reunification Decision-Making: Which variables inform reunification decisions across counties in the same state?

3. Court-Level Obstacles: What court-level factors, if any, are perceived to hinder support of early emotional development post abuse and/or neglect?

4. Receptiveness to Initiatives: To what extent are they receptive to proposed initiatives and are any of these initiatives already being done across counties?

Method

Survey development

Informed by a preceding study that targeted caseworkers in the same state, and to address guiding research questions, the author devised survey questions to explore gaps in understanding. As commonly used for exploratory surveys as part of a pre-testing process (e.g., Edwards, 2010; Ikart, 2019; Taherdoost, 2016), four expert reviewers provided detailed feedback in a content validity protocol (available upon request). These experts included a family law attorney in the same state, a state-level child welfare administrator, a child welfare program supervisor in a separate region, and a former county child welfare director. More specifically, reviewers were asked to confirm whether the items were relevant in terms of addressing the intended purpose of the study, clarify whether additional items were warranted, and offer suggested edits to enhance clarity. This process helps clarify whether the devised survey “adequately samples the research domain of interest when attempting to measure phenomena (Wynd, Schmidt, & Schaefer, 2003, p. 509). The author revised the survey based on this written feedback.

Survey items

As part of the inclusion criteria, the first question required that participants verify if they were at least 18 years of age and a current family court judge or judicial hearing officer presiding over cases of abuse and/or neglect in the first 5 years of life. The second question required confirmation that they were willing to participate in this one-time anonymous survey. All other survey items were voluntary. The final survey (available from the author upon request) was intended to take ~20 minutes to complete and was comprised of a mix of closed- and open-ended items across three sections: Part 1: Demographics (9 items); Part 2: Satisfaction with Current Processes and Reunification Decision Making (24 items); and Part 3: Supporting Early Emotional Development Post-Abuse/Neglect (court-level obstacles and receptiveness to initiatives) (25 items).

Recruitment

Directly contacting court-level stakeholders was not considered a viable approach for several reasons (e.g, contact information not publicly available; anticipating that anonymity may promote more candid responses). Instead, the author attempted to personally contact each of the 60+ District Court Administrators (DCA) in a Northeastern State whose contact information was publicly available. Via e-mail or phone, the author oriented these DCAs to the project and gauged willingness to have their respective county’s judge(s)/hearing officer(s) participate in a one-time survey. Interested DCAs (n = 18; two of whom covered two counties) disclosed the total number of family court judges and/or judicial hearing officers who would be eligible from their county to participate (1–11 per county). Especially given that some counties had just one or a few eligible judges/hearing officers, the author did not collect any names, contact information, or information on the county in which participants were employed.

Participants

Following IRB approval from the author’s university (IRB, PRO-2021-520), an alternate consent form that did not require any signature and Qualtrics link to an expert-reviewed electronic survey were disseminated to 81 invitees via the DCAs covering the 20 counties. The DCAs were also asked to send up to two friendly reminder e-mails to eligible judges/hearing officers in their county on the author’s behalf to bolster response rates for completing this one-time anonymous survey. The process of having the DCAs serve as a liaison and confirm totals before receiving the survey links was intended to inform a close approximation of the survey response rate as well as enhance the likelihood of participants’ anonymity.

Thirty-three surveys were submitted via Qualtrics. Five were omitted due to having five or fewer responses and one was omitted due to the respondent not meeting the inclusion criteria. Insights from the remaining 27 surveys (~39% response rate) are included in the results section of this paper. The sample was 100% White and the majority of participants were Family Court Judges (70.37%). The sample was split in terms of gender (51.85% female), and half of the sample was employed in their current role (as a Family Court Judge or Judicial Hearing Officer) for less than 10 years (51.85%; range: 1–30 years; M: 11 years; SD: 8.14). The majority (92.59%) reported having at least some familiarity with emotional development content. Number of birth-5 cases of abuse/neglect seen on one’s caseload in the past year ranged from 12 to 447 children (M: 109.54; SD: 95.37; 51.85% of the sample had more than 100 cases in the past year). See Table 1 for participant characteristics.

Table 1. Participant characteristics (n = 27).

Characteristics	No. (%) of Participants
Position Title
Family Court Judge (FCJ)	19 (70.37)
Juvenile Hearing Officer (JHO)	6 (22.22)
Custody Hearing Officer	1 (3.70)
Both Selected: FCJ and JHO	1 (3.70)
Years Employed
Fewer than 10 years	14 (51.85)
10 or more years	13 (48.15)
Gender
Female	14 (51.85)
Male	13 (48.15)
Approximate Total Number of Birth-5 Cases of Abuse and/or Neglect Per Year
Less than 100 cases annually	12 (44.44)
100 or more cases annually	14 (51.85)
(Text noting this information is not readily available)	1 (3.70)
Most Frequent Type of Case in Birth-5 Per Year
Abuse	2 (7.41)
Neglect	15 (55.56)
Equally abuse and neglect	10 (37.04)
Self-Reported Sources of Training on Emotional Development (More than one could be checked)
College Coursework	11 (40.74)
Law School Coursework	3 (11.11)
Conference Sessions	24 (88.89)
Informal Online Searches	12 (44.44)
Other (3: Expert Testimony; 2: Psychologists; 2: CEUs; 2: Parent; 1: Life; 1: Caseworker Exp)	11 (40.74)
NONE	2 (7.41)

Note. Participating Family Court Judges and Judicial Hearing Officers (n = 27) were from one of 20 counties in a Northeastern state presiding over cases of child abuse and/or neglect in the first five years of life.

Data analysis

For this descriptive, cross-sectional exploratory study, ordinal and nominal data were coded and entered into SPSSv27 for all analyses. In addition to descriptive statistics, the author explored which pre-selected factors, if any, may be correlated with satisfaction ratings, selection of “reunification readiness” factors, perceived roadblocks, and interest in proposed initiatives. Selection of these demographic factors was informed by insights gained from other analyses, since there is a dearth in examining them specific to the current population. As highlighted earlier, these factors included: years in this position (Denham et al., 2003; Mulvihill et al., 2002), gender (e.g., Edwards & Gallagher, 2016; Walbert et al., 2016), number of cases (Quinn & Nackerud, 2019), and reported exposure to emotional development content (e.g., Baker-Erizen et al., 2009; Schlichting et al., 2007). Although others have supported examination of possible correlations with providers’ race/ethnicity (e.g., Sabin et al., 2009), there was insufficient sample variance. As recommended for data on an ordinal scale, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were used (de Winter, Gosling, & Potter, 2016; Hauke & Kossowski, 2011)

Results

This section presents findings to better understand views and needs among a sampling of Family Court Judges and Judicial Hearing Officers related to contributing roles in supporting emotional development post abuse and/or neglect. Results are organized to align with the aforementioned guiding questions.

Satisfaction with current processes

Participants rated their satisfaction with current court-related processes that impact young children (birth-5) in the Child Welfare system. As noted in Table 2, 39.14–44.44% of the sample were “somewhat satisfied” with existing processes. Participants offered this rating when asked about satisfaction with foster care-related processes (44.44%), reunification-related processes (48.15%) and for processes after a failed initial reunification (44.44%), When asked about general satisfaction with the Child Welfare system’s support of early emotional development, 37% were “somewhat or extremely satisfied,” 33% were “somewhat or extremely dissatisfied,” and 15% were neutral/undecided (“neither satisfied nor dissatisfied”).

Table 2. Participants’ satisfaction with existing processes affecting young children post-Abuse/Neglect (birth-5).

Characteristics	No. (%) of Participants
Foster Care-Related Processes (n = 27)
Extremely Satisfied	5 (18.52)
Somewhat Satisfied	12 (44.44)
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied	2 (7.41)
Somewhat Dissatisfied	8 (29.63)
Extremely Dissatisfied	0 (0.00)
Reunification-Related Processes (n = 27)
Extremely Satisfied	4 (14.81)
Somewhat Satisfied	13 (48.15)
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied	4 (14.81)
Somewhat Dissatisfied	6 (22.22)
Extremely Dissatisfied	0 (0.00)
Processes When There is a Failed Initial Reunification (n = 27)
Extremely Satisfied	2 (7.41)
Somewhat Satisfied	12 (44.44)
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied	8 (29.63)
Somewhat Dissatisfied	4 (14.81)
Extremely Dissatisfied	0 (0.00)
[Blank]	1 (3.70)
Current Support of Early Emotional Development in the Child Welfare System (n = 23)
Extremely Satisfied	1 (4.35)
Somewhat Satisfied	9 (39.14)
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied	4 (17.39)
Somewhat Dissatisfied	7 (30.43)
Extremely Dissatisfied	2 (8.70)

Note. Survey respondents were Family Court Judges and Judicial Hearing Officers from one of 20 counties in a Northeastern state presiding over cases of child abuse and/or neglect in the first five years of life. Four respondents did not view the last satisfaction question, which was toward the end of the electronic survey, so the percentage for that n was adjusted accordingly.

Several correlations were noted specific to number of birth-5 cases on the participant’s caseload. More specifically, there was a link between being somewhat satisfied with current court-level reunification processes and having a larger number of birth-5 abuse/neglect cases on one’s caseload ($r_s$ = .465, p < .05). Along a similar vein, there was also a significant correlation between being dissatisfied with current reunification processes in birth-5 and having less than 100 cases on one’s caseload (compared to those with 100 or more cases) ($r_s$ = −.408, p < .05). There was also a significant correlation between being dissatisfied with processes after a failed initial reunification and having less than 100 cases on one’s caseload (compared to those with 100 or more cases) ($r_s$ = −.417, p < .05). Correlations were not detected between satisfaction ratings and other pre-selected factors (i.e., years employed, gender, or whether they had prior exposure to emotional development coursework).

Factors informing reunification decision-making

A section of the survey sought to pinpoint factors typically influencing readiness determinations as to whether the court deems a biological parent ready to have the child returned.

When asked if biological families in this state are required to take a parenting class before reunification, 15% marked “no parenting classes are required; this is appropriate;” 56% selected “yes at least one parenting class is required and the content is appropriate;” 19% noted “at least one parenting class is required but the content is unclear or insufficient,” and 7% marked “I am not certain if we require any parenting classes before reunification.” There was similar variation in responses when asked if there is a goal/timeframe by which to reunify families: 19% noted there is no such timeframe they follow; 7% marked not being certain of whether there is a timeframe; 30% agreed there is a certain timeframe, but that it is problematic and should be evaluated; and 41% noted they typically aim for a certain timeframe and that they personally find this to very helpful.

Of the 15 expert-reviewed possible reasons, there was variation in ratings across this sampling of judges and hearing officers who preside over cases in the same state (see Table 3). For instance, “biological parent’s account of perceived readiness to reunify” was marked as “somewhat considered” by 19% of participants, “strongly considered” by 48% of participants and “legally required” by 22% of participants. For the proposed factor of “verifying that the parent is no longer abusing substances”, 4% noted this is “somewhat considered”, 78% agreed it is “strongly considered”, but 15% marked that this verification before reunifying the child with the parent is “legally required”. Whether the parent has completed parenting classes also ranged considerably, with 15% noting this is “not considered”, 37% reporting this as ’somewhat considered’, and 44% marking “strongly considered”. In addition to the range in responses, it was noteworthy how few of the proposed factors were reported by participants to be “legally required” (see Table 3).

Table 3. Factors influencing court’s readiness determination for parent to reunify with child (n = 26).

Proposed Factors	Ratings
	Not Considered	Somewhat Considered	Strongly Considered	Legally Required|
Verification of not abusing substances	–	1	21	4
Completing a drug treatment program	–	4	21	1
Verification of employment	6	15	5	–
Parent(s) receiving mental health supports	–	3	22
Completing 1+ online parenting course		13	7	6
Completing 1+ in person parenting course		8	9	9
Completing series of parenting classes	4	10	12	–
Verified supervised visits with their child	–	5	18	3
Caseworker’s report of supervised visits	–	5	20	1
Caseworker’s clinical opinion of “readiness”	–	6	20
Caseworker’s report on child’s needs/dev’t	–	8	16	2
Biological parent’s account of perceived readiness	–	5	13	6
Foster/Kinship Parent’s account of child’s progress	7	9	9	1
and/or bio parent’s readiness from observations
Documentation from parent’s therapist on readiness	–	4	21	1
Documentation from child’s therapist or childcare	–	9	16	1

Note. Participating Family Court Judges and Judicial Hearing Officers (n = 27) were from one of 20 counties in a Northeastern state presiding over cases of child abuse and/or neglect in the first five years of life. See exact wording of each item in the Appendix.

Self-report from this section did correlate with three of the pre-selected factors, including years employed, gender, and number of birth-5 abuse/neglect cases. Identifying a larger number of proposed factors as “strongly considered” or “legally required” was associated with being employed for a greater number of years ($r_s$ = .426, p < .05) and, more specifically, when employed for 10 or more years ($r_s$ = .438, p < .05) compared to the rest of the sample. Considering a report that a therapist or teacher may have written specifically about the child’s development prior to determining reunification readiness also correlated with total years employed ($r_s$ = .567, p < .01) and being employed for 10 or more years (compared to those with less years in this role) ($r_s$ = .578, p < .01). Those with 10 or more years in this position were also more likely to consider whether the parent is currently employed ($r_s$ = .415, p < .01).

Results also suggested that, compared to male judges/hearing officers, female judges/hearing officers were more likely to indicate that they would consider the biological parent’s account of his/her own readiness to reunify ($r_s$ = −.499, p < .01). Being more likely to have reunification decisions informed by a report that a therapist may write on a biological parent’s readiness to reunify correlated with having fewer birth-5 abuse/neglect cases each year ($r_s$ = −.480, p < .01) and having less than a 100 cases (compared to those with 100 or more cases) ($r_s$ = −.433, p < .01). No correlations were detected between reunification decision ratings and whether participants had prior exposure to emotional development coursework.

Court-level obstacles

This survey also captured perceived roadblocks to supporting early emotional development post abuse and/or neglect. Table 4 includes the proposed obstacles organized by category (i.e., funding-related, training-related, awareness/availability of resources, miscellaneous). Participants selected 2–13 perceived roadblocks. Roadblocks with the most agreement included “insufficient staffing with high caseloads” (69.57%), “limited availability of local programs” (60.87%), “insufficient training for Child Welfare staff” (56.52%), “family’s attitude (not accepting support from the state/court)” (43.48%), and limited state/federal funding (39.13%). Compared to acknowledgment of the need for training and awareness of resources for other stakeholders, only three participants felt this was necessary for judges/hearing officers. Only two participants (7%) felt this topic is not as high a priority at the court level, and just four participants (15%) noted limited time during hearings to consider views of all stakeholders.

Table 4. Participants’ perceived roadblocks to supporting emotional Dev’t post-Abuse/Neglect (birth-5).

Characteristics	No. (%) of Participants Agreeing
Funding-related
Limited state funds	9 (39.13)
Limited federal funds	9 (39.13)
Insufficient staffing with high caseloads	16 (69.57)
Training-related
Insufficient training for Child Welfare Staff	13 (56.52)
Insufficient training for foster families	10 (43.48)
Insufficient training for biological families	10 (43.48)
Insufficient training for FCJs and JHOs on this topic	3 (13.04)
Minimal awareness and/or availability of available resources
Lack of awareness of available resources among Child Welfare Staff	5 (21.74)
Lack of awareness of available resources among foster families	4 (17.39)
Lack of awareness of available resources among biological families	5 (21.74)
Lack of awareness of available resources among FCJs and JHOs	3 (13.04)
Limited availability of local programs	14 (60.87)
Miscellaneous
Current priorities at the court-level consider other things	2 (8.70)
State and/or federal laws not sufficiently considering EED post-abuse/neglect	1 (4.35)
Limited time during hearings to consider views of all stakeholders	4 (17.39)
Family’s attitude (not accepting support the state and court would like to provide)	10 (43.48)
OTHER (open-ended)
Need more open adoptions	1 (4.35)
Need universal, free childcare and emergency childcare	1 (4.35)
County Solicitor can create roadblocks	1 (4.35)

Note. Survey respondents answering the items in this question (n = 23) were Family Court Judges and Judicial Hearing Officers from one of 20 counties in a Northeastern state presiding over cases of child abuse and/or neglect in the first five years of life. Four respondents did not view the last satisfaction question, which was toward the end of the electronic survey; the percentage for that n was adjusted accordingly.

Statistically significant correlations were detected between perceived obstacles and pre-selected factors. All four pre-selected variables had at least one or more association with selected roadblocks. Those more likely to identify limited state/federal funds as a roadblock ($r_s$ = .568, p < .01) and those supporting the statement that courts prioritize other things ($r_s$ = .480, p < .01) were both associated with being a more seasoned court-level stakeholder with more years of employment. Agreeing with the issue of lower awareness of relevant resources among judges/judicial hearing officers correlated with being newer to the field (less years in their court-level position) ($r_s$ = −.460, p < .01). Viewing the court as more likely to prioritize other things (unrelated to emotional development) linked to longer years employed in this position ($r_s$ = .480, p < .05) and those who presided over fewer birth-5 cases of abuse/neglect in the past year ($r_s$ = −.445, p < .05). Agreement with insufficient staffing/high caseloads as an obstacle to better addressing this topic correlated with having 100 or more birth-5 cases of abuse/neglect in the past year ($r_s$ = .424, p < .01). Compared to male participants, female participants were more likely to agree that caseworkers are insufficiently trained on the topic of early emotional development ($r_s$ = −.565, p < .01). Believing that biological parents are insufficiently trained on this topic ($r_s$ = −.415, p < .05) and agreeing that biological parents have an insufficient awareness of resources ($r_s$ = −.462, p < .05) each separately correlated with judges/hearing officers who themselves reported not having college coursework on emotional development.

Receptiveness to initiatives

In the final section of the survey, participants were asked to consider receptiveness to proposed initiatives to perhaps better support early emotional development post abuse/neglect.

When the judges/hearing officers were asked to consider an initiative whereby caseworkers can be consistently asked by the courts to share if the parent is “emotionally ready” for reunification based on ongoing observations/interactions, 11% noted this would not be feasible, 11% agreed it would be worthwhile to look into this, and 63% reported this is already being done.

When asked to consider more family-to-family connections between foster and biological families (overseen by separate agencies/caseworkers in the current state), no one questioned the feasibility of this. Instead, 37% of the participants agreed they should look into doing this, and 48% reported already doing this in their respective counties. Being more likely to agree that there should be more foster parent-biological parent connections across the state was associated with having 100 or more cases of birth-5 cases of abuse/neglect in the past year ($r_s$ = .436, p < .05).

For the proposed idea to have courts mandate follow-up virtual home coaching on an ongoing basis, no one questioned its feasibility, with 41% of participants interested in looking into this, and 44% of participants noting that this is already done in their respective county. And lastly, when asked if they were interested in more court-stakeholder training on early emotional development, 4% declined, 41% were somewhat interested, and 41% were extremely interested in learning more about this topic. Aside from the association to number of cases noted above, correlations were not detected between ratings on proposed initiatives and the other pre-selected factors (years in this position, gender, or exposure to emotional development coursework).

Discussion

To best support young children (birth-5) in the Child Welfare system, there is a notable gap in understanding court-level stakeholders’ perceptions of existing processes and their indirect role in early emotional development. Following substantiated abuse and/or neglect, Family Court Judges and Judicial Hearing Officers are charged with monitoring caregivers’ compliance with court mandates and making reunification readiness determinations. The current analysis uniquely contributes to understanding this complex topic by directly surveying a sampling of court-level stakeholders who play a profound, arguably overlooked role in indirectly impacting thousands of young children at a pivotal, vulnerable time of heightened stress and uncertainty.

Readers now have a better glimpse into court-level stakeholders’ views on perceived roadblocks and proposed recommendations to better address emotional development among children in the Child Welfare system. Given what we know about post-abuse outcomes and the importance of early emotional development, it is timely and relevant to pay closer attention to the role of stakeholders at contextual levels beyond the micro- and meso-systems (Sharpe, 2014).

This preliminary analysis sheds light on several novel considerations that uniquely contribute to the literature on this complex topic. This includes notable variation/inconsistency in responses specific to judges/hearing officers, such as knowledge of which expectations are mandated and which factors are perceived to weigh into reunification decisions. These court-level stakeholders, all presiding over birth-5 cases of abuse/neglect in the same state, could not agree on whether there are required parenting classes for biological parents before having their child returned, or whether courts in this state are asked to follow a desired goal/timeframe by which to reunify families. The variation in these two considerations (e.g., does not exist; exists but is problematic) as well as the range in consideration across possible reasons was striking. Similarly, there was variation in whether these judges/hearing officers felt proposed initiatives were not feasible, deserve further investigation, or are already being implemented to some extent in a particular county. This could lead to unsettling mixed messages and potentially different opportunities/outcomes for both families and caseworkers, depending on what is prioritized.

Moreover, this analysis pinpoints judge/hearing officer demographics that significantly correlated with at least some reunification decisions, including gender, years employed, and size of caseload. The latter variable also correlated with satisfaction with existing processes. Coontz (2000) similarly found trial judge’s gender to affect judicial decisions. In addition, it is interesting that more seasoned court-level stakeholders reported more of the proposed factors as “strongly considered” or “legally required” compared with those with fewer years in this role. There is a dearth in the literature specific to this consideration, but an unrelated analysis did consider newer versus more seasoned judges in terms of variation in voting patterns across the course of their career (Kaheny, Haire, & Benesh, 2008). Further, those with fewer birth-5 cases were more willing to report wanting reunification decisions to be informed by a therapist’s report on the biological parent’s perceived readiness to reunify. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this has not been investigated previously. The closest link was with Cross and Lindquist (2006), who supported this notion to some extent by noting how Supreme Court judges see fewer cases and therefore have “considerably more time to evaluate the legal issues.”

Implications for practice

This analysis adds to the existing literature to inform ways of minimizing roadblocks and building capacity across stakeholders to foster more successful, long-lasting reunifications post abuse/neglect. As eloquently noted by Honorable Leonard Edwards (2004, p. 169), “There is no greater joy than seeing a family successfully reunited, to see parents turn their lives around, gain self-esteem, and proudly walk into court with the confidence that they have become competent parents – and to see children happily accompanying their parents.” We must continue to brainstorm ways that court-level stakeholders could institute effective structures, policies, and/or expectations as part of a reunification plan that prioritizes strengthening parents’ readiness to promote early emotional development.

Results of this analysis suggest that judges/hearing officers in the same state are not unified in views on what is mandated, strongly considered, or somewhat considered related to reunification decisions. This likely leads to potentially different opportunities/outcomes for both families and caseworkers. The subjectivity in which factors weigh into the reunification process may create confusion/frustration among caseworkers who are attending trainings and discussing best practice with fellow caseworkers across the state. Others have similarly acknowledged how judges can deviate from one another in their decision-making processes (Zinn & Orlebeke, 2017). This was the case when asked if courts are consistently seeking caseworker views on whether the parent is “emotionally ready” for reunification based on ongoing observations/interactions. While it is promising that 17 judges/officers report already embracing this, it remains unclear whether this was communicated and/or consistently implemented with fidelity.

Family Court Judges and Judicial Hearing Officers could arguably benefit from dedicated time to at least virtually connect and/or share what factors typically inform reunification decisions in the first 5 years of development. Perhaps there could be a recorded webinar/forum where cross-disciplinary scholars share key insights with judges/hearing officers specific to what the evidence suggests as most likely to be impactful in supporting successful reunifications.

It is also important to continue reinforcing the importance of shared accountability among cross-disciplinary stakeholders. Respondents primarily looked at multi-level issues outside their control as the most likely roadblocks that need to be tackled (e.g., large casework caseloads, limited access to local programs, limited training for Child Welfare staff, families not accepting court’s support, and limited state/federal funding). As noted in the results, it is especially noteworthy that only three participants felt specialized training was necessary for judges/hearing officers, only two felt this topic is not as high a priority at the court level, and only four noted limited time during hearings to consider views of all stakeholders. Those with more experience in the field and those with fewer birth-5 cases on their caseload were more likely to report/acknowledge that the court tends to prioritize things other than what may help the child’s emotional development. Also, as noted in the results, believing that biological parents are insufficiently trained on this topic and agreeing that biological parents have an insufficient awareness of resources each separately correlated with judges/hearing officers who themselves reported not having college coursework on emotional development.

Specific to the focus of this paper, readiness to respond to their child’s emotional needs deserves to be a priority item monitored by the courts (Edwards, 2018). As noted by Karoll and Poertner (2003), striving to bolster parenting skillsets while also simultaneously navigating complex issues like addiction, can put a lot of strain on a family as they work toward reunifying with their child(ren). Increasing court-level expectations for families to gradually build capacity specific to learning and reinforcing necessary parenting skills would be a critical step toward greater success post-reunification.

Further, training/education specific to early emotional development remains an integral part of the solution across stakeholders, especially given dynamics with removal from home, foster care placement, and post-reunification. Biological and foster/resource caregivers need explicit supports to understand and embrace their role as an emotion coach (e.g., Garner, Dunsmore, & Southam‐Gerrow, 2008; Wilson, Havighurst, & Harley, 2012). Similarly, participating judges/hearing officers felt caseworkers need this emotional development-related training as well. As explained by Edwards (2018), the extant literature reinforces the notion that long-term positive outcomes (e.g., socially, academically, mental health) are more likely when varying systems work together to build capacity for sensitive/responsive caregiving that is tailored to the young child’s strengths, needs, emotional cues, and unique context.

At the same time, next steps must involve clarity on how these stakeholders might readily access these trainings and also on how to ensure that they are relevant/meaningful and of high quality. For instance, such trainings must address the need for family-centered protective factors like improved communication techniques and efforts to improve both child and adult self-control/self-regulation to help break the “intergenerational cycle of harsh parenting” (Schofield, Conger, Gonzales, & Merrick, 2016, p. 1). Scholars have expressed challenges facing families post abuse and/or neglect and emphasize the need to prioritize pre- and in-service quality training for child welfare-related professionals (Talbot, 2008). Skill building must include culturally responsive practices and policies. As noted by Clement (2008, p. 399), it is important to “ … emphasize the necessity of recognizing culture and the benefit for all parties involved, and to improve the cultural competence of the current system by highlighting good examples of culturally competent reunification services and best practices for advocates of culturally diverse individuals.”

Pooling expertise and valuing insights of all vested stakeholders is especially essential in navigating the current topic. In Edwards and Panlilio (2023), caseworkers did not feel heard/valued by court-level stakeholders like judges. This contrasts with an analysis which found another group of social workers recognize they play a key role in “gather[ing] support from collaterals and [presenting] the decision for reunification to their supervisors and the courts, i.e., attorneys and judges” (Talbot, 2008, p. 65). Foster/resource families and extended family members must also be considered in these conversations. Dolbin-MacNab, Smith, and Hayslip (2022), for example, found that custodial grandmothers felt caseworkers and judges disregarded their perspective on whether the child’s parent was ready for reunification. Although the current analysis focuses on judges/hearing officers, we must continue reflecting on how all direct and indirect stakeholders, at a systems-level, can have a seat at the table to be solution-oriented in establishing/fortifying structures that improve child and family outcomes.

Implications for research

It is essential that scholars continue to examine not only what factors inform reunification decision-making, but also engage in follow-up investigations to ascertain short- and long-term outcomes following these decisions (Biehal, Sinclair, & Wade, 2015). Desired length of time in foster care and its effect on reentry goals also remains unclear (McDonald, Bryson, & Poertner, 2006). The current analysis attempted to delve deeper into the decision-making process by directly surveying a sampling of judges and hearing officers in the same state. Additional investigations are warranted across a larger, more representative group of court-level stakeholders across states. Qualitative studies (semi-structured interviews, focus groups) are also needed to explore satisfaction ratings, particularly given how many respondents noted being just “somewhat satisfied” with existing processes.

It is noteworthy that judges/hearing officers with a larger number of birth-5 cases were more likely to report being at least somewhat satisfied with the reunification process, while those with fewer (100 or less) cases were significantly more likely to report dissatisfaction with this process. Perhaps this may at least partly speak to a bandwidth issue. More specifically, one possibility might be that court-level stakeholders, similar to those from other service professions, may have a greater willingness/capacity to reimagine what could be improved when not personally feeling as stretched to keep up with constant work-related demands. In support of this notion, Jackson, Turner, and Brief (1987) found that a sampling of United States public service lawyers with a larger perceived workload were more likely to experience emotional exhaustion; and experiencing burnout correlated with these lawyers being less willing to “exert effort” to achieve their organization’s goals. Burnout was not measured in the current sample, but it is conceivable that there are higher time constraints placed on certain judges in this state based on the number of cases they report seeing annually. Further analysis is warranted specific to this finding.

Others have looked at the extent to which substance abuse treatment completion (Choi, Huang, & Ryan, 2012) or attending parenting classes (Smith, 2008) matters in reunification decisions. It is interesting to think of potential ramifications from a judge/hearing officer in the current sample varying in what is marked as only “somewhat considered” versus “strongly considered” in the reunification decision-making process. Moreover, it is disconcerting that there would be any lack of uniformity in what court-level respondents would consider as “legally required”. Further investigation from a larger, representative sampling of judges/hearing officers across the country would be helpful to explore the level of consensus in variables that are required at both a state and/or federal level and what is strongly or somewhat considered in reunification decisions.

Receptiveness to proposed initiatives is important, but next steps must include evaluation of the effectiveness of such interventions across diverse family units in the country. For example, there may be potentially missed opportunities for court-level processes to indirectly help promote more intentional dialog and outreach between caseworkers and foster/biological parents specific to shared roles in early emotional development during foster care placement and following reunification with biological caregivers. The sample overall either wanted to look into more family-to-family connections between foster and biological families and have courts mandate follow-up virtual home coaching on an ongoing basis, or noted that they already do this on a regular basis in their respective county. There was also a mix in being somewhat interested or extremely interested in more court-stakeholder training on early emotional development. Finally, the subjectivity in which factors weigh into the reunification process may unintentionally result in differential outcomes for families post-reunification and should be analyzed more closely. It would behoove cross-disciplinary scholars to investigate the feasibility, ecological validity, and long-term impact of varying multi-prong initiatives.

Limitations

When interpreting results of the current study, readers should bear in mind several limitations. It is promising that this analysis helps acquire a rare snapshot of self-reported attitudes/behaviors among Family Court Judges and Judicial Hearing Officers in one state in the United States. At the same time, results are based on a smaller sample size and representative sampling across more states is warranted in future studies to assess efforts and existing needs on a larger scale. Recruitment was affected by a reported backlog in cases post-pandemic (e.g., District Court Administrators declining to ask their county’s judges/hearing officers if they wanted to complete this survey given the higher than usual volume of cases). There is unknown generalizability of findings to those judges/hearing officers who did not participate in the state and those in similar positions across states. There was also reliance on self-report. Although this survey approach may have skewed responses, the author did attempt to minimize the potential for socially desirable responses by not contacting potential respondents directly, not asking for respondents’ names/contact information, using an anonymous survey link, and asking each participating county DCA to forward the request on the author’s behalf while ensuring these gatekeepers remained unaware of which judges/hearing officers accepted or declined the survey invitation. Other methodologies (e.g., cross-disciplinary focus groups; archived de-identified notes from relevant hearings) should be considered to better understand nuances detected in this survey analysis.

Conclusions

The critically important role of all caregivers in supporting early emotional growth and development, and the heightened need to embrace this role following substantiated abuse and/or neglect, remains clear in the extant literature. At the same time, caregiver – child dyads exist within systems that may reinforce and/or establish structures to support holistic needs, awareness of roles, and capacity-building efforts. The current study provided a rare glimpse into how a sampling of family court judges and judicial hearing officers perceive roadblocks and potential initiatives to support more successful reunifications in the first 5 years of life. This exploratory analysis also afforded readers the opportunity to examine perceptions of court-level stakeholders’ indirect role in supporting caregivers with early emotional development during foster care placement and post-reunification. It is essential to build capacity for more caregivers to embrace their role as emotion coaches in the earliest years of development, particularly following substantiated abuse and/or neglect. Practitioners and researchers must not overlook perceived roles among key partners who work across systems/contextual levels of a child’s ecology (Bronfenbrenner, 2001). Child Welfare professionals and scholars in the United States and internationally are encouraged to engage in more meaningful dialogue on how we may prioritize caregiver readiness to support early emotional development as one of the essential indicators in the reunification decision-making process.

Informed consent statement

Informed, alternate consent was obtained from all study participants.

Acknowledgments

I extend my sincere appreciation to the court-level stakeholders who participated in this study and the District Court Administrators who aided recruitment. Special thanks to the external reviewers, including Pamela Buehrle, Elizabeth J. Billies, Michele Safrin, and Lauren Sopher, who offered thoughtful feedback on the devised survey.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

Funding was received from a Rowan University-affiliated grant.

Notes on contributors

Nicole Megan Edwards

Dr. Nicole Megan Edwards is a tenured Associate Professor and coordinator of the MA in Special Education and Inclusive Practices in the College of Education at Rowan University. Dr. Edwards examines access to and quality of services for families of young children (e.g., Child Find, Positive Behavior Supports, emotional development, cross-stakeholder partnerships).