The Honorable J. Dean Lewis serves as judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for the 15th Judicial District of the State of Virginia and is immediate past president of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (National Council). In 1997, Judge Lewis received the National CASA Judge of the Year award. She has been invited by President Clinton to participate in The White House Leadership Conference on Youth, Drug Use, and Violence and in Safe From the Start: The National Summit on Children Exposed to Violence. This interview was conducted for Juvenile Justice by Earl E. Appleby, Jr., Senior Editor. The journal's On the Front Lines series features interviews with leading authorities on juvenile justice and related youth issues. These experts have earned their credentials on the front lines in the struggle for a better tomorrow for today's youth and their families. Juvenile Justice: Judge Lewis, as we mark the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the juvenile court, what do you believe are its lasting achievements? Hon. J. Dean Lewis: When people mention the juvenile court, they often refer only to the court's jurisdiction over delinquency cases. It is important to understand that our jurisdiction has expanded considerably since the creation of the first juvenile court in Chicago 100 years ago. The Illinois statute created a court, known as the children's court, with jurisdiction over dependent, neglected, and delinquent youth. Although jurisdiction varies from State to State, judges are generally vested with broad jurisdiction over problems involving children and their families. These problems include: Child custody and visitation. Child and spousal support. Establishment of paternity. Divorce. Child abuse and neglect—both civil and criminal cases. Foster care, termination of parental rights, and adoption. Truancy. Runaway youth. Children in need of services. Youth with mental illness and other disabilities. Crimes committed by family members and partners against one another. Civil orders of protection for family members and youth. Crimes committed by and against youth. The continuing expansion of the jurisdiction of juvenile courts has led legislatures to rename these courts "juvenile and domestic relations courts," "family courts," or "juvenile and family courts," titles that describe their evolving function and philosophy more accurately than "children's court." Youth are developmentally different from adults, and these differences make them more amenable to intervention and treatment. Few youth are beyond reform. From its inception, the juvenile court has focused on rehabilitating youth rather than punishing them. The first juvenile court was established with the belief that youth are everyone's responsibility. Courts and communities need to become partners to ensure that the court has the resources necessary to deal effectively with the problems of youth and their families.

If we, as juvenile and family court judges, do not intervene early and effectively, the child who first comes before the court as a victim has a great likelihood of returning as an offender. To help youth, we must intervene effectively with the entire family.

Technically, we are commemorating the passage of a piece of Illinois legislation entitled "An act to regulate the treatment and control of dependent, neglected and delinquent children." The work of turn-of-the-century progressives, it bears their brisk, businesslike, confident, and humane stamp.

The Act provided for the designation of a Cook County Circuit Court judge to hear petitions asserting that a child was destitute, homeless, abandoned, uncared for, begging in the streets, being mistreated, or breaking the law. It authorized the court to enlist probation officers, "discreet persons of good character," who served without compensation, to investigate the basis for petitions filed in the juvenile court and provide "friendly supervision" of the youth before the court.

The Act prescribed no particular formal procedures but gave the court broad powers to order commitments, rearrange families, and compel adult cooperation on pain of contempt.

The institution caught on quickly. Within a generation, similar courts had been set up in nearly every State in the Union.

Juvenile Justice: How do you account for the swift acceptance of the juvenile court? What do we celebrate in its centennial?

Hon. J. Dean Lewis: The reason is linked to what I regard as the first and most fundamental triumph of the juvenile court: its recognition of the separate status of youth. The rapid acceptance of the juvenile court was in effect a popular repudiation of the legal treatment of youth that had preceded it. For centuries, common law held youth and adults to the same legal standards, subjected them to the same procedures in the same courtrooms, sentenced them to the same institutions—even, on occasion, to the same gallows—as if there were no differences between them. Thus, we must first celebrate the establishment of a separate court for children that recognizes their developmental distinctions from adults.

Second, we celebrate the evolution of the children's court to the family court. The Chicago statute of 1899 gave the court jurisdiction over "dependent, neglected, and delinquent children." This recognition of the link between child victimization, family disorder, and the potential for child victims to become offenders unless early and effective intervention is provided was the beginning of the vision that became the modern family court—a single court responsible for both delinquency and child abuse and neglect, for children in need of supervision and those in need of correction, and for family dissolution and other matters affecting the welfare of children.

Over the past 100 years, legislatures have seen that children are best served when the court dealing with their situation has jurisdiction over all legal issues involving that child's family. In 1914, the first full-fledged family court was established in Cincinnati, OH. Family courts are now operating or are being developed in 20 States, and other States are considering the idea and are likely to follow suit. The creation of a single forum within which all matters relating to children can be resolved, regardless of the legal or equitable categories in which they fall, seems like a simple and inevitable step. In fact, it was neither. It was a breakthrough and is an ongoing historic achievement.

Third, we celebrate the juvenile court's treatment of each youth as a unique human being. The purpose of this process of individualized justice was not to determine the appropriate degree of punishment, but to determine how to help. The newly created juvenile courts introduced a more flexible and constructive judicial approach to the problems of children than the law had previously provided. Court officials began to approach troubled youth in a spirit of humane empiricism—common in medicine but new to law. Not only were their aims therapeutic, their means and outlook were essentially scientific. They attempted to bring to bear on their cases the insights of medical, social, and behavioral sciences and made a place in their courtrooms for the data and findings of research and experimentation. Thus, we celebrate the fourth great achievement of the juvenile courts: the introduction of the "medical model," which focuses on the need for diagnosis and treatment in dealing with the disposition of a court case. The collaboration of juvenile courts with mental health and substance abuse workers, social workers, health officials, school officials, and other professionals who deal with diagnosis and treatment has been integral to their success. With the development of specialized courts such as drug courts and the use of evolving rehabilitative approaches to sentencing, the criminal court is now incorporating the medical model into its system.

Fifth, we celebrate the development in the juvenile and family courts of alternative methods for resolving legal proceedings. The early juvenile court judges did not act like other judges, and their courts did not operate like other courts. In time, these discrepancies came to be regarded as detrimental. The story of how judges came to be restrained and their courts' procedures formalized as a result of U.S. Supreme Court decisions is a familiar one. The juvenile courts adapted themselves to the due process requirements of Kent v. United States [383 U.S. 541 (1966)], In re Gault [387 U.S. 1 (1967)], and In re Winship [397 U.S. 358 (1970)] more easily than most critics—and most supporters, for that matter—thought possible. However, that does not mean that these courts have become just like their adult counterparts.

Nonetheless, a valuable legacy of the juvenile courts is the alternative they have always offered to adversarial methods of arriving at truth and settling disputes. In a sense, the juvenile courts pioneered what is now called alternative dispute resolution, and juvenile court professionals are still among the most active experimenters in this field. Among responsible, compassionate professionals meeting in a forum in which the welfare of youth is involved, we find a flexible spirit, collaborative process, regard for candor and plain speaking, and common desire for consensus.

Sixth, we celebrate the innovation of the juvenile and family courts in turning away from institutions and toward families, a development that constituted a decisive reversal of the preference for institutional care that had dominated 19th-century thinking. Although commitments to reformatories did not end, the juvenile courts recognized that the problems of youth can be best solved in the home and through the family.

The dispositional orders of juvenile and family courts are characterized by the recognition of the sanctity of the family unit, the need for placement of a youth with extended family rather than with strangers, the option of family foster care in lieu of institutional placement, and the establishment of programs that allow a youth, whether a victim or an offender, to remain in the community rather than be sent to an orphanage or correctional facility.

Seventh, we celebrate the leadership of the first judges who served in these courts, whose vision lives on today. Much of what has been achieved on behalf of youth in the 20th century has been achieved as a result of the influence and leadership of juvenile and family court judges and court officials who were not only well educated in the law, but well versed in other matters that affect children and families. These matters include child development, alcohol and substance abuse, mental health and learning disabilities, child abuse and neglect, linguistics and child victim testimony, family violence, and rehabilitative programs.

Judges know that we cannot succeed in helping youth and families alone. We know that it takes multidisciplinary, multiagency collaboration involving the courts and communities. Those who created the juvenile court took their responsibility seriously, which is one of the reasons that this equitable, humane, and pragmatic alternative to the traditional legal treatment of youth was so warmly embraced by this country.

Juvenile Justice: As you have noted, Judge Lewis, there have been a number of developments since those early years. A number of specialized courts—drug courts, gun courts, even youth and teen courts—have come to play a role in the juvenile justice system. How do you see their impact?

Hon. J. Dean Lewis: Judicial leadership has been critical to the development of specialized courts for youth. The key philosophy that has guided the development of juvenile drug courts, family drug courts in dependency cases, and gun courts has been the use of individualized treatment with close judicial oversight. The availability of adequate community-based resources for treatment plans that involve youth and their families has also been crucial.

Judges who sit in specialized courts attribute their success to the low caseload assigned to each judge, frequent review hearings to monitor progress with immediate sanctions if the youth fails to abide by the court's order, involvement of the youth's family in the rehabilitative process, and prompt availability of treatment resources. Specialized courts are a humane development in keeping with the traditions of the juvenile court. One type of specialized court—the teen court—is an important diversion program. This court enables volunteer youth in the community to serve, depending on the program model used, as judge, jurors, prosecutor, and defense attorney in adjudication and disposition processes, providing them a powerful learning experience. As to its effect on the juvenile offender who is offered this alternative, anecdotal evidence from judges indicates that teen courts often hold youth to a higher level of accountability than traditional courts.

The National Council recommends that juvenile drug courts—another type of specialized court—be based on principles and practices that are developmentally, culturally, and gender appropriate for each youth. Juvenile drug courts should not be developed as carbon copies of adult drug courts for the same reason that the juvenile court was created in the first place—children are developmentally different from adults. The problems that lead youth to substance abuse often involve learning disabilities, mental illness, and family dysfunction. Our challenge is to develop a clear framework and tools that judges can use to fashion programs tailored to meet local needs and the individual needs of youth and families.

Juvenile Justice: The number of juvenile offenders waived to criminal court appears to have increased over recent years. What are your thoughts on this trend?

Hon. J. Dean Lewis: Widespread fear of juvenile crime and the suspicion that the juvenile court is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with youthful offenders have generated a number of critics. The juvenile court's perspective, methods, results, and even the basic concept that led to its creation—the belief in the difference between youth and adults—have all been called into question.

These criticisms have prompted legislatures in virtually every State to take action to curtail the court's jurisdiction, restrict its discretionary powers, relax its confidentiality, or increase the severity of its sanctioning. Some critics have questioned whether we should even continue to have a distinct juvenile court.

I believe this outlook arises from the gap between public perception and reality with regard to juvenile crime trends, the juvenile share of overall crime, the proportion of juvenile delinquents to the juvenile population as a whole, and the threat posed by juvenile violence. For example, we know that although juvenile violent crime increased between 1985 and 1994, it has consistently decreased since 1994. We also know that in 1994, when juvenile crime was at its highest, 94 percent of the approximately 69 million youth under the age of 18 had never been arrested. Less than 10 percent of delinquents commit violent crimes. Adult, not juvenile, violence is our Nation's number one crime problem. Adults are responsible for three-fourths of the recent increases in violent crime in the United States and commit seven out of eight crimes. When juvenile courts are given adequate resources, they can be effective in curtailing juvenile crime. Five out of six youth referred to juvenile court for violent crime do not commit a subsequent violent offense.

By following the principles enunciated in the National Council's The Juvenile Court and Serious Offenders: 38 Recommendations and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP's) Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders and making use of rehabilitative resources and sanctions programs, juvenile courts have been able to reduce juvenile crime, even among serious and violent offenders. Recidivism rates have proven to be much higher among juveniles tried in criminal courts and placed in adult prisons than among those retained in juvenile court. Juveniles transferred to criminal court are more likely to commit new offenses, commit them sooner, and at a higher rate.

Juvenile Justice: Alternatives to incarceration, ranging from alternative schools to home detention, are being advocated for some juvenile offenders. How do you view the role of alternative sentencing and for which types of offenders is it most effective?

Hon. J. Dean Lewis: To be effective, interventions—whether addressing child abuse or neglect, family violence, delinquency, or any other jurisdictional issue—need to be child centered, family focused, community based, multiagency, and multidisciplinary. They should include prescreening of youth and caregivers for substance abuse and mental illness; any required followup assessment and treatment services for the youth and caregivers; learning assessment of youth, with prescreening for developmental delay; and public-private partnerships in the development of resources, including volunteer services such as advocacy, mentoring, and tutoring. Interventions should incorporate graduated sanctions and accountability for individuals subject to the court and ensure safety for family and community members while holding juvenile offenders accountable.

That being said, alternative dispositions that do not require incarceration are most effective when the youth has a functioning nuclear family or substitute family support network. The individualized family services and treatment plan developed by the court in the dispositional order should include the family. Success requires intensive court monitoring and supervision and prompt availability of treatment and sanctions resources. A significant number of youth have substance abuse, learning disability, and mental health problems that require prompt and appropriate screening, assessment, and therapeutic intervention. It is critical to remember that every youth and family is unique; therefore, programs cannot be "one size fits all." A well-qualified probation staff with access to professional staff who can assess youth immediately after adjudication is essential to matching the youth and his or her family with the programs and services that can ensure a safe outcome.

A principal triumph of the juvenile court has been its turn away from institutions and toward families. Juvenile courts have always favored community-based sentencing over institutional care. We must remember, however, that some youth have problems of such magnitude and have exhibited these problems for such a long duration that they pose a threat to the community. For these youth, institutional care is necessary and appropriate to deliver treatment and establish accountability before a step-down program to community care can be realized with any success. We must also be sensitive to the fears of victims. Restorative justice models have been effective in this area.

The public must be able to feel confidence in alternative dispositions in order to accept them in lieu of incarceration. When people begin to look beyond the myth of the "superpredator" to understand the connection between family dysfunction, child victimization, and juvenile delinquency, they will become more favorably disposed to alternative dispositions. Success stories describing the youth who have benefitted from court interventions must be publicized in the media as widely as are the horror stories.

Juvenile Justice: The disproportionate confinement of minority juveniles raises a number of questions. Is the juvenile court in a position to affect this problem? If so, how?

Hon. J. Dean Lewis: Judges are in a prime position to have an impact on disproportionate minority confinement by following the recommendations in the National Council's policy statement Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: A Judicial Response. They should discuss the problem openly and should lead court-related agencies to identify the practices and procedures of the justice system that cause minority youth to be at greater risk of removal from their families than other youth.

We need to remember, however, that the overrepresentation of minorities in the court system exists in the dependency system (e.g., cases involving child abuse and neglect and foster care) in addition to the delinquency system. The intake mechanisms for all systems should be reassessed, and ethnic and cultural sensitivity training should be put in place for all who deal with youth and their families.

Juvenile Justice: It seems the challenge facing juvenile court judges has never been greater. What do you believe are the most significant challenges facing the juvenile court today, and what are the tools the court needs to surmount them?

Hon. J. Dean Lewis: The National Council, in partnership with OJJDP and the State Justice Institute, sponsored The Janiculum Project, a national symposium to address this issue, in the fall of 1997. In essence, juvenile courts need to build on the triumphs they have achieved and must enhance due process, court-community collaboration, and availability of rehabilitative resources and graduated sanction options. Government needs to ensure that the juvenile courts have sufficient professional staff to monitor cases. The courts need to integrate the child welfare and delinquency intervention services in communities. The approach to delinquency must be a multidisciplinary one.

The juvenile courts of the future need to be involved in prevention and early intervention. The Federal grants available for the Safe Start Initiative (a project of the U.S. Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services) are a step in the right direction. The judiciary and the citizens of this country must become partners in preventing abuse, neglect, and family violence in order to prevent delinquency. This focus will benefit future generations and improve quality of life as we empower more youth and families with the skills to ensure a successful future.

Court Improvement of Foster Care and Adoption programs have proven to be an important focus in the prevention of delinquency. These State projects have given needed guidance to judges and social workers in methods to use in reducing the time dependent youth linger in foster care. Because we now recognize from the research publicized by President Clinton that exposure to child abuse and neglect and family violence and later delinquency are linked, there should be a commitment to effective intervention when the child is a victim. Because of this linkage, courts and communities need to implement the recommendations of the National Council's recent publication Effective Intervention In Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment Cases: Guidelines for Policy and Practice.

Courts should encourage citizens to get involved in identifying and seeking intervention for at-risk youth in their communities. There are successful programs across the country that can be replicated. If we really want to make a difference, the tools are there. Judges can play a leadership role in making communities aware of the problem and the solutions.

Juvenile Justice: What role can judges play in improving the juvenile court system in the coming years?

Hon. J. Dean Lewis: The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges encourages all judges who serve in these courts to follow in the footsteps of our founding fathers and:

Step out from behind the bench and be involved in the community.

Be conveners and educators in their communities.

Advocate for the development of resources and ensure their availability.

Recruit and train attorneys and court-appointed special advocates willing to serve as counsel and guardians ad litem for children in the court.

Ensure that all who advocate for children and families are well educated in the law, court procedures, and local resources for children and families. Judges should hold these important court participants to a high level of accountability.

Administer an effective and efficient court system that implements good business practices in serving both a rehabilitative and protective function for children and their families.

Involve the citizens and the governing body of the community in the process of change.

Working together, courts and communities can shape the personality of the court to suit the needs of the community that the court serves. The work of the juvenile court has always been, in the words of one of my predecessors as National Council President, the Honorable Gustav Schramm, "to draw together and to focus upon the problems of a child the best the community has developed."

The Janiculum Project: Reviewing the Past To Look Toward the Juvenile Court's Future Taking its name from Janiculum Hill, the highest point in Rome, which became a 19th-century watchtower for invasions from any direction, the Janiculum Project was initiated by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), with support from OJJDP and the State Justice Institute. The project is tasked with examining the past, present, and future of the juvenile and family court. To inaugurate the project, juvenile court judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, court managers, probation officials, victims' advocates, and scholars convened in 1997 to review the early history of the court; analyze current practices, trends, strengths, and weaknesses; and discuss the expectations of and challenges for the court of the future. The group's recommendations were set forth in The Janiculum Report: Reviewing the Past and Looking Toward the Future of the Juvenile Court, a blueprint for juvenile court reform. Symposium participants recognized that the role of the juvenile and family court is in reducing factors that could lead to a juvenile's court involvement and strengthening those that promote successful community reintegration. The court should address delinquent behavior through a balanced approach. This approach includes community protection, constructive sanctions, juvenile accountability, and the development of skills to change the behavior that led to the juvenile's involvement in the system and which will enable him or her to become a contributing member of society. The project's recommendations address the ways that courts can accomplish this mission most effectively. The Janiculum Report envisions a juvenile and family court that is more open, user friendly, and sensitive to crime victims. The recommendations it contains are organized in four sections: Jurisdictional and structural recommendations, including the recommendation that juvenile and family courts have broad jurisdiction over the entire range of legal concerns of youth and families, including delinquency prevention functions. Procedural recommendations, including the recommendation that youth have an unwaivable right to effective and well-compensated counsel in juvenile court cases involving criminal and noncriminal misbehavior and in cases of abuse or neglect. Programmatic recommendations, including the recommendation that the juvenile and family court should use a continuum of program options in the provision of services for dependent, neglected, abused, and delinquent youth and their families. System accountability recommendations, including the recommendation that juvenile and family court service providers use the best available technology to enhance operational effectiveness. In this centennial year of the juvenile court, juvenile justice practitioners will do well to reflect on its status, considering where it has been, where it is now, and, most important, where it should go. Only consistent and ongoing review can ensure that the court will continue to meet the needs of youth, on whom the Nation's future relies. For further information regarding the Janiculum Project, contact NCJFCJ, P.O. Box 8970, Reno, NV 89507, 702-784-6012. The full text of the report is available on the NCJFCJ Web site (www.ncjfcj.org/).

Juvenile Justice: Judge Lewis, as our discussion has illustrated, the juvenile court has adjusted to many societal changes—both in behaviors and attitudes—over the past century. How do you see the court evolving to meet the needs of the 21st century?

Hon. J. Dean Lewis: Probably the single greatest societal change we have encountered is the breakdown of the nuclear and extended family. As young families relocate seeking jobs and housing, many of them, including single parents, feel isolated due to this movement away from recognized support systems. We need to build community support systems to replace traditional family support systems for those single-parent families at high risk because of their isolation. Again, judicial leadership can be key in informing communities of the problem and of potential solutions. In my own jurisdiction, the population doubled in a 10-year period. Many of the new residents have been single parents looking for affordable housing but commuting to work each day to Washington, DC, or Richmond, VA, sometimes traveling 2 hours each way. These newcomers have no extended family in the area and spend so much time commuting that they often do not have the time to get to know their neighbors. They are at high risk due to their isolation and the unavailability of both the nuclear family and extended family support systems we have relied on in the past. Courts can partner with communities as the first juvenile courts did to identify families at risk and assist them before problems become unmanageable.

Juvenile courts have long been evolving in the direction of the comprehensive family court—that is, toward dealing with the family, whose members may be before the court over different issues, as a functioning unit rather than a collection of disconnected individuals. No doubt, that movement will continue. The National Council has promoted a model of "one family-one judge" in the dependency court system. This concept needs to be applied to all juvenile and family court cases.

Unquestionably, as a court, we need to become more efficient—swifter and surer. We need to achieve a better understanding of our successes. We need to face our failures more squarely. And we need to continue to enlist the energy and support of the communities we serve.

Juvenile Justice: Thank you, Judge Lewis.

Previous

Contents

Next