New York City Family Services Case Study

South Metro Human Services is a community center is a non profit organization in Saint Paul Minnesota that has been established since 1987 but was founded a year earlier. (South Metro Human Services, 2015). This agency assists with treatment centers, job readiness, mental health counseling for children and adults, DBT(Dialectical Behavioral Therapy), CADI waiver program for adults and children. All these services assist the individuals that come to this community center with the tools to be effective in their community as well in their personal lives.

Ms. Melina Goode is an Administrative Assistant for the D.C Superior Court with 2 years’ experience in the Supervised Visitation Center of the D.C Superior Court. As the highlight of her career with the Court’s, Ms. Goode provided quality reinsurance to families in complex legal matters, domestic relations, and mediation cases. With her background in youth volunteering with Prince Gorges County Parks & Recreation, she idealistically focused on demonstrating the sincere message of concern for the need of fathers in children’s lives and families function together. Ms. Goode’s diligence in her administrative capacity to move throughout the courts to various division’s for providing support, has left a trailblazing impact on families in the District

But back in 1891, a bill was introduced in the Illinois General Assembly proposing a children’s court. The person most instrumental in introducing this bill was Timothy D. Hurley, president of the Catholic-controlled Chicago Visitation and Aid Society. The bill would give county courts the power to commit dependent children to any nonprofit child welfare organization incorporated under Illinois law (Tannenhaus, 2002). In addition, the bill proposed that county courts be empowered to commit to private child-saving organizations any child “being trained or allowed to be trained in vice and crime” (Platt, 2009, p. 123 – 124). Lucy Flower supported this bill because it would give judges more discretion in handling dependent cases (Tannenhaus, 2002).

This year, my field placement is at the Family Service Bureau of Newark (FSB). This agency offers behavioral and mental health services to individuals, couples and families. FSB is one of the branches of an umbrella organization called New Community Corporation (NCC). In 1967, Newark’s central ward went through a series of civil disorders, thus labeling Newark as one of the most hopeless cities in the nation. Many neighborhoods were left in ruins, but there was a strong desire to rebuild the city. Father Linder and a group of associates decided to make a vision happen, thus founding the NCC in 1968. Disorder, poverty, and despair in Newark’s Central Ward gave birth to the NCC, known today as one of the largest and most comprehensive community

The Facts: A judge out of a New York Family court found 12-year old Winship (Defendant) had committed an act of stealing money from a pocketbook in a locker that if it had been committed by an adult it would have been a crime. But due to it being a 12-year old, the judge relying on a preponderance of the evidence, the standard of proof required by the New York Family Court Act, led the way of giving good reason that justified the fact that a young person did the crime that he was charged with. Winship had to dealt with a finding like this had to be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This decision was supported by the New York Court of Appeals and sustained the constitutional, but Winship was granted a review by the United States Supreme Court.

Beginning in the 1960s, the US Supreme Court decided on a succession of landmark cases that histrionically altered the processes and all around atmosphere of the Juvenile Justice System in America. One case in particular that played a major role in the Juvenile field is Kent vs. US (383 US. 541 [1966]). The landmark case Kent vs. United States, observed as the first chief juvenile rights case in our history. This important case established the collective standards that entitled juveniles the right to waivers and preliminary hearings, which ensured due process was served. This would ultimately decide if the court would shift Kent into adult jurisdiction or allow him to remain in the juvenile system.

My spring internship with Charles L. Levy Law Firm introduced me to the complexities of children protective services (CPS) cases and contractual law. While working with Mr. Levy on CPS cases, I was able to observe over 30 civil cases at the Waco courthouse and help supervise child visits. I developed a more complete understanding of the importance of CPS cases through attending meetings with caseworkers, investigating suspect parents, and visiting children that had been placed in new homes. Mr. Levy also gave me the opportunity to collaborate on various insurance cases that exposed me to legal materials, such as depositions, that are common in many legal practices. Although tedious at times, helping Mr. Levy with insurance cases was interesting

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the family centered services generated preventable client assignment with no definite procedures for stability (Mass & Engler, 1959; Gruber, 1973 ;as cited by Pecora, Reed-Ashcraft, & Kirk). Furthermore, Gruber (1973) established that the problem was rooted in insufficient data to make suitable decisions to address clients concerns. Likewise, Franshel & Shinn (1978; as cited by Pecora, Reed-Ashcraft, & Kirk) added that this resulted in one of many issues such as, family centered services encouraging separation between blood relatives by restricting contact.

Today, the subject about children custody is commonly discussed about. Children are often left to the hands of those who are thought to be “better.” A child’s environment and the care he/she receives is a major point in deciding where the custody of the child land. Many parents lose their children due to their “inability” to raise their child. A good amount of kids are torn away from their parent’s love and affection due to the parent’s financial status or other devastating reasons.

Reform struggles began in the 1960’s and it had changed the appearance of the juvenile justice system. New York passed legislation in 1962 which made a family court system. This court system took on the responsibility for all concerns which involves family life and heavy concentration on delinquent and neglected youths. The PINS (person in need of supervision) and CHINS (children in need of supervision) were also created by legislation which contains issues like truancy. When utilizing these labels it sets jurisdiction over youth, juvenile courts extended their roles as social agencies. The 1960’s and 70’s the juvenile justice system was changed when it released cycles of decisions that established the right of juveniles to receive due process of law as mentioned above. The goals of were to a) remove youths from incarceration at adult prisons, b) eliminate incarceration of delinquents and status offenders. In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act provide 100,000 police officers and billions of dollars for prisons and prevention programs for adults and youth offenders, (Siegel, L.J., & Welsh, B. C., 2012). The juvenile justice system today maneuvers jurisdiction over delinquents and status offender. The delinquent youth fall under jurisdictional age limit which is different from state to state and the condition of act committed in violation of penal code. Status offenders are defined as youths in need of supervision.

The Administration for Children and Families mission is to “foster health and well-being by providing federal leadership, partnership and resources for the compassionate and effective delivery of human services” (ACF Vision). The Administration for Children and Families works on many levels to help build an overall good well-being for our youth, families, communities, and country that we can by educating and offering supportive services.

The courts play a huge role in the criminal justice system. The dual court system of the United States (U.S.) was established through the U.S. constitution. The court systems have a multiple purposes and elements of court. Federal and state court system is what makes up the dual court system of the U.S. Today the U.S. court system is what it is today because of previous legal codes, common law, and the precedent it played in the past. Making the U.S. court system a vital role in the criminal justice system..

The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican

America’s juvenile justice system has been around for ages and has had problems since its creation. The courts have failed to devise a way to help juveniles and keep them from even entering the justice system. More often than not, juveniles are forgotten and never dealt with until they reach the point where they are either going to be placed within the system or receive some sort of diversion or alternative. This is where the problem exists. There needs to be more communication between the different levels of the juvenile justice system. Particularly between the officers that may arrest these juveniles, the probation officers that deal with them, and of course the judge in the court system. The juvenile court is supposed to have provided due process protections along with care, treatment, and rehabilitation for juveniles while protecting society. Yet, there is still considerable doubt as to whether the juvenile justice network can meet these goals (Cox, Allen & Hanser, 2013).

The United States court system is the institution were all the legal disputes in the american society are carryed out and resolved. However, one single court is not enough to resolve every single dispute in society and that is why the court system is made up of two different courts, the federal courts and the state courts. Moreover, the federal and state courts are made up of several divisions made to handle legal disputes differently depending on its seriousness. For example, the state court is made up of trial courts of limited jurisdiction and probate courts were cases and disputes originate and then move up to trial courts of general jurisdiction, intermediate apellate courts, and courts of last resort respectively depending on the case.In contrast, the federal court consists of district courts, territorial coutrs, tax court, court of international trade, claims court, court of veterans appeals, an courts of military review which then move on to courts of appeals respectively and may ultimately end up in the United States supreme court. In addition, cases from state court may also appeal into the federal court system but not the other way around.