Figure 1. Household and Family Structure in the United States, 2018.

Nevertheless, there continues to be more social acknowledgement that there is no one definition of family, and that family is an adaptable institution, which could include extended relatives or non-biological family members related through marital unions. Our societal perceptions of family are becoming more flexible, due to getting rid of the rigid 1950s conceptualization that focused on a nuclear family model with a breadwinning father, homemaking mother, and biological children, which is no longer suitable in modern day reality. This shows a deeper cultural transition toward inclusivity and recognizing diverse family forms, by acknowledging that emotional bonds, support systems, and shared experiences can define a family just as strongly as biology or traditional roles.

Families & The System

The United States Supreme Court has also expanded their definition of family over time, by granting custody of children to single mothers, single fathers, and stepparents, who would have previously been denied custody based on assumptions that they would not be able to provide sufficient care. In Troxel v. Granville, the Supreme Court ruled on issues of parental rights, highlighting the nature of family structures and the legal recognition of different family dynamics, including single parents. This case illustrates how courts have increasingly acknowledged the legitimacy of custody arrangements involving single mothers and fathers, countering previous assumptions about their ability to provide adequate care. (Troxel v. Granville, 2000).

Furthermore, according to Utah Juvenile Code Section 80-3-102, an immediate family member is defined as “a spouse, child, parent, sibling or grandparent”, whereas an extended relative is defined as “an adult who is the child’s brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepparent, stepsibling, first cousin, great grandparent, aunt, great aunt, uncle or great uncle.” (Utah Juvenile Code, 2022). However, this represents a shift in acknowledging the makeup of various types of families, because back in the 1980’s the definition of relative did not include stepparents. In order for a judge to approve an adoption for a stepparent, they would have to file a petition to the court to terminate the rights of the noncustodial biological parent. This essentially meant terminating the rights of the parent who did not receive custody of the child in a divorce, because our legal system did not generally recognize two legal mothers or two legal fathers (Bartlett, 2001). Therefore, in order for a stepparent to gain rights, the biological parent must lose them, but this case concluded the dispute of judges choosing between biological and nonbiological family when considering the best interest of a child. There are several factors that are weighed when examining the best interest of a child, and situationally, every child’s needs are unique to their circumstances.

When examining how families are brought into the Criminal Justice or Child Welfare Systems, they interact separately but are reliant on each other for fundamental decision making on permanency between families. In child welfare, permanency is defined as a “permanent, stable living situation, ideally one in which family connections are preserved.” (Child Welfare, n.d.).

There are four broad categories of scenarios in which families involved in these systems are reviewed for permanency and reunification. These include, but are not limited to (1) instances of parent arrest and child maltreatment that coincide; (2) consideration of parents’ criminal histories in the decision to remove children from the care of their parent(s); (3) consideration of relatives’ criminal histories in decisions to place children in foster care; and (4) instances in which Child Protective Services agencies become involved with children whose parents are incarcerated because of risks to children’s current safety or inadequate resources (Phillips et al., 2010). Within these four categories, there may also be variations depending on each family’s unique circumstances. Preventative measures are often set in place by Child Protective Services to ensure there are opportunities for families to correct any issues before they become matters of the court. Families are handled situationally and circumstantially based upon the best interest of the child(ren). Additionally, a parent, relative or guardian may have multiple criminal, domestic, or civil cases occurring simultaneously alongside their child welfare investigation. This causes an overlap of how families are handled in the courtroom with different factors being considered on both ends. Child welfare focuses on the best interest of the child by determining permanency of the child(ren) depending on the circumstances of the family situation. Whereas, criminal court procedures focus on the behavior of the parent first, then consider whether that affects the best interest of the child and if the parent is suitable to be with their child(ren). Laws can vary by state, but certain offenses may constitute a termination of parental rights all together if the crime is severe enough.

Considering how families interact with the legal system, especially in the child welfare and criminal proceedings, it’s important to note that traditional court models often lack the necessary components to address these complex and intertwined issues. Families facing systemic challenges and limitations need to have these challenges viewed under a different lens, where more rehabilitative approaches are being used. One of the more established alternative court systems has been drug courts, and the emergence of these holistic programs has focused on the intersection of substance abuse, criminal behavior and personal stability.

History Of Drug Courts

The history of drug courts in the United States dates back to the late 1980s, emerging as a response to the growing concerns about drug-related crime and the limitations of traditional criminal justice approaches. Drug courts differ significantly from traditional criminal courts in their approach to addressing substance use and related offenses through restorative justice. By definition, this new concept of restorative justice encompasses a process that aims to repair harm by bringing together those affected by a crime to address their needs and create solutions.

While traditional courts primarily focus on punishment, drug courts emphasize rehabilitation and treatment for nonviolent drug offenders (Huddleston & Marlowe, 2011). They operate with a specialized team that includes judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and treatment providers, promoting collaboration to ensure comprehensive support for participants (Marlowe & Hardin, 2005). The structure of drug courts includes regular judicial oversight, frequent drug testing, and the use of incentives and sanctions to motivate individuals to comply with their treatment programs (National Institute of Justice, 2016). These incentives may include a medallion of sobriety based on the length of time they have been consistent in their treatment plans, as well as special recognition from the judge in drug court. The sanctions on the other hand can extend as far as serving time in jail if a participant is not staying in their treatment program and needs to be under intensive supervision in order to detox. This is designed to facilitate a collaborative and supportive environment for participants, which differs drastically from the adversarial nature of traditional criminal courts. In drug courts, a single judge typically oversees cases, which offers a more personal connection to participants and provides active engagement in their recovery process (Huddleston & Marlowe, 2011). This model also allows for regular court hearings where progress is monitored, and immediate feedback is provided through incentives for completing certain milestones in their treatment programs, or sanctions for non-compliance (National Institute of Justice, 2016). This unique structure of drug courts not only prioritizes accountability but also enhances the likelihood of successful outcomes for participants by addressing their holistic needs (ONDCP, 2015).

Additionally, mental health is also a driving factor in the invention of drug courts, due to a shift in public perception towards substance abuse as a mental health disorder and a complex health issue, rather than solely focusing on crime (Marlowe, 2003).

Substance Use Disorder often referred to as SUD, is a treatable mental health disorder that affects a person’s brain and behavior, ultimately leading to their inability to control their use of substances such as illegal drugs, alcohol, or medications. Individuals with SUD may also have co-occurring mental health disorders such as anxiety, depression, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder, personality disorders, and schizophrenia, etc. (National Institute of Mental Health, n.d.). This conceptual change prompted a more rehabilitative approach, integrating treatment within the judicial process. The first drug court was established in Miami, Florida, in 1989, aiming to provide an alternative to incarceration for nonviolent drug offenders (Huddleston & Marlowe, 2011). This innovative model for drug courts sought to address the underlying substance use issues while still holding offenders accountable through judicial oversight.

Research indicates that drug courts can significantly reduce recidivism and substance use, increase employment, improve education and provide stable housing for individuals who participate, compared to traditional criminal court methods. A meta- analysis by (Mitchell et al., 2012) found that participants in drug courts were less likely to reoffend and had better treatment outcomes than those who were in conventional court settings. This effectiveness has led to increased support and funding for drug court programs, often supported by federal initiatives such as the Drug Court Program Office, which was established in 1995 to enhance the development and implementation of drug courts nationwide (Lurigio, 2008).

However, drug courts continue to face challenges including issues related to access and treatment quality across individuals within marginalized communities. Critics argue that these courts can perpetuate inequalities, such as disparities between socio- economic status, race and gender as participants may be subject to coercive conditions and may not receive adequate treatment (Belenko, 2001). Ongoing research aims to address these disparities and improve the overall effectiveness of drug courts. This includes implementing training for judges and court staff on cultural competency, ensuring equitable access to resources, and developing tailored treatment programs that address the unique needs of each participant. Ongoing evaluation of these initiatives can help track progress and accountability, ultimately leading to a more just and effective drug court system that serves all individuals fairly (Dannerbeck et al., 2006).

A critical issue has been the lack of comprehensive support for families dealing with both legal and social challenges. Child welfare systems often focus solely on the children’s needs, while drug courts emphasize rehabilitation for offenders, sometimes overlooking the family dynamics involved. In the past, when parents faced substance abuse issues, child welfare systems often removed children from their homes without considering the potential for recovery and reunification. This led to long-term separations that were not in the best interest of the child. The child welfare and drug courts systems have worked independently, but the integration of these two systems has led to the invention of Family Recovery Court, which aims to bridge this gap by recognizing that addressing a parent’s substance use is crucial for family stability. These courts offer a supportive environment where parents can receive treatment while maintaining connections with their children (CCFF, 2021).

Family Recovery Court

The evolution of families in society, the legal definition of who is considered family being changed in the criminal justice system, and the child welfare system aiming to strengthen families rather than separate them all led to the development of Family Recovery Court. Family Recovery Court integrates child welfare and criminal proceedings through drug courts in a collaborative approach to not only address the root causes of substance abuse, but also facilitate family reunification through tailored recovery plans that include both parental support and child welfare considerations. By offering services such as counseling, parenting classes, and access to social services alongside substance abuse treatment, these courts help parents rebuild their lives and relationships. This comprehensive support system addresses the emotional, economic, and social needs of families, fostering a stable environment conducive to recovery and child well-being (NCSC, 2018).

Family recovery courts are generally structured similarly to criminal courts. Walking into a Family Recovery courtroom hearing, the adversarial process remains the same, where a judge is presiding, and a Defense Attorney and Prosecutor are present. However, there are additional criminal justice actors such as Licensed Clinical Social Worker and a Guardian Ad Litem who speaks on behalf of the child(ren), which differs from a traditional criminal courtroom. All of these individuals provide support to the parents and their children who are involved in Family Recovery Court. They offer their knowledge of how each individual is progressing throughout recovery. The structure acknowledges that enhancing permanency in families relies on targeting the root of the issue, which in these cases is substance abuse disorders. These issues have to be dealt with first, thus creating an alternative strategy to bring families back together. The best interest of families is to strengthen the entire unit and focus on rehabilitation for each member (Moreno & Curti, 2012).

Unlike traditional courts that focus solely on legal consequences, Family Recovery Courts take a more holistic approach by addressing systemic barriers that contribute to inconsistency in maintaining sobriety and making long lasting change. This includes providing resources for education, employment opportunities, learning how to manage finances, and access to mental health services. Additionally, the court works to address issues such as domestic violence and housing, by recognizing that long-term family reunification depends on stability beyond just sobriety. By integrating this support system into Family Recovery Court, it not only helps parents recover but also equips them with the tools necessary to rebuild their lives and create a healthier environment for their children. (J.Quezada, personal communication, May 13, 2024)

Family Recovery Court combines principles from both the child welfare and drug court systems, which can lead to better outcomes for families. By addressing substance use issues and providing holistic support, these courts prioritize the well-being of children while empowering parents to overcome their challenges. This collaborative model for restorative justice not only facilitates reunification but also promotes long-term family stability and recovery.

Salt Lake City’s Family Recovery Court

Families are usually referred to Salt Lake City’s Family Recovery Court by their DCFS caseworker, through current treatment programs they are attending, or by word of mouth. Upon inquiry, each potential participant is given a handbook which thoroughly discusses the processes and structure of Salt Lake City’s 3rd District Family Recovery Court.

The mission of Salt Lake City’s 3rd District Family Recovery Court is to: Treat substance use addiction through an intense and concentrated program to preserve families and protect children. This is achieved through court-basedcollaboration and an integrated service delivery system for the parents of children who have come to the attention of the court on matters of abuse and neglect. A drug court team, including the judge, guardian ad litem, assistant attorney general, parent defense counsel, DCFS drug court specialist, clinical coordinator, program administrator, and drug court coordinators, collaborate to support the participants, monitor compliance at treatment, and court ordered requirements (Family Recovery Court, 2024).

In Salt Lake City’s Family Recovery court there is a judge presiding, a defense attorney for each parent, a DCFS case manager that is assigned to all of the parents of that courtroom, a prosecuting attorney is always an assistant attorney general who works in collaboration with the DCFS case manager, and a Guardian Ad Litem who speaks on behalf of the child(ren). Furthermore, there are Utah Support Advocates for Recovery Awareness (USARA) who act as peer coaches for the parents and a Parent Advocate that aids the parents in navigating and understanding the legal system.

Additionally, Treatment Coordinators from recovery programs such as House of Hope oversee each patient’s progress in treatment, ensuring that they comply with program requirements and receive the necessary resources for recovery. Licensed Clinical Social Workers (LCSW’s) and Clinical Coordinators provide therapeutic support, by conducting assessments, monitoring mental health needs, and coordinating care between treatment providers. As part of the program, parents are also required to find and work with a personal therapist to address their individual needs beyond the structured support of Family Recovery Court. Emotional support animals from Intermountain Therapy Dogs with their caretakers also provide support to the families in the courtroom. All of these individuals aim to provide moral support and input of their recovery journey aside from legal requirements. Having individuals in the courtroom who have gone through the recovery process, such as peer support coaches and treatment coordinators, who can speak on behalf of a participant’s progress, heavily impacts the decisions a judge makes in each court hearing. Having a variety of perspectives allows for a more nuanced approach to recovery, especially when everyone present understands that it takes a village to help a family battling addiction.

Ultimately, the primary goal is to provide timely permanency for children in a safe and drug-free environment. Although this program is meant to aid families, there is a certain level of dedication and commitment that a participant must make before enrolling. Before enrolling in Family Recovery Court, participants are given a handbook in which they must acknowledge a series of potential consequences which state the specific requirements of being in the program (3rd District Juvenile Court, 2024). They must agree that they understand that a missed drug/alcohol test will be considered a positive test result. Furthermore, they must also agree that a positive result, a diluted sample, a missed test, or intentionally violating a court order can result in a contempt of court charge. If the court finds them in contempt, the court will order a sanction, which can include but is not limited to, a written assignment, community service hours, or possible jail time. Individuals who have been referred to FRC are encouraged to observe the program at least twice before deciding to enroll. Participants are given a list of potential incentives and sanctions as well for successful or unsuccessful drug court participation, see figures 2 and 3.

Although a list is provided, it is not all encompassing and may vary depending on the judge presiding. This allows for judges to be flexible with how they decide to run their Family Recovery Court programs and positive behaviors can be highlighted in figure 2 (Utah State Courts, n.d.).

Figure 2. Family Recovery Court List of Potential Incentives & Positive Behavior

Some of the most common sanctions are listed in figure 3. However, judges can use other sanctions based on their discretion (Utah State Courts, n.d.).

Figure 3. Family Recovery Court List of Potential Sanctions & Possible Violations

The most important aspect of Family Recovery Court which is duly noted in the participant handbook (Utah State Courts, n.d.), are the phases of the program. The FRC has four phases to assist in guiding a participant into recovery and throughout the entire experience. Each phase is designed to facilitate a natural progression from intake all the way through to graduation, with a total time commitment of no less than nine months, and generally twelve months in total from enrollment to graduation. The participant must complete an application or assignment in order to advance through to the next phase. The phases monitor the progression of treatment, set standards for advancement throughout the program, and assist in timeline management issues as they relate to permanency. The Family Recovery Court team uses the term “phasing up” when a participant is getting ready to move onto the next phase in the program.

Phase one is about establishing the participants with treatment and support options, phase two focuses on having the participants increase stability for themselves, phase three encompasses embracing their new life, and lastly, phase four centers around the participants maintaining what they’ve accomplished in treatment and their journey to recovery. The participant’s engagement in treatment and progress throughout the program is viewed relative to the phase timelines and structure of their child welfare case. While there are minimum participation times in Family Recovery Court that are established as part of graduation requirements, there are no maximum time limits on participation in the program. However, Family Recovery Court such as any other treatment program is a finite resource. Therefore, if an individual is not progressing throughout the four phases in a timely manner, they may be considered for an unsuccessful discharge from the program. The average length of time in the Family Recovery Court program is twelve months, unless an extension is granted through 18 months.

Phase one (Utah State Courts, n.d.) consists of participants getting into their treatment programs and completing required elements of sobriety such as connecting with their designated DCFS case manager. Each participant must also submit an application and assignment two days prior to court to be considered for advancement. The application to advance from phase one to phase two includes the following requirements:

• • • No positive, missed or dilute urine analysis tests for a minimum of 30 days.

    • No unexcused absences at FRC for a minimum of 30 days.

• • • Enrolled and currently attending treatment with an approved provider.

    • Working towards increasing the time that parents spend with their children and reporting on their visitation progress.

    • List their personal sobriety date for documentation.

    • Include a copy of their Child and Family Plan through DCFS.

• • • Discussed their housing situation with the FRC Team.

    • State what they learned from a sanction they received during this phase in Family Recovery Court (if applicable).

Participants are also required to complete an assignment to advance that is geared toward improvements to their recovery that could be made going forward. For this assignment, they are encouraged to answer how their connection and communication can be improved upon and built with FRC as well as DCFS. They are then asked to list their three most important treatment goals from their treatment plan and talk about what boundaries they have set for existing and new relationships. Participants must then reflect on what they have learned so far about how they communicate and what they hope to improve on. They are also asked to answer how they are working to build their relationships with their children, peers and family as well as what recovery means to them. This allows for the participants to give their personal input on why they believe they should advance in the program and how they are going to execute that.

Phase two (Utah State Courts, n.d.) focuses on participants building their new life, because they are in a space where sobriety has been established and they are ready to begin recovering in other areas of their life. This phase primarily works towards establishing a social support network, getting connected with mental health resources, and resolving any remaining charges. The application to advance from phase two to three is similar, and includes the following requirements:

• • • No positive, missed or dilute urine analysis tests for a minimum of 60 days.

    • No unexcused absences at FRC for a minimum of 60 days.

• • • Their personal therapist needs to report on the progress of the client meeting treatment requirements.

    • All court ordered assessments (such as Domestic Violence or psychological) need to be completed or scheduled.

    • All warrants need to be resolved, and any pending charges working towards resolution.

    • They must be engaging in prosocial activities with either a mentor, sponsor, or peer support coach; and know who their main sober support person is, as well as with which organization they are affiliated.

    • Demonstrate progress with their three most important treatment goals they listed in phase one.

    • Indicate what they learned from a sanction they received during this phase in FRC (if applicable).

    • List their support such as a peer support coach, sponsor, mentor, family, friends, transportation or food assistance; and explain how these resources have supported them throughout the recovery process.

The assignment for phase two focuses on how they are going to maintain the progress they’ve already made. For instance, the first question is “How will I effectively use my sponsor or peer support coach to help maintain my recovery?” The idea is for participants to reflect on how they’ve gotten to where they are currently, so they do not lose the skills they’ve learned along the way. Another question the participants are asked is “What would a close friend/family member notice about me if I were heading toward using substances? Am I willing to share with my friends and family what they would notice? Have I had this conversation with them?”. This encourages participants to look past themselves and acknowledge their substance abuse as a disorder that can be treated.

Phase three (Utah State Courts, n.d.) is about having the participants truly embrace their new life and let go of their past through reconciliation and understanding that their prior decisions have unfortunately led them down a dark path. However, this lays the foundation for a newfound perspective within many participants for why it’s so important to maintain the progress they’ve made in recovery and continue making strides by making progress towards their new life. This phase often includes deeper self- reflection, by strengthening healthy coping mechanisms, and engaging more actively in their support networks. Participants may start mentoring others in earlier phases, but overall this phase focuses on reinforcing their own growth. The quote used on the application from the participant handbook is, “To embark on the journey towards your goals and dreams requires bravery. To remain on that path requires courage. The bridge that merges the two is commitment.” (Utah State Courts, n.d.). For this phase, the application to advance is similar to the previous two phases, and includes the following requirements:

• • • No positive, missed or dilute urine analysis tests for a minimum of 90 days.

    • No unexcused absences at FRC for a minimum of 90 days.

    • Their personal therapist needs to report on the progress of the client meeting treatment requirements.

    • Be engaging in prosocial activities.

    • Need to meet with a mentor, sponsor or peer support coach at least once a week.

• • • Need to have an employment or education plan.

    • Include their progress with their three most important treatment goals.

    • What they learned from a sanction they received during this phase in FRC (if applicable).

    • Give an example of how they used a mentor, sponsor or peer support coach.

• • • Explain how they created and are holding boundaries with people who are unhealthy for their recovery.

    • Describe how they are seeking out people who are healthy and supportive of their recovery.

    • What they have learned in treatment that they are applying in their time spent with their children.

    • Describe their current housing situation and what their long-term housing plan is.

Participants must also complete an assignment that requires them to meet with the Family Recovery Court coordinator and identify the most significant areas of growth in their recovery journey. During this meeting, they will discuss key aspects of their progress and determine which areas they should focus on more intensely. From there, participants will choose five or more of the most important elements they have focused on while developing their recovery maintenance plan in treatment. Participants then present their progress in court, and demonstrate their commitment to making these changes in order to show they are ready to advance in the program. The areas they can choose from are, triggers and using behaviors, regulating emotions, relationships and friendships, communication, battling boredom, health, employment, housing, addressing legal issues, progress with DCFS case, financial and future goals. This assignment highlights key efforts in their recovery maintenance.

Phase four (Utah State Courts, n.d.) highlights all of the continuous progress throughout the participants’ time spent in Family Recovery Court and what they’ve accomplished in treatment as well as their journey to recovery. Phase four is essentially the end of the program for participants and a graduation application is required in order to be successfully discharged from Family Recovery Court. The graduation application checklist is similar to that of the previous three phases checklist requirements, and includes:

• • • No positive, missed or dilute urine analysis tests for a minimum of 3 months.

    • No unexcused absences at FRC for a minimum of 3 months.

    • Engaging in prosocial activities.

• • • Meeting with a mentor, sponsor or peer support coach at least once a week.

• • • Graduated from treatment, or in good standing with their treatment provider.

    • Have no outstanding warrants, and are in compliance with all outstanding court orders.

    • Achieved, as determined to be appropriate, a restoration of custody, or a trial home placement of their children.

    • Have an employment and an education plan.

• • • Discussed their housing situation and plans with the FRC team.

    • Include three things they would like to accomplish within five years after their child welfare case closes.

    • Indicate what they learned from a sanction they received during this phase in Family Recovery Court (if applicable)

    • Discuss their long-term recovery management plan for after they have left the program.

    • Explain who their mentor, sponsor or peer support coach is and how they help support their recovery.

    • Describe who their additional community supports are and how they have used them in a time of need.

    • Reflect on what reunification has meant to them personally.

    • Describe how they are going to ask for help once they are no longer involved with FRC and DCFS.

Although there isn’t an assignment for this phase, participants still need to apply for graduation. Included in the application are two optional questions. The first one asks them to tell the court about something that inspired them during their time in Family Recovery Court. Then, the second one asks what they would like to see improved, added or changed in Family Recovery Court. These questions are used in a rating survey for the Family Recovery Court team to assess the quality of the program and future development.

Family Recovery Court Proceedings

Family Recovery Court ensures that participants are held accountable while also being recognized for their efforts to become sober and develop the skills to become better parents. Family Recovery Court hearing is full of support and encouragement in order to create an atmosphere that’s welcoming, while also balancing accountability. Before each Family Recovery Court hearing, there is a ‘staffing’ where all criminal justice actors meet to discuss all of the participants appearing before the court that day. Within these discussions, there is a collaborative approach towards making a decision on whether an individual shall receive an incentive for their progress, or a sanction for an unaccepted behavior. If a participant has made significant achievements in their treatment programs and continues to display sufficient efforts to overcome their substance abuse, they are then advanced to the next phase and given praise from the courtroom while being honored with a sobriety medallion awarded by the Judge.

However, if a participant is falling behind in their treatment, or has missed drug testing, the judge may order a sanction which may include holding them back from advancing onto the next phase. This is due to the complexity of the recovery process and the amount of issues that can cause a potential for relapse. Addressing individual issues of each participant is essential to the successful completion of each phase, and once the program is completed their case is closed with Family Recovery Court. This means that they no longer have access to the FRC team who helped them through recovery, which has the potential for participants to feel unstable. Therefore, the Family Recovery Court team strives to ensure that all participants are moving through the program as effectively as possible. This means that if a participant needs more time to complete a particular phase, it’s usually granted. Most of the time, these issues are deeply rooted in their personal belief systems as well, such as developing healthy boundaries. These problems can take much more time to master than 9 months, which is the entire length of the program, so it’s crucial for the FRC team to strategically decide if a participant is ready for advancement. A participant’s child welfare case remains open even after their FRC case is closed.

This allows DCFS to continue their wellness check-ins with the children and the family unit’s functionality. Participants are also able to stay connected with USARA after graduation, so that they have an ongoing community of sober individuals they feel connected to even after completing Family Recovery Court. They do not entirely lose all of their support, but the routine they once had of attending treatment and attending Family Recovery Court frequently is no longer available. That change and transition can be difficult when calculating the long-term success of this program. Having their DCFS case open after graduating from FRC, because they continue to do check-ins with the family, has the potential to help parents maintain their sobriety long-term in comparison to the previous model, which closed both the FRC and DCFS cases simultaneously.

The Family Recovery Court handbook is crucial to participants because it provides them with a consistent tangible guide that outlines the expectations, available resources, and tools they can use throughout each phase of the program. The handbook is essentially a roadmap for the participants to follow and helps them initially understand the standards they are being held to before voluntarily joining Family Recovery Court. This is so that participants are fully aware of the requirements, and it can be reinforced at any time to ensure effectiveness of the model and the outcomes.

Theoretical Framework

Ecological Systems Theory, developed by psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) is a scientific theory that explains how human development is influenced by the many environmental systems people encounter throughout their lives. The pattern follows a circle of influence model, with an individual at the center and outer influences encircling them, including family. Factors that influence an individual may include social settings outside of the home such as work, school, and community engagement. Within the visual model, see figure 4, there are four systems, which include the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. The innermost layer, otherwise known as the microsystem, represents the immediate environment with which an individual interacts. These are the settings that directly influence an individual’s day- to-day life including their home environment, immediate family dynamics, neighborhood community relationships, and teachers or classmates in a school setting. The mesosystem is the next layer, and involves the connections or interactions between different microsystems. It references how various components of a person’s life such as their family, school, and peer group interact and influence one another. This is usually identified as the relationship between elements of the microsystem, such as when you bring a friend home from school, or when you bring a spouse to a work event, which is important since the mesosystem can either enhance or hinder development. The exosystem is the next layer which expands the ecological system and consists of broader settings where the person is not actively involved but decisions, policies, or events can still have a direct impact. For instance, a parent’s job may influence family time, economic resources, or stress levels which can then affect the child within the home. Lastly, the macrosystem refers to the overarching cultural, societal, and economic systems that shape the system as a whole. These include cultural beliefs, laws and policies, or economic and political systems which have much broader influences, but they are still significant to the ecological system.

Figure 4. Depiction of Ecological Systems Theory

When this research theory is applied to families, see Figure 5 with family now at the center, the focus is on the environmental status of families and how they are influenced through interactions within their surrounding environment (Lamanna et al., 2021). The microsystem is their home life, the mesosystem is the family’s role in society, then the exosystem is the family’s informal social networks, and the macrosystem is the larger contextual factors.

The microsystem of the family includes the home life of a family, their natural environment, such as their home, and a human-built environment, such as their neighborhood community. In the microsystem these are the elements which directly influence the family’s interactions because they engage in these daily. These tend to have the biggest impact on family behavior, routines, and dynamics.

Within the mesosystem, the family’s role involves balancing what the parents and children need in regards to other environments, such as school or work in relation to their life at home. Families often have to consider the schedules of other members within the family unit and make adjustments accordingly. For instance, a child’s school schedule may conflict with a parent’s work schedule, requiring additional care or supervision from an outside source. These arrangements create additional obstacles for a family that are otherwise not applicable to a single individual when considering multiple members of a family unit. The mesosystem emphasizes how these different microsystems like school, work, and home interact with each other to support a family function smoothly. All of these environments, including school, work, and community relationships often create a family’s informal social network which is made up of interactions including extended family, social groups, and recreational activities.

The exosystem of the family includes more indirect influences such as extended family relationships, and mass media exposure that can affect the family’s daily functioning and values. These are not the most immediate elements that affect a family, but are still impactful areas of a family’s daily functions because families rely on this layer for outside information beyond their inner circle. A primary example of this would be a local government decision to close down a library or community center which could limit a family’s access to educational resources.

Lastly, the macrosystem includes contextual factors such as limited resources that may impact how families maintain their lifestyle based on the culture of their surroundings such as political systems and social norms. This reflects how the macrosystem layer comprises cultural values, laws and even economic systems that impact which resources are available to families of low socio-economic status. For example, receiving news from their state about child tax policies and statewide school policies may directly affect them. All of this is to say that families are a byproduct of their surroundings.

Figure 5. Depiction of Families at the Center of the Ecological Systems Model

However, how do community resources impact our connections with those around us? Are good social connections important to the decisions we make in our everyday lives, and are they a driving factor for how we choose to live? Ivan Nye’s Social Control Theory suggests that people are influenced by society through their social bonds in three distinct ways (Nye, 1958). Internal control refers to the internalized norms, values, and consciousness of the collective society that guides an individual’s behavior. Indirect control is linked to an individual’s emotional bonds with others, such as family members, friends and close social groups. Direct control involves external measures that prevent deviant behavior, such as rules, laws and supervision. Nye hypothesized that individuals who are more attached to society by means of employment, family, and friends are most likely to act in positive ways in order to maintain their social relationships. However, the opposite is true for those who are not attached to society; they are more likely to act in antisocial behavior including engaging in criminal activity (Cullen & Wilcox, n.d.). For instance, if a person has no employment, has not contacted their family in several months, and their current circle of influence are only individuals with substance abuse disorders, they may be more likely to engage in that behavior as well. On the other hand, if a person has stable employment, they are consistently connected with their family, and they are surrounded by individuals who are sober while doing shared activities, they are more likely to engage positively in society.

Both Ecology Systems Theory and Social Control Theory overlap in regards to the sociological factors of an individual’s environment in a social-cultural context. The majority of the participants in Family Recovery Court have been exposed to an environment of substances from an early age and this could lead to similar antisocial patterns within their own life. In order to break generational hardship, it takes removing the individual entirely from their environment and connecting them to alternative resources that foster positive outcomes and success.

These theories both conclude that structures are fundamental in sustaining our lifestyle and the ways in which we choose to live it; but ultimately, changing the structure causes everything else to shift. Both theories emphasize the importance of social contexts, such as Ecological Systems Theory which focuses on the different layers of environmental influence from immediate family to broader societal systems. Whereas Social Control Theory stresses the importance of societal bonds and the consequences of having weak social connections. Together, they suggest that when individuals are surrounded by antisocial environments, their behavior can also become antisocial. However, providing individuals with positive social bonds or environments fosters healthier connections and relationships. Both theories suggest that individuals can be redirected toward healthier more socially acceptable behaviors, showing that change in external structures can lead to shifts in behavior and better outcomes.

Research Questions

Based on these theories, the assumption is that individuals who have been surrounded by antisocial environments for the majority of their lives have potentially engaged in similar behaviors that have led to their participation in Family Recovery Court. I hypothesize that if individuals in Family Recovery Court are offered positive influences of social support (mentorship and sober support groups), or they are directed towards external sources of controlled healthy environments (in-patient treatment), then they may begin to engage in prosocial behaviors that lead to more successful outcomes (sobriety, reunification, etc..) based on those influences. I am interested in understanding further which specific forms of social support and/or treatment lead to the most successful outcomes for participants of Family Recovery Court. Additionally, I hypothesize that an individual may be the most successful when they have a true desire to change. If an individual feels that they are forced into participating in Family Recovery Court, will they have the necessary commitment to success? I expect to see that a combination of the support given and a participant’s internal motivation are both necessary for success in Family Recovery Court.

Methods & Data

Throughout the research process, two methods of data collection were utilized including six-months of court observations and a total of seven interviews. As a previous intern for the 3rd District Juvenile Courts, I was able to gain behind the scenes access to court procedures during Family Recovery Court staffings and hearings. I diligently wrote down my personal observations and questions in a journal, which I dated each time I entered the courtroom. After my internship was complete I remained in close contact with several staff who worked in Family Recovery Court. I interviewed these public servants of Family Recovery Court at the courthouse, in a conference room next to the courtroom in which FRC hearings took place. There, I successfully gathered seven interviews with a judge, DCFS Case Manager, Treatment Coordinator, Licensed Clinical Social Worker, USARA Peer Coach, Parental Defense Attorney, Guardian Ad Litem, and an Assistant Attorney General; each ranging between 15-45 minutes. Each participant was asked the same set of questions about the effectiveness of Salt Lake City’s 3rd District Family Recovery Court. They were also asked to provide details on the specific resources, outcomes of cases and success of FRC. This provided a well-rounded approach to the general functionality and impact that this program affords its participants.

Throughout the research process, the Grounded Theory Approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2014) was utilized as well, to consider the rapid changes that may occur within a person, group or setting such as Family Recovery Court. Grounded theory allows for the researcher to objectively build theories based on the data that enables an explanation, and is considered grounded in the actual experiences and perceptions of the participants. Describing, understanding and analyzing the data through a theory that has been formulated based on the data provides a more holistic approach to the research (Morse et al., 2021). Through this method, Family Ecological Systems Theory and Social Control Theory were identified as applicable frameworks to help explain the mechanisms of support, accountability, and behavioral change observed in Family Recovery Court.

Findings

Based on my interviews, several key themes emerged that are central to understanding the effectiveness of Family Recovery Court. These include the resources, outcomes and success of the program. I am utilizing these themes to explore which resources the program offers that lead to various outcomes, and successful long-term reunification of families.

Resources

Resources refers to the general supply of money, materials and staff available for participants in Family Recovery Court. Based on my observations and interviews, they all point to the critical role of the available resources offered to participants, whether that is in the form of social support, mentorship, peers, or even scheduled family visits with

DCFS. These resources seem vital in leading to positive outcomes and success in a participants case with FRC. For instance, the following organizations, that were mentioned throughout the several interviews and within most of my observations, were particularly important to a participants’ success. An organization that partners with Family Recovery Court is the Utah Support Advocates for Recovery Awareness (USARA). They are a non-profit organization based out of Salt Lake City that focuses on the social support of recovery by establishing a community of individuals dedicated to a life of sobriety. USARA is crucial, because it helps create a sense of community for individuals in recovery.

This Assistant Attorney General who works in Family Recovery Court said,

I am a big fan of USARA. I think setting these people up for success. We don’t want to, like they used to say, ‘treat you and street you’, which is kind of what I think we used to do.

The phrase used in this interview “treat you and street you” is the Attorney General referencing a past practice where participants in FRC who struggled with substance use disorders would be given treatment but then left to face the challenges of their recovery without continued support once their treatment had ended and their case was closed. This approach led to high relapse rates, because individuals were not being provided the necessary resources or guidance to maintain their sobriety and progress.

The Licensed Clinical Social Worker also mentioned the variations of mental health resources offered to the participants in regards to therapy.

…I mean, most of our clients have co-occurring mental health…, like, pretty significant trauma. Like, I think having therapists specifically to address that.

Peer support is a known factor in addiction recovery (Tracy & Wallace, 2016) so having the support of others who have navigated similar challenges is impactful for participants. Participants are more likely to stay committed to their recovery goals with this influence which translates into greater success and personal outcomes.

One of the main comments I received throughout my interviews was the court’s direct affiliation with USARA, as the DCFS Case Manager pointed out in this comment;

They can get peer support from AA or NA or, yeah, wherever they choose. But USARA is right there! Yeah, so a lot of them choose USARA, but top of the list is support.

Intermountain Therapy Animals is an additional resource that various courtrooms throughout Utah utilize during court proceedings. This non-profit organization provides animal therapy to participants every other week during FRC hearings, to aid in mitigating the stress of coming to court. Animal therapy can be a powerful resource, because it provides emotional comfort and reduces anxiety (Morrison, 2007) especially with the presence of trained animals who are there during FRC hearings. Participants can receive a calming presence during potentially overwhelming court proceedings, which allows them to better focus on their case and it creates a space for them to build emotional resilience which can be impactful to their case.

There are also Parent Advocates who work in conjunction with the parental defense team to provide additional legal support as these parents navigate the legal process. Parent Advocates are an invaluable resource because they can offer guidance to participants through the legal system, to mitigate overwhelming feelings. These advocates not only provide emotional and legal support, but they also ensure that parents understand their case and how they can make informed decisions throughout the process. Parent advocates provide support and understanding, making sure that the participants in FRC feel heard and empowered. This directly impacts the success of their cases, since participants are more likely to succeed when they feel confident in understanding their case and they are backed by someone who acknowledges their circumstances.

A Licensed Clinical Social Worker and DCFS case manager are also appointed for each participant to advocate for their mental health and provide general support. These professionals are critical to the advocacy of mental health and well-being of the participants in FRC, because they provide tailored support to each individual’s needs. They ensure that participants receive the therapeutic services they need to address trauma, substance use, and other mental health concerns. LCSWs and DCFS case managers assist with identifying mental health needs, facilitating treatment, and ensuring that participants are engaged in those recovery and therapy services. Essentially, they act as case managers who track the participants’ progress and make sure that they are getting the services they need which is extremely impactful for success in recovery.

Lastly, a treatment coordinator from House of Hope, which is an in-patient treatment facility for women and children, where they can give direct support to those participants who are in their program and on the participants’ involvement with treatment. Even if a participant is not at House of Hope, the treatment coordinator can offer broad perspectives for those going through treatment, and give suggestions to the court to help them. Even if a participant is in a different treatment program, the treatment coordinator’s position is to bring forth solutions to participants experiencing issues in treatment. This could include helping the participants identify barriers to success, such as emotional or psychological, and collaborate with the treatment facility to address those obstacles. Addressing potential barriers to treatment, such as lack of transportation, mental health issues, or difficulty with treatment compliance, has an impact and is a direct correlation to a participant’s completion of FRC.

Even a Parental Defense Attorney shared their perspective on all of the social support from each party in Family Recovery Court stating,

I think FRC works really well for parents who need social support. I think that’s the primary benefit I’m seeing from it. All the other little things that go on, and I don’t know how helpful or not they are, but that it’s parents who want to make changes in their lives, but don’t have a good support, social support network. I think FRC is fantastic for them. Okay, people who have mental health issues, people who are struggling in addiction and are still trying to figure out if they want to make that change in their life – I don’t think FRC really helps them at all. But people who want to make those changes and and just, frankly, need a support network, because they just have themselves, yeah, and don’t have a lot of skills, and don’t have…anyone to fall back on, I think those people do fantastic …and I think they’re the ones that get the most out of it.

FRC also aids participants in gaining quick access to a treatment facility and getting connected with all of the above resources in a fast-tracked manner that would otherwise take several months for them to achieve on their own accord. This is just one of the many additional benefits that Family Recovery Court has to offer its participants, to ensure a successful graduation and reunification with their children.

The amount of resources offered through Family Recovery Court lays a strong foundation for success. However, when examining the outcomes, both short and long- term, the true impact of these resources becomes more prominent. If a participant is maintaining their sobriety, gaining family reunification, and experiencing personal growth, it’s apparent how much support these resources truly offer.

Outcomes

An outcome refers to the way a situation turns out and is the result or consequence of action or inaction. There are four potential outcomes for participants of FRC, including: graduating from the program with a successful reunification, graduating without a successful reunification, being discharged without graduating, or graduating with a successful reunification but then returning to the program after a relapse.

Graduating from the program with a successful reunification is when a participant is able to complete up to 6 months or more of Family Recovery Court, while simultaneously closing out their child welfare case with DCFS. This typically involves a separate court process, where the judge reviews their progress in FRC and considers the efforts they are making to reunify with their children.

However, not all participants who graduate from FRC are successfully reunified with their children. This could happen because timelines were not met based on the state’s standards. DCFS timelines and FRC timelines do not always match up, and if a participant is coming into the FRC program toward the end of their DCFS reunification timeline, it may not be enough time for a successful reunification. However, they will still be able to participate in FRC and graduate from the program.

If a participant is discharged from FRC, this is due to the judge determining that the participant has not made sufficient progress. Some examples of why a participant could be discharged include, but are not limited to: if they continue to test positive or dilute on their scheduled urinalysis tests, if they are not following their scheduled visits on their child and family plan from DCFS, or they have missed several scheduled urinalysis tests.

Family Recovery Court participation is voluntary, meaning participants can leave at any time. If they voluntarily leave, the decision for their potential return would be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In most cases, participants who leave will have limited time available to re-enter and successfully complete the program. However, being discharged from Family Recovery Court is a result of insufficient progress or failure to meet the program’s requirements, although judges typically show more support towards participants who are regularly attending and earnestly attempting to follow the program’s guidelines.

While Family Recovery Court focuses on providing an encouraging environment for participants, there are challenges with certain outcomes that can limit the overall effectiveness of the program for certain individuals. For instance, the issue of finding balance between holding participants accountable for their recovery and offering them the time and support needed to genuinely transition. There is an ongoing debate about leniency versus strict enforcement of the rules, especially when it comes to handling setbacks like failed urinalysis tests or other relapses.

When a judge adopts a zero-tolerance policy, it can create an environment where participants feel pressured, leading to discouragement rather than motivation. Some interviewees argued that the program should allow more time for participants to get sober and make necessary adjustments without facing immediate punitive actions such as sanctions. In a system that is supposed to be empathetic toward the personal circumstances of each participant, overly rigid practices can harm the program’s goals. There was a situation where one participant was discharged from the program by a single judge, despite having been in the program for several months. This was the only instance of a discharge I witnessed during my time as an intern for Family Recovery Court, and it raised concerns about how strict some judges interpret the rules. This particular participant, let’s call him Alex, had struggled to produce clean urinalysis results, continuously testing positive. While Alex’s struggles were clear, the outcome felt somewhat harsh when compared to how other judges handled similar situations with more empathy and understanding. It became clear that inconsistency in how different judges applied policies can have a profound impact on a participant’s chances for success, and ultimately limited Family Recovery Court’s ability to offer the rehabilitative environment necessary for long-term recovery outcomes and ultimately, family reunification.

A DCFS Case Manager shares her knowledge in an interview on her experiences working with participants in Family Recovery Court stating,

It’s just, they’re just not ready. Because, like I think addiction is so powerful that you know if somebody’s just going along on their case, but then you got another person in FRC. The FRC person doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re going to be successful, versus this person. It I feel like it’s a 50/50, with the support we give them, versus also, if they’re ready.

A participant’s child-welfare and criminal cases are still on-going simultaneously throughout their Family Recovery Court case, and if they are discharged from FRC their other cases still continue as if nothing changed. The main drawback is that the judge handling their child welfare case may view their discharge from FRC negatively.

Another possible outcome is if a participant relapses after already participating in the program and graduating, but then returns in order to gain reunification status once again. In Salt Lake City’s Third District Family Recovery Court, participants who are discharged typically cannot re-enter the program, as discharge generally indicates that they are no longer eligible due to not meeting the program’s requirements or other reasons. However, if a participant leaves the program voluntarily (rather than being discharged), it might be possible for them to return, but this would depend on the circumstances, the rules of the program, and the court’s decision.

These are often the reasons that a prior participant might come back to FRC: the death of a loved one, unemployment, intimate partner violence, or the participant experiences mental health concerns, any of which could cause a relapse. If a participant returns to the program, they must go through the process as if it were their first time, and complete at least 6 months of FRC before graduating.

In some cases, a participant may be able to request to rejoin the program after voluntarily leaving, but they would need to demonstrate that they have addressed the issues that led to their departure. Ultimately, this decision would be up to the judge or the court’s discretion, based on the individual’s progress and the specifics of the situation.

A participant may be able to technically complete the program by checking off all the requirements for FRC, however, they must carry what they’ve learned from their participation after they’ve graduated; because there is no guarantee that an individual’s participation in FRC will result in a successful reunification. The child welfare system abides by a strict and rigorous timeline that has limitations which does not guarantee a parents rights to reunification if they do not meet those deadlines. There are no limits to the amount of times that an individual may participate in Family Recovery Court as long as their child welfare case has granted reunification rights. The main difference between outcomes and success is whether a participant continues to carry healthy habits long after graduating from the program. Their willingness to engage in all of the resources that Family Recovery Court has to offer, determines their particular outcome and the level of success that they will achieve even after graduating from the program.

Success

Success is typically measured by the accomplishment of a goal or purpose, and through the lens of participating in Family Recovery Court, the entire purpose is to aid individuals through their journey of recovery in hopes of reunifying families. Successful participants are those who fully embrace the program and utilize the resources they’ve been given to maintain sobriety for the rest of their life. How well participants engage in the resources, determines the success of their future and their family, but they must also fully embrace their sobriety and new lifestyle changes. There are several factors that influence this concept, including the willingness of a participant to overcome obstacles, continuing their journey to sobriety, all while maintaining the commitments required in Family Recovery Court. This is critical to the success of a participant’s case, as it may be a turning point for many individuals who are at a crossroad, and are either not ready for change or they feel completely confident in committing themselves to a life of sobriety.

A Judge who presides over a Family Recovery Court gave their perspective on the success of participants:

So, I think in my courtroom, the team involved with family recovery court, from [DCFS Case Worker] to [FRC Program Coordinator] and [FRC Program Coordinator Assistant] and all of the other individuals seem to really genuinely care about these people… They show a lot of support, encouragement, and, and I think we have a phenomenal team. And so I think that enriches the experience. It allows people to overcome difficulties, overcome relapses, challenges to get back on track. And so that, that team that we’ve got is phenomenal, and I think they’re a great, a big reason for the success that we have in there.

The support offered through the Family Recovery Court team is critical to the success of participants and whether they are going to overcome difficult obstacles in recovery.

Participants are offered the same resources for up to 6 months after their case with Family Recovery Court is closed, such as their mentorship with USARA, their case manager with DCFS, their therapist throughout treatment, and any mental health services needed through the licensed clinical social worker on staff. This is regardless of their outcome, whether they graduated from the program or were discharged from FRC. This allows participants to still feel connected to the commitments they made in maintaining their sobriety and continuing to uphold the principles they’ve learned. Every participant has the opportunity to continue their relationships with these established resources, so that they are set up for success moving forward.

Participants maintaining their sobriety might feel inclined to continue their journey with FRC working in the capacity of helping future FRC participants through USARA, House of Hope or other support and resources. Participants can continue to show up for events hosted through USARA and remain connected to these sober support groups. The Guardian Ad Litem for Family Recovery Court mentioned the various functions and community engagements that are offered to participants through USARA, which aids in fostering positive interactions for the entire family as well:

Our partnership with USARA is my favorite. They always have fun events that participants and their families can attend, like they had, like, a fun sober Halloween party, that’s just cute, yeah. So have these, like, monthly sober events that are fun things that people can come to be around, people who understand their struggles, have been through the same journey that they’ve been through, and just be around community, which I think is always the most helpful thing for anybody, yeah, to just feel understood.

This demonstrates that long-term success is all about what an individual is willing to put forth into their experience with Family Recovery Court in order to maintain their sobriety. Having the option to even become a mentor for future participants in Family Recovery Court is a huge motivating factor and it becomes a part of who they are.

Through analysis of observations and interviews of Family Recovery Court, the themes that emerged align closely with the stated hypotheses, particularly with regard to how resources influence both the process and the success of Family Recovery Court. The patterns in participants’ experiences highlight the significance of various forms of support and control that contribute to the program’s outcomes. Specifically, the program’s structured approach through both formal and informal mechanisms has a direct impact on the participant’s behaviors and long-term success.

The role of resources is crucial to the effectiveness of the program, because a participant having access to a variety of community-based resources, such as sober support groups, counseling, and educational opportunities, is pivotal in the recovery process. The specific outcomes of whether a participant graduates from the program significantly determine the effectiveness as well. Moreover, the success of an individual maintaining their sobriety long after completing the program is also a determinant of the impact the program is actually making on the community at large. These themes are critical to the functionality of reuniting families and ensuring that the participants are remaining sober throughout their lifetime.

Discussion

These findings suggest that Ivan Nye’s Social control theory is applicable to Family Recovery Court. Nye’s theory argues that individuals are influenced by their prosocial bonds to family, school, and community which can ultimately deter deviant behavior (Nye, 1958). In the interviews, respondents frequently cited strong connections with community groups as key factors in shaping the participants’ behaviors and decisions throughout Family Recovery Court. This aligns with Nye’s assertion that internal and external controls serve as critical functions of our daily behaviors and guiding individuals toward a path of sobriety.

Social Control Theory

Outcomes can be expressed as Direct Control in Nye’s Social Control Theory, since the concept of direct control is displayed through Family Recovery Court’s formal rules and mandates. The court directly governs participants by mandating specific behaviors, such as attending treatment programs or regular drug testing. If a participant fails to comply, they may receive a sanction of community service hours or additional drug testing and in more extreme cases, being discharged from the program entirely. This direct control is a key factor in shaping a participant’s outcome, as it imposes an external influence that directly impacts their behavior and guides them toward recovery. In some instances, a participant may be more inclined to follow the judges recommendations out of fear that they might be penalized or oftentimes, that compliance in FRC will expedite the process of their child welfare case. In this context, the judge, treatment programs and the legal system itself, operate as the direct control with the ability to enforce compliance through authority of rules and regulations.

Indirect control, according to Nye, involves the influence of social groups and networks that shape an individual’s behavior through social norms or expectations. In Family Recovery Court, indirect control is reflected in the resources available to participants, especially sober support networks such as USARA, mental health counseling, and even having a good relationship with the judge in FRC. These external social connections encourage positive behavior, by promoting connections with others who advocate for sobriety and recovery. Participants who take advantage of all the resources that Family Recovery Court has to offer, are significantly more likely to maintain their sobriety after graduation because they have established connections. That is why Indirect Control is so important, since it provides participants access to a broader support system that guides their recovery journey.

One of the Peer Support Coaches from USARA was a prior participant and shared her experiences.

So, I first heard about family recovery court when I was enrolled as a participant back in 2020 Okay. In my previous case, I was offered, it was then called Family Dependency Court. But at the time, I thought I knew better, and I was okay moving forward with life on my own life’s terms. The second time I had my son removed, this was offered…I asked about it because I remembered it from before, and it was during COVID. Some things looked a lot different than they do now, and it did help streamline me getting into treatment for all of those things. And so I am a graduate Family Recovery Court…so I was a participant there, and I got hired on through USARA, because I was looking in the job industry, and I was very close there, and I had always said in my own recovery journey, one day I’m going to work there, one day I’m going to work there. And a job opportunity came, and I applied, and I got the job! About two months after training and everything, I became a part of the family recovery court staffings…and so I wouldn’t necessarily say I am, you know, staff, right? I don’t work for the courthouse, but I do get to utilize my lived experience with the organization and being a part of family recovery court that offers something different, right? And I get to be a voice at the table, because it’s nothing about us without us as a person in recovery, and so I like to offer that different perspective.

Her story shows how Family Recovery Court not only supports recovery but also creates empowerment, to help participants become advocates within the very system that once supported their healing.

On the other hand, respondents gave examples of weaker social bonds that they observed from participants, and this tended to correlate with higher instances of non-conforming behavior. For example, if a participant was not connecting with a mentor, or going to their DCFS scheduled family visits, they were usually not engaging in prosocial behaviors to benefit their case in FRC. Observations of staff meetings before Family Recovery Court hearings revealed that the topics discussed often involved influences that participants may experience during their time in treatment. One particular conversation involved a participant possessing a nicotine device that was prohibited, and this individual spoke out about their experience being pressured by their peers in recovery to partake in using prohibited substances. These findings ultimately connect back to Social Control Theory and how these social connections influence individual behavior.

Lastly, Internal Control can be applied from Ivan Nye’s Theory in the form of success, where a participant’s internal motivations and personal commitment to change are what drive them. In the context of Family Recovery Court, success is largely driven by a participant’s internal control and the program’s effectiveness ultimately depends on a participant’s willingness to embrace change. They must take responsibility for their actions, and remain committed to their sobriety long after their participation in FRC. This manifests into an internal control where a participant’s attitudes and behaviors can influence their ability to maintain long-term sobriety and successfully reunify with their children. Without this internal drive, no external intervention whether direct or indirect can ensure lasting success.

Ecological Systems Theory

Similarly, Ecological Systems Theory is also relevant to these findings as it relates to the impact that certain structures have on an individual and a family. Individually, there are constant aspects of social, cultural, and political avenues that shape our identities and lives which were evident in the observations of Family Recovery Court proceedings. Many participants had aspects of their personal lives that they preferred to keep throughout sobriety, including religious beliefs, personal values, established employment, and even their current housing. These systems interactively influenced each participant’s outcome in FRC; and for most individuals it did not matter what their preferences were, but whether they were ready for change. For others, though, it was pulling them out of those established patterns and being in a new environment through a treatment program that was the driving factor that helped them maintain their sobriety.

This goes back to the fundamental assertions of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems theory, that each system influences one another, similar to a ripple effect which impacts the interactions between each sphere. That is why it is important to have positive influences at the center, which dictates the majority of the interactions in the mesosystem and exosystem, see figure 4. An individual who changes the influences within their microsystem (such as family, work, school and friends) then begins to experience a change in their general surroundings and the interactions between them.

Two participants from Family Recovery Court, even took their dedication to sobriety a step further and each became mentors for future FRC participants. A Guardian Ad Litem working for Family Recovery Court shared her experiences of seeing these successful participants become an integral part of the FRC team stating:

My favorite outcomes from family recovery court is seeing people who were successful in maintaining their sobriety and then becoming someone who works in our family recovery court. So you’ve met like [USARA Peer Support Coach] and like [Treatment Coordinator from House of Hope]. They are successful participants in family recovery court, and then they go on to work with programs that get to help other parents who struggle with addiction and be successful as well. So those are my favorite outcomes. Is just seeing the success, being able to see the children that I work with have just a much better life outcome because their parents are doing better.

This powerful example highlights the full circle of success within Family Recovery Court, since not only can participants overcome their own personal struggles, but also give back by becoming mentors to future participants.

Future Directions

Based on all of this, Family Recovery Court has proven to be a vital resource in supporting families navigating addiction and the legal system, offering comprehensive services that promote recovery and stability. Given its significant impact, it is essential to explore opportunities for growth and improvement to ensure that even more families can benefit from its support. Based on all that Family Recovery Court already does to assist participants, the following are key areas where the program can expand and enhance its effectiveness.

One critical step toward improving the reach of Family Recovery Court would be expanding the number of judges who offer this program in their courtrooms. More families could benefit from these resources, and navigate the legal process amidst battling addiction. Judicial training and support would also be useful in ensuring that judges across different courtrooms are equipped with the necessary skills to manage and facilitate FRC as effectively as possible. Based on the nature of this legal process, Family Recovery Court should follow a more cohesive pattern across courtrooms where discharge decisions are more collaborative with other team members, rather than resting solely with the judge.

Additionally, extending the duration of support after graduation beyond 6-months could significantly improve participant’s long-term recovery outcomes. Providing services for up to a year after graduation, including continued access to counseling, family therapy, and sober support groups, would give participants and their families ongoing assistance during this transition period. Oftentimes, this transition from being monitored in Family Recovery Court and within their treatment programs, to no longer having that accountability aspect can drastically affect a participant after graduation. Based on Ecological Systems Theory, being placed in such a positive environment, then being solely responsible to continue maintaining those relationships without being in close proximity to those resources anymore, can cause participants to revert back to their previous lifestyle. Participants would thrive more in a stable environment that is ongoing with very little change over longer periods of time. So, it is imperative to provide the additional resources that aid participants in navigating the challenges of maintaining sobriety and family stability to avoid a relapse.

Strengthening partnerships with community-based organizations, healthcare providers, and mental health professionals is an important aspect of maintaining the success of Family Recovery Court. FRC needs more licensed clinical social workers due to the high caseload, as well as more counseling and therapeutic services. Offering more mental health outreach resources would help clients become better connected to therapeutic services for their addiction and family needs. Enhancing the holistic nature of Family Recovery Court is a vital aspect to the success of the program. Many areas of Family Recovery Court lean on the support of different organizations to address not only substance use issues, but also mental health, housing, employment and other critical aspects of a recovering family.

Lastly, continuing to collect and analyze data from Family Recovery Court in Utah is vital for measuring the efficacy of the program and identifying more areas of improvement. A way to refine this study on Family Recovery Court would be to collect a full list of all the services participants are connected with, determine which treatment programs have the highest success rates, and track the longest period of sustained success without a relapse. Following up with participants for up to five years would also provide valuable insight into the long-term impact of the program and how to enhance its effectiveness. This data can guide future program development as well, and ensure that Family Recovery Court remains adaptable to the needs of families in recovery. Then, by pursuing these future directions, the program could not only expand its reach, but improve its long-term impact, and continue to offer a transformative approach to family- centered reunification for recovery.

Limitations

One of the primary limitations of this research was the lack of access to internal data collected by Family Recovery Court. External researchers have not been authorized to analyze existing data that the courts have on participant outcomes. This data is accessible only to employees of Family Recovery Court, and due to the data containing information from a protected population, such as children, it was not available for distribution. This restriction limited this research in regards to the statistics of participants who have graduated, been discharged, and even the number of participants who voluntarily left the program.

Additionally, there is currently no long-term follow-up on participants beyond their time in Family Recovery Court. A more detailed understanding of the FRC’s impact would require collecting data on participants for up to five years after graduation to evaluate long-term recovery outcomes, relapse rates, and family stability. Without this information, it is difficult to determine how Salt Lake City’s program measures up to other jurisdictions across Utah, or identify best practices that could enhance the effectiveness of this specialty court.

To address these limitations, future research should involve collaborating with Family Recovery Court to obtain approval for access to this data. Partnering with program administrators would allow for a deeper analysis of the participant outcomes by providing the numbers behind what could be improved upon the most and how to go about expanding Family Recovery Court.

Conclusion

Family Recovery Court has proven to be an essential and transformative program for individuals struggling with addiction and striving to reunify with their families. Through a combination of support and structured guidance, participants are given the opportunity to turn their lives around and restore their relationships with their children. Family Recovery Court does provide a pathway to recovery and family healing so that they can be better together. What makes this specialty court effective is how it empowers participants to regain control of their lives and ultimately become success stories. It is crucial that we continue to invest in these special court programs because the positive impact it has on families cannot be overstated.

What sets Family Recovery Court apart is the holistic and rehabilitative approach, while incorporating other elements of social support such as, mental health professionals, treatment coordinators, parent advocates, peer coaches, therapy animals and a dedicated judicial team that makes sure all participants have comprehensive care and support. The multiple layers of support make the recovery journey easier to navigate and personal, especially by providing resources that develop life skills and encourage them to break the cycle of addiction to build a stable home for their family.

These layers of support also reflect the framework of Ecological Systems Theory, which considers how multiple systems such as the family, community, and institutional environments interact and influence an individual’s development and success. Family Recovery Court puts each participant within this supportive ecosystem, making interventions more effective by addressing both internal challenges and external barriers. Similarly, Social Control Theory can be applied in understanding how Family Recovery Court works to strengthen the bonds between individuals, reducing the likelihood of relapse through accountability and commitment.

This was evident in the six months of observations I conducted in court, along with seven interviews of professionals involved in the Family Recovery Court process. Through this research, it became clear that the resources provided like access to therapy, treatment programs, and personalized support, directly contribute to the positive outcomes seen in many cases. The effectiveness of this program not only lies in the outcomes of how participants are able to maintain sobriety, and successfully reunify with their families, but in the humanity of the process. It helps participants feel seen, heard and supported while also being given a safe space to heal, grow and learn how to be better parents, let alone better individuals. The success is real, it is actually visible in the stories and daily interactions that take place in the courtroom.

That is why it is imperative to continue investing, strengthening and expanding Family Recovery Court Programs. The positive ripple effect this program has on parents, children, and families are immeasurable and it not only transforms individual lives but it strengthens communities and society as a whole by addressing generational cycles of addiction. Family Recovery Court doesn’t just offer second chances; it gives people a chance to make lasting change.

Bibliography

3rd District Juvenile Court, Salt Lake City, Utah. (2024). Family Recovery Court participant handbook agreement.

Bartlett, K. (2001). Principles of the law of family dissolution: Analysis and recommendations. Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy, 8, 1–85.

Belenko, S. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review, 3(1), 1–31.

Berger, L. M., & Slack, K. S. (2020). The Contemporary U.S. Child Welfare System(s): Overview and Key Challenges. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 692(1), 7–25.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (n.d.). Permanency – Center for States – Child Welfare Capacity Building Collaborative. https://capacity.childwelfare.gov/states/topics/achieving- permanency

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://collegepublishing.sagepub.com/products/basics-of- qualitative-research-4-235578

Cullen, F. T., & Wilcox, P. (n.d.). Nye, F. Ivan: Family controls and delinquency. In Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory. https://study.sagepub.com/system/files/Nye,_F._Ivan_-_Family_Controls_and_Delinquency.pdf

Dannerbeck, A., Harris, G., Sundet, P., & Lloyd, K. (2006). Understanding and responding to racial differences in drug court outcomes. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 5(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1300/J233v05n02_01

Division of Child and Family Services, Utah Department of Human Services. (n.d.). Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS). https://dcfs.utah.gov

Family Recovery Court, 3rd District Juvenile Court. (n.d.). Juvsites. Utah State Courts. https://www.utcourts.gov/en/about/courts/juv/juv-sites/3rd/family-recovery-court.html

Freisthler B, Maguire-Jack K, Yoon S, Dellor E, Wolf JP. (2021). Enhancing Permanency in Children and Families (EPIC): a child welfare intervention for parental substance abuse. BMC Public Health. Apr 23;21(1):780. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10668-1. PMID: 33892671; PMCID: PMC8063333.

Huddleston, C. W., & Marlowe, D. B. (2011). Painting the current picture: A national report on drug courts and other problem-solving courts in the United States. National Drug Court Institute.

Lamanna, M. A., Riedmann, A., & Stewart, S. D. (2021). Marriages, families, and relationships: Making choices in a diverse society (14th ed.). Cengage Learning. https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?deploymentId=6011 5018753218227748245505&eISBN=9780357368763&id=2175243346&snapshot Id=4126601

Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2005). Are drug courts effective: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Community Corrections, 15(1), 5-11.

Lurigio, A. J. (2008). The first 20 years of drug treatment courts. United States Courts. Loyola University Chicago. https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/72_1_2_0.pdf

Marlowe, D. B. (2003). The role of the judge in drug court: A critical aspect of the drug court model. Journal of Drug Issues, 33(1), 1–20.

Marlowe, D. B., & Hardin, C. (2005). Research update on adult drug courts. National Drug Court Institute.

Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2012). The effectiveness of drug courts: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(4), 423– 445.

Moreno, C. M., & Curti, G. H. (2012). Recovery spaces and therapeutic jurisprudence: A case study of the family treatment drug courts. Social & Cultural Geography, 13(2), 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2012.655768

Morrison, M. L. (2007). Health benefits of animal-assisted interventions. Complementary Health Practice Review, 12(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1533210107302397

Morse, J. M., Bowers, B. J., Charmaz, K., Clarke, A. E., Corbin, J., Porr, C. J., & Stern, P. N. (2021). Developing grounded theory: The second generation revisited (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315169170 http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utah/detail.action?docID=6427495

National Center for State Courts (NCSC). (2018). Family drug courts: A guide for judicial officers

National Institute of Justice. (2016). Drug courts. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/drug-courts

National Institute of Mental Health. (n.d.). Substance use and co-occurring mental disorders. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/substance-use-and-mental- health

Nye, F. I. (1958). Family relationships and delinquent behavior. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316445901900221

Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). (2015). Drug courts: A primer for policymakers and practitioners. White House.

Quezada, J. personal communication, (May 13, 2024) Family Recovery Court Supervisor

Snell, C. (2015). Success In Drug Court: The Offenders’ Perspective. Journal of Family Strengths, 15(1), 4.

The Center for Children and Family Futures (CCFF). (2021). Family recovery courts: A comprehensive framework for supporting families affected by substance use disorders.

Tracy, K., & Wallace, S. P. (2016). Benefits of peer support groups in the treatment of addiction. Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation, 7, 143–154. https://doi.org/10.2147/SAR.S81535

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). Utah State Courts. (n.d.). 3rd District Juvenile Courts. Family recovery court participant handbook agreement.

“Utah Juvenile Code.” (2022, September 1). Utah Code Section 80-3-102. https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title80/Chapter3/80-3-S102.html?v=C80-3- S102_2021050520210901

Vespa, J., Lewis, J. M., & Kreider, R. M. (2013). America’s families and living arrangements: 2012. U.S. Census Bureau.

Wittouck, Ciska, Dekkers, Anne, DeRuyver, Brice, Vanderplasschen, Wouter, Vander Laenen, Freya. (2013). The Impact of Drug Treatment Courts on Recovery: A Systematic Review, The Scientific World Journal, 493679, 12 pages, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/49367

“Youth Services.” (2024, March 28). Salt Lake County. https://www.saltlakecounty.gov/youth/