Maltreated and Nonmaltreated Children’s Knowledge of the Juvenile Dependency Court System

Abstract

The current study examined age differences in maltreated and nonmaltreated children’s knowledge of juvenile dependency court vocabulary and proceedings. One hundred and sixty-seven children aged 4–14 years were questioned about their understanding of legal vocabulary and about the content of a story depicting a child involved in dependency court. Age-related increases emerged across all measures of children’s legal understanding. Direct experience with the dependency system was also related to the accuracy of children’s legal knowledge. Children with greater experience in the dependency system were more knowledgeable than children with no such experience, although even the oldest maltreated children with considerable dependency system experience evidenced some deficits in legal knowledge. Overall, findings suggest children and adolescents involved in dependency proceedings need help understanding some aspects of the dependency process, and this need exists regardless of whether children have been involved in cases ongoing for some time.

Since the 1980s, a small but growing body of research has examined children’s understanding of the legal system. This research has focused largely on children’s knowledge of their legal rights, competency, and capabilities as defendants (e.g., Burnett, Noblin, & Prosser, 2004; Grisso et al., 2003). Far less attention has been devoted to children’s understanding of the dependency system (i.e., the division of juvenile court that intervenes on behalf of children exposed to maltreatment). The lack of attention is noteworthy for several reasons, the first of which is the large number of children involved in the dependency system (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008). In addition, children in this system are often expected to be active participants in their case, both with respect to recounting their maltreatment experiences and describing their preferences regarding appropriate placement (Pitchal, 2008). To be active participants, however, children need to have at least some understanding of what is happening. Moreover, less knowledge about an impending stressor (e.g., testifying in criminal court) is associated with greater experiences of distress (e.g., Goodman et al., 1992), and, within the legal system, less knowledge often predicts more negative attitudes about the system (Block, Oran, Oran, Baumrind, & Goodman, in press). Whether children actually have adequate knowledge of the dependency system, though, is unknown but clearly in need of direct empirical investigation.

Prior studies of children’s legal knowledge have largely examined either developmental changes in general legal knowledge in community (i.e., nonlegal) samples or understanding of legal rights in juvenile delinquents. From this work, two general trends have emerged. One is age-related improvements in understanding (Flin, Stevenson, & Davies, 1989). Young children typically have little knowledge of legal procedures and personnel (Saywitz, Jaenicke, & Camparo, 1990), and children’s knowledge improves steadily thereafter. Of interest, even many adolescents, including those involved in the juvenile system, still lack a complete understanding of legal terminology and concepts (Grisso, 1981, Saywitz et al., 1990). It is unknown whether similar gaps in knowledge also exist in adolescents’ understanding of the dependency system.

The second trend concerns how legal experiences affect children’s knowledge. Surprisingly, few differences in such knowledge have emerged between children without legal experience and children who have been a witness or defendant (Freshwater & Aldridge, 1994; Saywitz et al., 1990). A few studies have even reported lower factual knowledge among children with more extensive legal experiences (Grisso, 1981; Saywitz, 1989). Whether similar trends exist in children in dependency cases, though, is unclear. For instance, relative to children who have contact with the criminal, civil, or juvenile system, children in the dependency system may interact with a wider range of individuals (e.g., guardian ad litems, attorneys, social workers, judges) who are expected to help children understand what is happening. Furthermore, because multiple hearings are often held at which children’s placement and well-being are reviewed, children who attend many of these hearings might exhibit greater dependency court knowledge relative to children with no legal experience, especially when children are older when they attend and have a better general sense of the purpose of the hearings (Flin et al., 1989).

Of importance, because dependency courts may maintain jurisdiction over children long after initial decisions regarding the maltreatment allegations have been made and children’s placement is decided, one might not see a simple linear relation between length of time in the system and legal knowledge. For example, many states require that, by the time children have been in the system for 2 years, they should have a permanency planning hearing at which their long-term placement is established (e.g., long-term foster placement; e.g., Cal. Wel. & Inst. Code Sections 366.21, 366.22). As such, hearings 2 years post-removal are largely routine proceedings in which the continued appropriateness of the child’s placement is certified by the court. These children may thus have qualitatively different experiences when they attend dependency proceedings than children who have spent less time in the system, who tend to have more frequent interactions with social services and legal professionals regarding their case.

Current Study

In the current study, we compared legal knowledge between 4- to 14-year-old children with and without experience in the dependency system. We expected both age and experience to be positively related to children’s legal knowledge but suspected that the relation between experience and knowledge would be strongest when comparing children in the early stages of dependency proceedings to children with no experience in the dependency system.

Method

Participants

The final sample included one hundred sixty-seven 4-to 14-year-old children. Approximately half were in the “dependency” group (n = 89; 48 girls; M age = 10 years, 1 month; SD = 2.72), comprised of children who had experienced substantiated abuse or neglect (i.e., deemed true by social services) and who were awaiting dependency court hearings at the Los Angeles (LA) Juvenile Court. The dependency group was further divided into children whose cases had been ongoing less than 2 years (n = 50) versus 2 years or more (n = 39). The remaining children were in the “no dependency” group (n = 78; 37 girls; M age = 9 years, 8 months; SD = 2.61), a community-based sample of children with no reported history of contact with the dependency system (i.e., they had always lived with at least one biological parent and had never been involved in a legal case; nine children were excluded). Approximately 40–50% of the children in both groups were Hispanic (40–50%), indicated via primary language, or African-American (20–25%), consistent with the population of the LA Juvenile Court, Dependency Division (Lyon, Malloy, Quas, & Talwar, 2008) and LA county demographics. (More detailed ethnic information was not available.) Three additional children (two in the dependency group and one in the no dependency group) were approached about the study but declined to participate.

Questionnaires

Demographics

This questionnaire asked about children’s age, date of birth, and primary language spoken at home. For the no dependency group, children were also asked about their living situation and whether they had prior contact with the legal system for any reason.

Legal knowledge interview

Questions asked children to define seven terms common to the legal system. Four (attorney, police officer, judge, court) were selected from those included in previous research of children’s legal knowledge (Saywitz et al., 1990) and three were selected to be more specific to the dependency court system (foster parent, minor, social worker).

Story questionnaire

A story about a fictitious child victim of physical abuse was created (Quas, Wallin, Horowitz, Davis, & Lyon, 2009). The child hurts his arm, goes to the hospital, and is questioned by a social worker about his arm and visible unrelated bruises. The child discloses physical abuse to the social worker. He then meets a foster parent and later goes to court, meets his lawyer, and eventually participates in a hearing with a judge. At proscribed times, open- and close-ended questions are asked about each legal character (e.g., “What does [the lawyer] want to know?” “Does [the lawyer] want to know about how the boy broke his arm, or where the boy got the bruises?” “What might the judge decide for the boy?”“Will he decide where the boy should live, or if he can go back to the park where he broke his arm?”).

Procedures

Procedures were approved by relevant institutional review boards, the presiding judge of juvenile court, and relevant agencies. For the dependency sample, 20 attorneys who represent children in dependency court were asked to assist with the study by providing individual written consent to interview eligible children in their caseload, 13 of whom agreed.

Following attorney consent, children were approached in the waiting area of the court and told about the study. Their written assent was obtained. They were all interviewed prior to attending their hearing. Children whose files indicated that they needed a translator or who could not communicate in English and children awaiting adjudication hearings were excluded.

Children in the no dependency group were recruited from three after-school programs in communities demographically similar to those in which the dependency sample children reside. The after-school programs distributed study descriptions and consent forms to children (to bring home to parents) or to parents who picked their children up at the end of the day. Approximately 20% to 70% of parents across the programs submitted signed consent forms. Children who were fluent in English were invited to participate and their written assent was secured.

Questionnaires for both groups were verbally administered by a female researcher in the waiting room in the court house or quiet area of the center. Afterward, children were debriefed, their questions were answered, and they were given a prize or gift card.

Coding

Children’s definitions and responses to the story questions were reliably coded for accuracy. Reliability was assessed by two or more independent raters who achieved at least a 95% agreement on approximately 16% of the sample, randomly selected. Discrepancies were discussed, and one research assistant coded the remaining responses.

For the definitions, each answer was coded according to a 3-point scale (Saywitz et al., 1990): 0 = no correct information provided (including don’t know responses); 1 = correct but not complete answer (e.g., “a social worker is someone you talk to”); or 2 = correct and complete answer (e.g., “a minor is a kid under 18”). An overall definition accuracy score was calculated by averaging children’s responses to the seven definitions.

For the story questions, children’s responses were scored for correct and incorrect answers (both types of information could be included in a response). Proportions were created by summing the number of each type of answer, separately for open- and closed-ended questions, and dividing by the number of questions asked. Correct and incorrect response scores were highly correlated, rs ≥ −.88, and only correct responses are considered further.

Results

Preliminary analyses revealed that children’s mean age was comparable between the dependency and no dependency groups. In addition, gender was evenly distributed and was unrelated to any of the knowledge measures, χ²(1, N = 167) = .47, ts ≥ 1.41, dfs range from 157 to 165.

Next, the study’s hypotheses were tested via a series of age by dependency experience analyses of variance (ANOVAs). Children’s age was divided into three groups (4–7, 8–10, and 11–14), similar to groups examined in prior studies of children’s legal knowledge (e.g., Flin et al., 1989; Saywitz et al., 1990). Children’s dependency experience was also divided into three groups: no dependency experience (n = 78), children whose cases had been ongoing less than 2 years (n = 50), and children whose cases had been ongoing for 2 years or more (n = 39).

When children’s overall definition accuracy was entered into the 3 (age) × 3 (dependency experience) ANOVA, the main effect of age was significant, F(2, 158) = 45.71, p < .001, ${\mathrm{\eta }}_p^2=.37$. Planned comparisons revealed, as expected, that children’s accuracy significantly improved across each age group, ts ≤ 13.78, ps < .001, dfs 99–123 (see Table 1). The main effect of dependency experience approached significance, F(2, 158) = 2.87, p < .06, ${\mathrm{\eta }}_p^2=.04$. Planned comparisons based on our hypotheses about dependency experience and knowledge revealed that children whose dependency cases had been ongoing for less than 2 years were more accurate in defining legal terms than both children in the no dependency group and children whose cases had been ongoing for 2 years or more, ts ≤ 1.99, p ≤ .05, dfs 87–126. The latter two groups of children’s definitional accuracy did not differ (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Age and Dependency Experience on Children’s Definitional Accuracy (Scores Range From 0 to 2)

Overall Definition Accuracy	4- to 7-Year-Old Children (n = 42), Mean (SD)	8- to 10-Year-Old Children (n = 59), Mean (SD)	11- to 14-Year-Old Children (n = 66), Mean (SD)	Mean
No experience	0.19 (0.20)	0.64 (0.33)	0.88 (0.42)	0.62 (0.43)a
Less than 2 years of experience	0.37 (0.26)	0.75 (0.46)	1.00 (0.46)	0.71 (0.48)b
2 Years or more of experience	0.12 (0.17)	0.55 (0.36)	0.96 (0.24)	0.66 (0.41)a
Mean	0.26a (0.24)	0.64b (0.37)	0.94c (0.39)	0.66 (0.44)

Note: Higher scores indicate greater accuracy. Different subscripts denote significant differences between the means, ps ≤ .05

To examine the links between dependency experience and definitional accuracy more precisely, we conducted another ANOVA predicting children’s accuracy for terms most common to the dependency system (social worker, foster care, minor). Again, robust age differences emerged, F(2, 158) = 38.45, p < .001, ${\mathrm{\eta }}_p^2=.33$, across all age comparisons, ts ≤ 7.60, ps < .001, dfs 99–123. The effect of dependency experience was also significant, F(2, 158) = 14.14, p < .001, ${\mathrm{\eta }}_p^2=.15$. Children whose cases were ongoing less than 2 years were more accurate, M = .71, than children whose cases were ongoing for longer periods, M = .58, and both dependency groups were more accurate than children with no dependency experience, M = .36, ts ≤ 4.26, ps < .001, dfs 87–126. Of note, when children’s accuracy of the four legal terms not common to the dependency system was examined, no dependency experience differences emerged.

Finally, age and dependency experiences were examined in relation to children’s open- and close-ended story accuracy. The main effect of age was significant for both open- and closed-ended story accuracy, Fs(2, 150) = 24.39 and 34.22, ps < .001, ${\mathrm{\eta }}_p^2=.25$ and .31, respectively (Table 2). Increases in accuracy again were evident across all three age groups, ts ≤ 11.23, ps < .001, dfs 94–119. In addition, although the main effect of dependency experience was nonsignificant for open-ended accuracy, it was significant for close-ended accuracy, F(2, 150) = 3.37, p = .04, ${\mathrm{\eta }}_p^2=.04$. Children in the dependency group (regardless of the length of their involvement) provided a greater number of correct responses to the close-ended story questions than did children with no dependency experience, ts ≤ 7.71, ps < .001, dfs 111–122 (Table 2).

Table 2.

Age and Dependency Experience on Children’s Story Accuracy (Scores Range From 0 to 1)

	4- to 7-Year-Old Children (n = 38), Mean (SD)	8- to 10-Year-Old Children (n = 58), Mean (SD)	11- to 14-Year-Old Children (n = 63), Mean (SD)	Mean
Open-ended correct
No experience	0.23 (0.27)	0.48 (0.32)	0.58 (0.30)	0.46 (0.33)
Less than 2 years of experience	0.31 (0.23)	0.58 (0.35)	0.70 (0.28)	0.54 (0.33)
2 years or more of experience	0.17 (0.24)	0.49 (0.31)	0.81 (0.19)	0.57 (0.34)
Mean	0.25a (0.25)	0.50b (0.32)	0.67c (0.28)	0.51 (0.33)
Close-ended correct
No experience	0.49 (0.33)	0.67 (0.30)	0.87 (0.18)	0.70 (0.31)a
Less than 2 years of experience	0.63 (0.30)	0.77 (0.26)	0.98 (0.08)	0.82 (0.26)b
2 years or more of experience	0.35 0.14	0.77 (0.26)	0.98 (0.07)	0.79 (0.28)b
Mean	0.53a (0.31)	0.72b (0.28)	0.93c (0.15)	0.75 (0.29)

Note: Higher scores indicate greater accuracy. Different subscripts denote significant differences between the means, ps < .001

Discussion

The current study examined the relations among age, experience in the dependency system, and legal knowledge, particularly of the dependency system, in children who were and were not involved in the dependency system. Legal knowledge both improved with age and was better among children currently involved in dependency cases relative to those with no such involvement, although important limitations in the extent of this knowledge also existed. Given that children are often expected to participate in their own cases (Pitchal, 2008) and that a lack of knowledge predicts increased distress (Goodman et al., 1992; Quas, Wallin, et al., 2009) and perceptions of unfairness of the legal system (Block et al., in press), children’s limited knowledge has important practical implications for intervening to facilitate their participation in legal cases.

Consistent with prior research (Crawford & Bull, 2006; Saywitz et al., 1990), young children knew very little about the legal system. In other words, children younger than 8 showed, at best, a minimal ability to define legal terms and identify the primary function of dependency personnel. For example, 21% of the 4- to 7-year-old children failed to provide any correct information for any of the legal terms, and 74% of these children provided two or fewer correct responses. Only one term, “police,” appeared easy for these children: 65% of the 4- to 7- year-old children gave at least a partially correct definition. The older children were, not surprisingly, substantially more knowledgeable, although many still had difficulty defining some common legal terms. Only three 11- to 14-year-old children gave five or more correct definitions of seven, and 20% provided no correct definitions. Thus, consistent with evidence of limited legal knowledge in juvenile offenders (e.g., Grisso et al., 2003), even older children involved in ongoing dependency cases need some assistance interpreting the role of professionals encountered during their participation in such cases.

Turning to our interest in the relations between current involvement in the dependency system and children’s legal knowledge, dependency involvement indeed predicted enhanced knowledge, although only for terms especially common to the dependency system. For example, whereas 11% of children without legal experience provided correct information when asked about a social worker, 57% of children in the dependency court sample were at least partially correct. Unlike in our study, prior research has not reported similar links between legal experience (e.g., as a juvenile offender or a witness in a criminal or civil case) and legal knowledge (Freshwater & Aldridge, 1994; Saywitz et al., 1990). Perhaps greater time is spent helping children in dependency cases understand the process or at least more time than is spent preparing children for juvenile or criminal court, leading to the enhanced knowledge among children with dependency court experience in our sample. In partial contrast to this possibility, however, legal professionals often overestimate children’s legal knowledge (e.g., Eltringham & Aldridge, 2000) and, as a result, may not be engaged in considerable or extended efforts to enhance children’s knowledge. Thus, it may be that simply having some experience with the dependency system (regardless of what assistance is provided by others) is necessary for children to be familiar with terms common to and the general process of dependency court. In other words, children may not obtain knowledge of the dependency system from other sources from which they may derive legal information (e.g., television) but instead must have direct contact with the dependency system to learn something about it.

Two other patterns of results were of interest in the current study. First, in partial support of our hypothesis that children involved in dependency cases would be most knowledgeable about the legal system in the early stages of their case, those whose cases were ongoing 2 years or longer were somewhat less able to define legal personnel than children whose cases had been ongoing less than 2 years. During the first 2 years of a dependency case, multiple hearings may be held to evaluate allegations, determine and assess children’s initial placement, review the parents’ behaviors, and consider the family’s compliance with court orders. In the jurisdiction where this study was conducted, children attended many of these hearings, and, as a result of this repeated contact, may have obtained some understanding of the dependency process and personnel. As children move toward permanent placement situations, however, the issues confronting the dependency court are largely resolved: the allegations have been adjudicated, the children’s placement has been determined, and the parents have been provided an opportunity to regain custody of their children. As the hearings become routinized, and the permanent plan is continued, children’s direct contact with legal personnel and involvement in the case likely diminish (Hardin, 1996), and children in these later phases may fail to retain the information they learned in prior phases. Alternatively, children whose cases span longer time periods may differ from children whose cases are resolved more quickly, and these differences have implications for children’s legal understanding. For example, children who have experienced more severe maltreatment or who have significant behavioral problems may remain under dependency court jurisdiction for longer periods of time. Whether and how these experiences or problems affect legal knowledge, though, is unclear, and additional research is needed to determine why longer contact with the dependency system does not continue to enhance legal knowledge.

Second, children’s story accuracy was better when asked close-ended rather than open-ended questions, findings that parallel other studies revealing substantial improvements in children’s apparent competency completing legally relevant tasks when questions are phrased in straightforward, closed-ended manners (Lyon & Saywitz, 1999). Of course, it is also critical to note that simply recognizing information does not translate into being able to apply this information to one’s own case. In a separate investigation of the dependency sample in the current study, Quas, Wallin, et al. (2009) found that 29% of 8- to 15-year-old children who had just attended a hearing failed to provide any correct information immediately afterward about what happened. The children’s story accuracy scores were also unrelated to their understanding of what had just happened. Thus, although close-ended questions may facilitate children’s ability to demonstrate a general understanding of the dependency system, additional assistance may still be critical to help them apply their knowledge to their own situation.

As a final note, in addition to age and legal experience, other characteristics of children and their legal situation also have implications for their legal understanding. One such characteristic is cognitive ability, which is related to a history of maltreatment (Cicchetti, Rogosch, Maughan, Toth, & Bruce, 2003) and may affect children’s understanding. Also, in our study, children attended many of their hearings, a requirement of the jurisdiction where the study was conducted. These children’s knowledge may differ substantially from that of children who do not attend hearings. Whether minors should be directly involved in dependency hearings is the subject of much debate (Khoury, 2006), and examining how attendance affects children’s knowledge (or other factors related to knowledge, like distress) will be a critical next step in this research (see Quas, Cooper, & Wandrey, 2009). Finally, ethnic differences have emerged in a few studies of adolescents’ knowledge of Miranda warnings (Grisso, 1981) and should thus be examined using larger sample sizes and official ethnicity data.

In closing, children often express anxiety over not understanding what is happening in legal contexts (Flin et al., 1989; Goodman et al., 1992), and a lack of understanding predicts increased distress (e.g., Quas, Wallin, et al., 2009). In addition, one of the most consistent criticisms raised by both current and former foster care youth is that they did not know what was happening in their case (e.g., Jenkins, 2008). Our findings confirm these trends: Although knowledge improved with age and was higher in children involved in dependency cases, gaps in knowledge continued to exist, even among the oldest children. Insofar as children are expected to be active participants in their cases, the next step is to identify ways of enhancing children’s knowledge and assessing how that knowledge relates to their ongoing experiences during the dependency process.