A Need for Training: Preparing Juvenile and Family Court Judges on Military-Related Issues

bs_bs_banner A Need for Training: Preparing Juvenile and Family Court Judges on Military-Related Issues By Shawn C. Marsh, Ph.D. and Carlene Gonzalez, Ph.D. ABSTRACT This brief report presents a study undertaken to better understand the training needs of judicial officers related to military issues. A snowball sample of judicial officers and court-affiliated stakeholders were asked to identify the most critical training topics regarding military issues in juvenile and family court, as well as rate the importance of 13 potential training topics. The highest rated training topics for judicial officers (N = 129) were the (1) Welfare of spouses and children, (2) Protocols to consider when selecting kinship care for children of deployed parents, (3) Mental and physical health consequences of military service and deployment, (4) Reporting standards regarding Intimate Partner Violence or Family Violence, as well as implications for civil case investigation, and (5) Education support for children of deployed parents. Findings suggest a desire in the field for specific training on a multitude of issues related to serving/veteran men and women, spouses, and dependents. Recommendations for such trainings are discussed. INTRODUCTION Since its founding in 1937, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) has pursued a mission to improve courts and systems practice, and to raise awareness of the core issues that touch the lives of many of our nation s children and families. A core strategy in this effort is to provide judges, courts, and related agencies involved with juvenile, family, and domestic violence cases with the knowledge and skills needed to improve the lives of the families and children who seek justice. With the number of military service men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan increasing, the justice system must prepare itself to serve this special population. Recent research suggests that veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom (OEF), Iraqi Freedom Shawn C. Marsh, Ph.D. is the Chief Program Officer for Juvenile Law at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Carlene Gonzalez, Ph.D. is a Research Associate for Juvenile Law at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 65, No. 2 (Spring) 13 2014 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

14 JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JOURNAL / Spring 2014 (OIF), and New Dawn appear to be at lower risk of incarceration than their counterparts in other service eras; however, veterans who are incarcerated demonstrate higher rates of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). 1 This finding is not surprising because researchers estimate that one in five service men and women (approximately 300,000) who served in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from mental health issues such as PTSD or depression. 2 Further, mental health diagnoses and psychosocial problems (e.g., domestic violence, unemployment, and homelessness) have been shown to co-occur among OIF/OEF veterans 3, and age and sex have been shown to be risk factors associated with mental health diagnoses. Specifically, studies suggest that veterans under 25 have been diagnosed at higher rates for PTSD and alcohol/substance abuse disorders than their counterparts who are 40 or older, and that female veterans have been shown to be at a greater risk of depression than male veterans. 4 Combat exposure has also been positively associated with a higher risk of PTSD, 5 with combat exposure greater among veterans deployed to Iraq than Afghanistan. 6 Screening criteria for major depression, anxiety, or PTSD were also higher for veterans who served in Iraq (15-17 percent), compared to their counterparts who served in Afghanistan (11 percent). 7 Research shows that only 23-40 percent of those who screened positive for mental health issues sought assistance because they feared repercussions (e.g., stigmatizing by their superiors and/or military colleagues). 8 In addition to mental health issues, returning veterans face alcohol and substance use, intimate partner violence (IPV), and homelessness issues. Alcohol use among OIF/OEF veterans has increased, with 20 percent of veterans reporting heavy drinking and 47 percent reporting binge drinking. 9 Researchers suggest that IPV physical abuse is most common (occurring in 89 percent to 93 percent of all reported cases) among military service members. 10 Research also 1 Tsai, J., Rosenheck, R. A., Kasprow W, J., & McGuire, J. F. (2013). Risk of incarceration and other characteristics of Iraq and Afghanistan era veterans in state and federal prisons. Psychiatric Services in Advance, 64(1), 36-43. 2 RAND Corporation. (2008, April). One in five Iraq and Afghanistan veterans suffer from PTSD or major depression. Retrieved August 2013 from http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/04/17.html. 3 Seal, K. H., Bertenthal, D., Miner. C. R., Saunak, S., & Marmar, C. (2007). Bringing the war back home: Mental health disorders among 103,788 US veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan seen at Department of Veterans Affairs facilities. Archive of Internal Medicine, 167, 476-482. 4 Seal, K. H., Metzler, T. J., Gima, K. S., Bertenthal, D., Maguen, S., & Marmar, C. R. (2009). Trends and risk factors for mental health diagnoses among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans using Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care, 2002-2008. American Journal of Public Health, 99(9), 1651-1658. 5 Ibid. 6 Hoge, C. W., Castro, C. A., Messer, S. C., McGurk, D., Cotting, D. I., & Koffman, R. L. (2004). Combat exposure in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems and barriers to care. New England Journal of Medicine, 351(1), 13-22. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. Also see Friedman, M. J. (2004). Acknowledging the psychiatric cost of war. The New England Journal of Medicine, 351(1), 75-77. 9 Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. (2012). Substance use disorders in the U.S. armed forces. Report Brief. Retrieved November 2013 from http://iom.edu/~/media/files/report%20files/ 2012/Military-SUD/SUD_rb.pdf. 10 McCarroll, J. E., Newby, J. H., Thayer, L. E., Norwood, A. E., Fullerton, C. S., & Ursano, R. J. (1999). Reports of spouse abuse in the U.S. Army Central Registry (1989-1997). Military Medicine, 164, 77-84. Also see McCarroll, J. E., Ursano, R. J., Fan, Z., & Newby, J. H. (2004). Patterns of mutual and non-mutual spouse abuse in the U.S. Army (1998-2002). Violence and Victims, 19, 453-468; and Mollerstrom,

Marsh and Gonzalez / A NEED FOR TRAINING 15 suggests that deployments and returns impose stresses on military families and increase the rate of child maltreatment. 11 Even though the number of homeless U.S. veterans has decreased since 2010, 12 nearly 58,000 veterans are estimated to be currently homeless. Purpose of the Present Study The research clearly illustrates the many stressors that military service members and their families face. After witnessing an increase in the number of veterans in his court, Judge Robert Russell founded the first Veterans Treatment Court in Buffalo, New York in 2008. 13 By 2012, the number of Veterans Treatment Courts across the nation had increased to over 100. These types of courts serve the veteran population with a better understanding of the issues they commonly experience, including substance addiction and PTSD. Because resources available to implement Veteran Treatment Courts across the nation are limited, juvenile and family courts have seen an increase in complex military-related cases. The present study seeks to identify the training needed by juvenile and family court professionals who handle cases involving military service members. METHOD A survey developed by NCJFCJ staff, with the guidance of the NCJFCJ s Military Issues and Juvenile and Family Law Department 14 Advisory Committees, was sent to NCJFCJ members, various NCJFCJ listservs, and numerous national organizations with similar interests such as the American Bar Association and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. A snowball sample technique requested survey recipients to forward the online survey link to their colleagues. The survey was accessible to participants for approximately one month (December 2011-January 2012), during which time potential participants received one email reminder. Participants Of the 404 juvenile and family court professionals who responded to the survey, 77 percent of participants (n = 310) were selected for further analyses. 15 Participants W. W., Patchner, M. A., & Milner, J. S. (1992). Family violence in the Air Force: A look at offenders and the role of the Family Advocacy Program. Military Medicine, 157, 371-374. 11 Rentz, E. D., Marshall, S. W., Loomis, D., Casteel, C., Martin, S. L., & Gibbs, D.A. (2007). Effect of deployment on the occurrence of child maltreatment in military and nonmilitary families. American Journal of Epidemiology, 165(10), 1199-1206. 12 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2013). The 2013 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. Retrieved November 2013 from https://www.onecpd.info/ resources/documents/ahar-2013-part1.pdf. 13 Justice for Veterans. Retrieved October 2013 from http://justiceforvets.org/vtc-history. 14 Now Juvenile Law Programs. 15 To be included in further analyses, individuals must have self-reported having some professional contact with military service members and/or their families. Please note that descriptive statistics and/or analyses will represent this particular sub-sample of participants.

16 JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JOURNAL / Spring 2014 TABLE 1 Percentage of Participants by Occupation Occupation Frequency (n) Percent Judicial Officer (Judge or Magistrate) 129 41.6 Other 75 24.2 Defense Counsel 36 11.6 Juvenile Probation 32 10.3 Court Administrator 17 5.5 Agency Administrator 10 3.2 Prosecutor 7 2.3 Social Worker 4 1.3 Total 310 100 represented a wide range of occupations (see Table 1). The most commonly reported professions of respondents were judges (42 percent), other (24 percent), defense counsel (12 percent), and juvenile probation (10 percent). Common other respondents included private attorneys, family law attorneys, and mental health professionals such as psychologists. Participants represented 30 states, with Oklahoma (20 percent) and Ohio (9 percent) having the largest number of respondents. Nearly half of the judicial officers indicated that they served urban jurisdictions (47.5 percent), followed by officers who served rural (27.5 percent), and suburban (25 percent) areas. None of the judicial officers who participated reported an affiliation with a tribal court, but four other respondents did report such an affiliation. Judicial officers were asked the percentage of time they spent dealing with the following six issues: (1) Juvenile justice, (2) Abuse/neglect and child welfare, (3) Domestic violence, (4) Family law, (5) Criminal or other non-juvenile/non-family law, and (6) Administrative duties. Over 73 percent of judges indicated spending time on four or more of these issues. Nearly 17 percent of judicial officers reported spending 50-100 percent of their time dealing with family law cases, followed by abuse neglect/child welfare cases (11.6 percent), and criminal or other non-juvenile/non-family law cases (8.6 percent). Most judicial officers (79.1 percent) reported the existence of a reserve or active military installation in their jurisdiction. Most of the respondents, however, reported that they either had very little or frequent contact with members of the military and/or their families in their occupational context (see Table 2). This pattern existed for both judges and all other respondents. Judicial officers reported having the most frequent contact with personnel from the National Guard (55 percent), followed by the Army (47.3 percent), and local Veterans Administration or Military Hospital (41.1 percent). On average, judicial officers reported 2.19 (SD = 1.43) active duty or reserve installations near their jurisdiction.

Marsh and Gonzalez / A NEED FOR TRAINING 17 TABLE 2 Contact with Members of the Military and/or their Families by Occupation At least once Once every Once every 2-3 months per month 4-6 weeks or less often Total n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) Judicial Officers 45 (34.9%) 24 (18.6%) 60 (46.5%) 129 (41.6%) All Other 55 (30.4%) 31 (17.1%) 95 (52.5%) 181 (58.3%) Respondents Materials In addition to demographic data, participants were asked a series of questions relating to pertinent military issues. First, participants were asked to identify the single most critical training topic regarding military issues in juvenile and family courts, in general and specific to their jurisdiction. Then, participants were asked to rate the importance of 13 potential training topics, including but not limited to Protocols when selecting kinship care, Possible effects of military service, and Issues relating to intimate partner violence. These 13 items were rated on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from Extremely Unimportant = 1toExtremely Important = 4. Most Critical Issues RESULTS When asked to identify the single most critical training topic regarding military issues in juvenile and family courts (in general and specific to their jurisdiction), both judicial officers and other respondents cited the following topics: (1) Issues of custody related to child support calculations, Family Care Plans, division of assets in a divorce, parenting time, and visitation, (2) The effects of deployment on the soldier and family, specifically PTSD and other mental health issues as well as soldier reentry, and (3) The Service Members Civil Relief Act. Some of these issues, such as the effects of deployment, were also ranked higher when participants prioritized a list of potential training topics (See Table 3). Potential Trainings Topics Table 3 illustrates judicial officers ratings of potential training topics, from most to least important. To better understand potential differences between the judiciary and other respondents, 13 independent sample t-tests were run to compare mean differences between judicial officers and all other respondents ratings on all of the 13 potential training topics. Ratings for 12 of the 13 training topics did not differ between judicial

18 JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JOURNAL / Spring 2014 TABLE 3 Average Ratings of Potential Training Topics by Group Topic Judicial Officers Mean (SD) All Other Respondents Mean (SD) Significance Welfare of spouses and children when deployed, legally separated, or divorced Protocol to consider when selecting kinship care for children of deployed parent(s) Possible effects of military service and deployments on neurological and psychological status Issues regarding intimate partner violence, family violence, and differential reporting standards Educational support for children of deployed parent(s) A primer on your state s code of military justice as it applies to juvenile and family law cases Special issues for women in the military and as veterans A primer on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as it applies to family violence, child maltreatment, and consequences of military careers Benchmark collaborative and supportive services for families and juveniles in need Protocols that apply to violations of UCMJ or state codes of military justice that might be applicable to military families living on or off-base A summary of Veterans Courts and existing evaluative data A primer on the Chain of Command for each branch of the service and the National Guard/Reserves Procedural practices in military hearing and courts M = 3.56 (SD =.84) M = 3.51 (SD =.91) M = 3.38 (SD =.91) M = 3.37 (SD =.95) M = 3.25 (SD =.98) M = 3.04 (SD = 1.05) M = 3.00 (SD = 1.01) M = 2.98 (SD = 1.07) M = 2.97 (SD = 1.07) M = 2.89 (SD = 1.06) M = 2.57 (SD = 1.00) M = 2.37 (SD =.96) M = 2.18 (SD =.96) M = 3.48 (SD =.95) M = 3.54 (SD =.87) M = 3.50 (SD =.82) M = 3.35 (SD = 1.01) M = 3.30 (SD =.98) M = 3.19 (SD = 1.08) M = 3.08 (SD = 1.09) M = 3.21 (SD = 1.03) M = 3.14 (SD = 1.09) M = 3.05 (SD = 1.07) M = 2.53 (SD = 1.07) M = 2.50 (SD = 1.09) M = 2.67 (SD = 1.13) t(247) = 3.76, p =.000 16 16 Because the Levene s test was significant, the t-test reported assumes that variances were not equal.

Marsh and Gonzalez / A NEED FOR TRAINING 19 officers and other respondents. The single exception was for ratings for the Procedural practices in military hearings and courts topic which judicial officers rated as significantly less important (M = 2.18) than all other respondents (M = 2.67, See Table 3). Monthly Contact with Military Members To better understand how level of exposure might impact results, a subset of the sample was selected to examine any differences in respondents who had the most frequent contact with military members and their families. An additional 13 independent sample t-tests were run to compare mean differences between judicial officers and all other respondents ratings of training topics by frequency of military contact (i.e., at least monthly contact with military members and/or their family members). Ratings of 11 of the 13 potential training topics did not differ significantly between judicial officers who reported having at least monthly contact with military members and/or their families and all other respondents who reported having similar contact levels. Like findings reported in Table 3, judicial officers with monthly military contact (M = 2.23) rated the potential training topic Procedural practices in military hearings and courts significantly lower in importance than all other respondents with frequent military contact (M = 2.82). 17 Judicial officers who had monthly contact with military members (M = 2.51) also rated the potential training topic, A primer on your state s code of military justice as it applies to juvenile and family law cases significantly lower in importance than all other respondents with frequent military contact (M = 2.82). It is important to note, however, that the latter finding is only marginally significant. 18 Potential Training Topics by Jurisdiction Type Lastly, to elucidate how jurisdiction locale and size might influence responses, 13 analyses of variance were run to compare mean differences of potential training topics between judicial officers by jurisdiction type (i.e., urban, suburban, or rural). Ratings were marginally significant for only one of the 13 training topics (i.e., possible effects of military service and deployments on neurological and psychological status). 19 A Tukey HSD post-hoc test revealed that judicial officers who serve urban jurisdictions rated this potential training topic higher in importance, in comparison to their counterparts serving suburban jurisdictions. Judicial officers serving rural jurisdictions, however, did not differ from their counterparts in urban or suburban areas. Differences in ratings were not found for all other respondents based on jurisdiction type. 17 Independent sample t-test level of significance, t(81) = 2.63, p =.010. Because the Levene s test was insignificant, the t-test reported assumes that variances were equal. 18 Independent sample t-test level of significance, t(77) = 1.86, p =.067. Because the Levene s test was insignificant, the t-test reported assumes that variances were equal. 19 ANOVA level of significance, F(2,116) = 2.82, p =.064.

20 JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JOURNAL / Spring 2014 DISCUSSION With the number of military service members and their families served by the juvenile and family court systems increasing, it is critical to prepare judicial staff and stakeholders on common factors affecting these families, including the consequences of war, the UCMJ, and protocols dealing with deployed parent(s). With funding by the Vivian Phillips Charitable Trust, the NCJFCJ surveyed over 300 juvenile and family court professionals on their training and technical assistance needs related to various military issues. Overall, findings between judicial officers and all other respondents differed very little in their ranking of potential training topics. Of 13 potential training topics, judicial officers and other respondents ratings varied only on Procedural practices in military hearings and courts, with judicial officers rating this topic as significantly less important than other respondents. This pattern was also observed among judicial officers who had the most frequent contact (i.e., monthly) with military members. It might be helpful for state judicial officers to be aware of procedural practices in military courts, but it is not surprising that state judicial officers would rank this type of training as significantly less important than other training topics because it is not particularly relevant to their courts procedures and practices. Judicial officers who had monthly contact with military members (in comparison to all other respondents) also rated A primer on the state s code of military justice as it applies to juvenile and family law cases as significantly less important than all other respondents. It is a bit surprising that judicial officers ranked this type of training as less important. One possible explanation may be that judicial officers (especially those who have frequent contact with military members) may feel well-prepared for serving this special population in juvenile and family law cases. Another possible explanation may be that state judicial officers are less interested in the code of military justice because they are serving military service men and women in civilian courts. When examining differences by jurisdiction type, only one of the 13 potential training topics was marginally significant. Judicial officers who served urban jurisdictions rated the possible effects of military service on neurological and psychological status higher in importance, in comparison to their counterparts who serve suburban jurisdictions. Judicial officers serving rural jurisdictions, however, did not differ from their counterparts in urban or suburban areas. In light of marginal significance, data limitations, and the relative consistency in agreement on ratings across jurisdiction type, we do not offer a potential explanation for the single difference that emerged in this series of analyses. RECOMMENDATIO Given the number of service members who have experienced deployment in the last decade and our understanding of the potential deleterious psychological, social, and physical effects of such deployments on individuals and families, it is not surprising that

Marsh and Gonzalez / A NEED FOR TRAINING 21 juvenile and family courts report a need for additional education on how to better serve this population. The survey results reported here offer important guidance on how to focus and prioritize those training efforts. Specifically, we offer the following recommendations for the NCJFCJ and other judicial education organizations: 1. Working with other judicial and court education organizations, catalog existing trainings on military issues that are relevant to juvenile and family court judges. 2. Develop a list of expert trainers who have experience presenting to judicial officers and court professionals on topics related to system-involved members of the military and their families. 3. Using the catalog of trainings and the faculty roster referenced in (1) and (2), conduct a gap analysis to identify curricula and educators that need to be further developed. 4. Identify and involve allied organizations (such as the Military Child Education Coalition) and fields (such as public health, mental health, etc.) in developing, and ultimately delivering, training to judicial and court audiences. 5. Working with allied organizations, engage the NCJFCJ s Military Issues Committee in developing trainings and faculty. 6. Seek to leverage online training technology (live or asynchronous) to maximize access and reach. 7. Ensure that conferences, judicial institutes, and other educational gatherings include sessions on priority topics identified by survey participants. 8. Aggressively market the availability of trainings through various communication channels, such as membership email, newsletters, and conference booths. 9. Evaluate the effectiveness of training to course correct education efforts and ensure application of knowledge in day-to-day practice. 10. Convene a national summit or roundtable of stakeholders, including military or veterans representatives (such as the Department of Defense, Veterans Administration, and advocates) to further craft and resource an action plan to educate justice professionals about court-involved service members and their families. CONCLUSION The results of the survey reported here offer valuable insights on the perceived training needs of the juvenile and family court field on military issues, and provide guidance on how to prioritize efforts to meet those expressed needs. With current military downsizing, yet ongoing conflicts across the globe, courts will doubtlessly continue to face unique issues and challenges when dealing with service members and their families. Thoughtful development and prioritization of training is critical not only to supporting the work of juvenile and family courts across the nation, but also to ensuring the best possible treatment of some of our most deserving citizens.