After Child Maltreatment: The Importance of Voice for Youth in Foster Care

Abstract

Once social services steps in to protect children from violence and neglect in their homes, many youth become wards of the specialized juvenile or family court that assists in child protection (e.g., the dependency court). Some of these children will be ordered into foster care. Within this “dependency system,” such children often feel a lack of voice. This study tests the prediction that foster youth who perceive having more opportunity for voice, even indirectly via a representative, more favorably rate the dependency system. Adolescents (n = 110), aged 17 years, involved in foster care and age-matched nonfoster youth rated “how good or bad the foster care/dependency court is for foster youth.” The foster youth were also asked about their interactions with the court and with their attorney representatives. Foster and nonfoster youth did not significantly differ in dependency system ratings when considered at the overall group level. However, foster and nonfoster youth ratings significantly differed when foster youth’s views of relevant prior legal experiences (e.g., frequency of child–attorney contact, quality of attorney representation) were taken into account: Youth with the highest perceived quality of experiences indicated more positive views than any other group. The importance of perceived quality of experience adds insight into mechanisms for improving adolescents’ feelings of voice in the legal system.

Keywords

foster youth dependency legal representation voice NYTD

Children who experience child maltreatment may find themselves in the dependency system. Although legal terms differ per state, the “dependency system” here refers both to the juvenile courts that decide parental rights in child maltreatment cases, and determine and monitor children’s foster care placements, as well as to foster care itself. Youth who find themselves in the dependency system do so not of their own volition, but rather due to acts allegedly experienced by them, such as physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, neglect, and caretaker failure to protect, including from parental intimate partner violence. Once “in the system,” decisions as to the children’s best interests are often made by adults who are unrelated to the children (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 U.S.C. § 672). Although adults in the home context often dictate facets of adolescents’ lives, the adults in the dependency system generally have a limited history with the youth and frequently make decisions without the youth’s direct input (Block, Oran, Oran, Baumrind, & Goodman, 2010; Pitchal, 2008).

Under these circumstances, adolescents’ views of “voice” in the dependency system may be of special interest for several reasons. First, youth in foster care (“foster youth”) typically have experienced and/or witnessed forms of interpersonal violence or neglect, all of which constitutes child maltreatment in the state where the present study took place. As a result, even before state intervention, youth may have had little control or voice concerning important life choices. They, thus, likely feel a need to be heard, as expressed in the foster youth saying, “Nothing about us without us.” Second, although adolescents in general tend to desire increased independence and control over life decisions (Fondacaro, Dunkle, & Pathak, 1998), foster youth may experience considerable anxiety about their imminent transition into adulthood, motivating the need for greater “voice” in decisions that affect their current and future lives. For participants in the present study, all of whom were 17 years old, “aging out” of foster care was set by law to occur on the youth’s 18th birthday, and thus the transition out of foster care was quickly approaching. Third, whether or not adolescents feel they have voice in the dependency system may help shape their views of the legal establishment (Lind & Tyler, 1988). These views, as well as assessments of procedural justice generally, have been linked to increased compliance with legal mandates for adolescents (Fagan & Tyler, 2005) and to improved mental health for adult victims of interpersonal violence (Calton & Cattaneo, 2014; Cattaneo & Goodman, 2010). Voice opportunity in the dependency system may thus be particularly important for these adolescents given their need to feel heard and have their growing independence recognized, their potential anxieties about assuming an adult role in society, and their formative views of the legal system.

Legal Socialization and Voice Opportunity

Research on legal socialization, how children develop opinions and understanding of the legal system, has expanded from a predominantly cognitive emphasis (e.g., analyzing children’s knowledge about legal structure, terms, and process; Saywitz, Jaenicke, & Camparo, 1990; Tapp & Levine, 1972) to focus also on social factors (Trinkner & Cohn, 2014). Within this expanded legal socialization focus, researchers are investigating mechanisms that underlie youth’s attitudes about the legal system and the law (Arndorfer, Malloy, & Cauffman, 2015; Fagan & Tyler, 2005; Piquero, Bersani, Loughran, & Fagan, 2016; Piquero, Fagan, Mulvey, Steinberg, & Odgers, 2005; Trinkner & Cohn, 2014). One such mechanism is whether the procedures utilized to make legal decisions, as described in procedural justice theory (e.g., respectful treatment, lack of bias, and participants’ ability to present their opinions; Lind & Tyler, 1988), relate to children’s views of the legal system. According to a procedural justice perspective, children who have voice opportunity (e.g., opportunity for their views to be heard by the court, opportunity to communicate with their attorney about the legal case), compared with those who do not, should view the legal system in more positive terms (Hirschman, 1970; Lind & Tyler, 1988). Prior research in support of this perspective reveals that providing children with an opportunity to have their voice heard in court predicts more favorable legal attitudes (Arndorfer et al., 2015; Goodman et al., 1992; Trinkner & Cohn, 2014).

In the United States, foster youth’s voice opportunities likely depend, in part, on the form of representation provided to them. In some states, foster youth representatives can be nonlawyer volunteers (e.g., guardian ad litems [GALs]), while other states utilize attorneys and others provide children with both GALs and attorney representatives. The model of representation also varies between states. Some rely on the “best interest model” of representation: the representative’s determination of the best course for the children is communicated to the court, even if the advice goes against the youth’s desires. Others implement either a client-directed representation model (i.e., attorneys advocate the children’s stated interests, which is often to return home to their parents; Block et al., 2010) or a “modified stated interest” model (e.g., attorneys advise the court of the children’s wishes but do not have to advocate for reunion of the children with the parents if counsel believes doing so would endanger the children).

In any case, prior research on the U.S. dependency system has primarily focused on youth’s attendance at their own dependency court proceedings as predictors of youth’s reactions to the dependency system (Block et al., 2010; Hobbs et al., 2014; Quas, Wallin, Horwitz, Davis, & Lyon, 2009; Runyan, Everson, Edelsohn, Hunter, & Coulter, 1988; Weisz, Wingrove, Beal, & Faith-Slaker, 2011). Although research is split on whether foster youth’s participation is related to positive legal attitudes (Block et al., 2010; Weisz et al., 2011), foster youth are increasingly encouraged to attend their dependency court hearings (Goldfarb, Goodman, & Lawler, 2015; Khoury, 2006; Pitchal, 2008). There are reasons, however, why merely attending may not lead to more positive dependency system views. Youth often leave the courthouse feeling as if their wishes and needs have not been conveyed or considered (Block et al., 2010), without fully comprehending what occurred in the courtroom (Block et al., 2010; Quas et al., 2009). Youth who do not understand the legal actions may feel like secondary actors without a voice, which a procedural justice model predicts would undermine the benefits of attendance.

Although foster youth may have interactions with their attorneys inside the courtroom, a number of interactions occur outside of the formal court setting, such as when attorneys privately meet with youth to learn their wishes and explain the judge’s decision; these interactions may provide indirect voice opportunities. One benefit of such indirect voice opportunities is that through increased attorney communication, youth may become more knowledgeable about the dependency proceedings. Youth who are more knowledgeable about their proceedings are less distressed by the proceedings they attend (Quas et al., 2009) and report more positive views of the dependency system (Block et al., 2010). In the Quas et al. (2009) study, foster children who met with their attorneys were not more knowledgeable than those foster youth who did not; however, the quality of those meetings was not measured. If these interactions simply involve greater frequency of interaction, they may not increase the children’s knowledge or the positivity of children’s views of the dependency system.

Although quantity of dependency system contact alone likely does not necessarily confer the benefits of voice opportunity (Block et al., 2010; Fagan & Tyler, 2005; Quas et al., 2009; Trinkner & Cohn, 2014), efficacious representation, positive relationship building, and informative communication between foster youth and their attorneys could possibly improve youth’s views of the dependency system. If so, it may be the quality, rather than the perceived frequency, of voice opportunities that provides youth with positive views of the dependency system. Although procedural justice theory would predict that positive indirect voice opportunities (e.g., attorney or GAL representation) improve foster youth’s attitudes toward the dependency system, little is known about this topic from scientific research. The present study considers both the self-reported quantity (i.e., frequency) and self-reported quality of voice opportunity to determine which facets predict more positive ratings of the dependency system for foster youth.

Overall, research regarding foster youth’s ratings of the dependency system is scarce, and few, if any, published studies have examined dependency system attitudes for youth with compared to without dependency system experience. It is, therefore, unclear how foster youth’s ratings of the dependency system contrast with those of youth with no prior involvement (“nonfoster youth”). Youth who are the subject of ongoing dependency proceedings on average rate the dependency system as neutral, neither good nor bad (e.g., Block et al., 2010).

Without a nonfoster youth comparison, however, foster youth’s ratings of neutrality in prior studies may be misleading. For example, foster youth’s ratings (even by youth who have the most positive experiences) may be significantly lower than those of noninvolved youth who have no direct prior experiences on which to base their views of the dependency system. Although prior research finds that youth with (vs. without) dependency system experience do not consistently differ in levels of knowledge of the dependency court (Cooper, Wallin, Quas, & Lyon, 2010), inclusion of nonfoster youth comparative values as a “baseline” permits one to draw more nuanced conclusions about how dependency system interactions relate to foster youth’s attitudes regarding that system. We examine this issue in the present research.

The Present Study

The present study’s primary goal was to examine relations among foster youth’s views of prior voice opportunities (both perceived frequency and perceived quality of those opportunities) and their dependency system ratings. Prior research suggests the importance of considering quality of voice opportunities (e.g., positive experience with an attorney) over and above quantity (e.g., number of meetings with an attorney). Thus, we examined self-reported ratings of both quality and frequency of dependency system voice opportunities in our analyses. Specifically, we considered foster youth’s ratings of how frequently youth stated they appeared in court with the judge or with the judge and their attorney (quantity of direct voice opportunities), foster youth’s reports of how frequently they had contact with their attorneys, foster youth’s ratings of the quality of their attorneys’ representing their voice, and foster youth’s ratings of the quality of communication with their attorneys. California, the state in which our research took place, mandates a “modified stated interest” representation model.

Two primary hypotheses were advanced based on research reviewed above. First, we predicted that the differences between foster youth’s and nonfoster youth’s ratings of the dependency system, specifically, how good or bad they think the system is for foster youth, would be driven by the perceived quality of the foster youth’s own prior voice opportunities, such that foster youth who report having had higher quality opportunities (e.g., having a representative who presented their opinions, being able to communicate well with an advocate) would have more favorable ratings than both foster youth who reported their prior interactions as having lower quality and nonfoster youth who lacked dependency system experience altogether. Second, we hypothesized that, although foster youth’s reporting of quantity of interactions would predict more favorable views of the dependency system, their ratings of the dependency system would be predicted by their views of the quality of their voice opportunities (i.e., quality of attorney representation and communication) over and above their ratings of the frequency of such opportunities (i.e., in-court appearances and extent of contact with their attorneys).

Method

Participants

Participants included 74 foster youth living in California. For the primary analyses, foster youth were divided into three groups of approximately 25 foster youth each, reflecting differences in ratings of the quality and frequency of voice opportunities (see Figure 1 for details about the three groups). For the nonfoster youth sample, initially, 42 youth were included. Of these, six adolescents were excluded because they indicated foster care or dependency court experience, leaving 36 adolescents in the nonfoster youth sample. These six were not included in the foster youth sample because their dependency system experience could not be documented.¹

Figure 1.

Ratings for how good or bad nonfoster and foster youth think the dependency system is for youth in foster care (1 = very bad to 4 = very good).

Both the foster and nonfoster youth were 17 years of age (foster youth, M = 204.32 months, SD = .47; nonfoster youth, M = 208.94 months, SD = 3.43). Of the foster youth, approximately 43% were female; 64% of nonfoster youth were female. Race/ethnicity was as follows for foster and nonfoster youth, respectively: 20% and 7% Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 18% and 7% African American, 54% and 64% Hispanic/Latinx, 6% and 16% Native American/Pacific Islander, and 2% and 6% Asian. Thus, both groups were racially diverse. Regarding socioeconomic status (SES), 27% of foster and 14% of nonfoster youth indicated receipt of public assistance (welfare, public housing, or public food assistance).

When foster youth were asked why they entered foster care (see below), 88% indicated having experienced maltreatment (by responding affirmatively to one of a list of types of maltreatment), whereas 12% declined or said they did not know why. Details regarding the types of maltreatment reported and the age at which youth entered foster care are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations (in Parenthesis) for Key Variables.

Variable	Foster Youth^a	Nonfoster Youth^b
Age entered foster care	11.50 (5.18)	NA
Receiving public assistance	0.27 (0.45)	0.14 (.35)
Reported neglect^c	0.47 (0.50)	0.03 (.17)
Reported sexual abuse	0.14 (0.34)	0.03 (.17)
Reported physical abuse	0.19 (0.39)	0.03 (.17)
Reported “other” abuse	0.23 (0.42)	NA
Quantity of in-court appearances	2.92 (1.19)	NA
Quantity of child–attorney contact	2.86 (0.96)	NA
Quality of attorney representation	3.12 (0.96)	NA
Quality of child–attorney communication	3.00 (1.03)	NA
Dependency system ratings	2.68 (0.89)	2.39 (.84)

n = 74.

n = 36 (except for the maltreatment variables where the n = 35).

For all of the maltreatment variables, 0 = did not report that form of maltreatment, 1 = reported that form of maltreatment. Because 28.3% reported having experienced two or more types of maltreatment, the proportions for maltreatment type add to more than 100% (when proportions are converted to percentages).

Measures

Demographic and abuse status information

For foster youth, demographic information was obtained from administrative records. For nonfoster youth, a standard Demographic Questionnaire was constructed (e.g., concerning age, gender, and race/ethnicity). As part of the survey, types of maltreatment, foster youth were presented with options and asked to respond either affirmatively or negatively as the reason(s) they entered foster care. Nonfoster youth were similarly provided the option to respond affirmatively or negatively to the list of types of maltreatment that they may or may not have experienced.

National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) survey

Collection of foster youth data for the present study was facilitated by the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, which established the NYTD (Foster Care Indepdendence Act, 1999) and required all states to collect information on outcomes for foster youth. The Administration on Children, Youth, and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services developed a questionnaire for Wave 1 of the NYTD project. These federally mandated questions can be found in Appendices A and B of the Federal Register at 45 CFR Part 1356 (Requirements Applicable to Title IV-E, 2012). Regarding the mandated questions, included in the present study—as control variables only—were responses to required questions about receipt of public assistance, homelessness, treatment for drug or alcohol usage, confinement to jail or prison, failing to attend high school, having fathered or birthed a living child, and number of homes in which the youth lived.

Dependency system questionnaire

Additional questions were included in California’s NYTD survey. One set of questions devised specifically for the present study assessed youth’s prior experiences with and ratings about the dependency system:

Frequency of in-court appearances: “During your foster care experience(s), approximately how many times total were you physically in the foster care/dependency courtroom with the judge (or with the judge and your attorney)?” Scoring was on a scale of 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = occasionally, 4 = often, 5 = very often.

Frequency of child–attorney contact: “If you are in foster care now (or if you were in foster care in the past), how much contact did you have with your foster care attorney(s)?” Scoring was on a scale of 1 = no contact, 2 = not enough contact, 3 = sufficient contact, 4 = a lot of contact.

Quality of attorney representation: “Overall, during your foster care experience(s), how well did your attorney speak for you or represent you?” Scoring was on a scale of 1 = not well, 2 = somewhat not well, 3 = somewhat well, 4 = very well.

Quality of child–attorney communication: “Overall, how well did you and your foster care attorney communicate (for example, how well did your attorney explain what would happen in your case and keep you informed of changes; how often did you get to tell your attorney what you wanted)?” Scoring was on a scale of 1 = not well, 2 = somewhat not well, 3 = somewhat well, 4 = very well.

Legal attitudes questionnaire

Also constructed specifically for the present study, this questionnaire included questions about attitudes toward the U.S. legal system (e.g., “Overall, how fair do you think the US criminal courts are (criminal courts deal with adults who commit murder, rape, assault, arson, burglary, or other serious crimes, or with juveniles tried as adults for such crimes)? Please answer even if you have had no court experience.”). Of special concern, here was the question regarding the participants’ attitudes toward the dependency system: “How good or bad do you think foster care/dependency court is for youth in foster care?” Response options were as follows: 1 = very bad, 2 = bad, 3 = good, 4 = very good.²

Procedure

Although virtually all 17-year olds in foster care in the United States during specified months from 2010 to 2011 were invited to participate in Wave 1 of the NYTD survey, eligible foster youth could decline participation. Data for the foster youth in the present study were collected in California across a three month period, relevant to Wave 1 of the NYTD survey.

Regarding foster youth, the study was exempt from the Common Rule (Protection of Human Subjects, 45 CFR § 46) because it was part of a federally mandated program evaluation. For nonfoster youth, parental consent was obtained. Assent was attained from all participating youth. Contact information for foster youth was provided through an agreement with the California Department of Social Services, which includes provisions to ensure confidentiality of data. Efforts were made to contact and survey foster youth by mail or telephone within 45 days of their 17th birthday, per federal requirements. Approximately 3% of the foster youth completed the survey online. Of the foster youth who could be offered the dependency system questionnaire (e.g., youth who had not left their foster homes without informing authorities about their future residences, youth who were currently incarcerated, and youth without noted intellectual disabilities), an approximately 37% response rate was obtained.

Foster youth in California were told that the NYTD survey was being administered nationally to foster youth who were turning 17 years. After foster youth answered the standard NYTD questions, for the first few months of data collection, they were asked if they agreed to administration of additional questionnaires. Foster youth who completed the survey were sent a US$5 gift card and entered in a drawing to win US$500 or more.

Nonfoster youth constituted a comparison group of adolescents who had never been in foster care and had no dependency system experience. Administration of the survey for nonfoster youth took place in 2010 and the early part of 2011. Nonfoster youth were recruited from 10 California schools whose students, on average, had similar SES and racial/ethnic composition as the group of foster youth participants (Table 1). With school permission, students in the appropriate age range received consent forms in their classrooms and, if they wished to participate, were asked to return the consent form signed by a parent or legal guardian. Parents and children were told that the study’s goal was to learn about the needs of youth who live in California and would soon be transitioning out of high school. Most nonfoster participants answered the questions via telephone or mail. Occasionally, nonfoster youth answered the survey questions in writing in school classrooms. In all cases, they completed the questionnaires confidentially and in most cases anonymously. To match the age range of the foster youth, efforts were also made to survey nonfoster youth within 45 days of their 17th birthday. Nonfoster youth answered the same set of questions as the foster youth, except questions about age, gender, and race/ethnicity were added. Nonfoster youth who completed the survey were given a US$5 gift card and were entered into a drawing to win US$300.³

Results

Results are presented in four sections. First, we conducted correlational analyses to determine whether any nontheorized predictors (e.g., receiving public assistance) related to the variables of interest (e.g., ratings of the dependency system). Second, we analyzed foster youth and nonfoster youth’s ratings of the dependency system on the group level. Third, using ANOVA, we compared ratings of the dependency system for foster and nonfoster youth taking into account perceived frequency and perceived quality of prior experiences for foster youth. Fourth, we tested multiple linear regression models for foster youth only to examine whether the quality of attorney representation and the quality of child–attorney communication predicted foster youth’s ratings of the dependency system after controlling for the self-reported frequency of prior experiences. All significant effects are reported.

Correlational Analyses

Information on gender (0 = male, 1 = female) was available for all nonfoster youth and 92% of the foster youth. There were no significant correlations of gender for either group with key variables. Race/ethnicity information was missing for 14% of the nonfoster youth and 32% of the foster youth. Race/ethnicity (e.g., Hispanic = 1 vs. all others = 0) was not significantly correlated with dependency system ratings, rs < |.10|. Gender and race/ethnicity were not considered further.

Means and standard deviations of key study variables are presented in Table 1. Correlations for foster youth are presented in Table 2. We examined relations among such variables as receipt of public assistance (0 = not receiving welfare, public housing, or public food assistance, 1 = receiving welfare, public housing, or public food assistance), age when foster youth entered foster care (in years), foster youth’s abuse history (neglect, sexual abuse, physical abuse, or “other” abuse [including witnessing intimate partner violence]; 0 = did not report that form of maltreatment, 1 = reported that form of maltreatment), and ratings of the dependency system along a positive–negative dimension. Age at completing the survey was not analyzed because all youth were 17 years of age. Low SES (as measured by receipt of public assistance) was not significantly correlated with ratings of the dependency system for foster youth (Table 2) or nonfoster youth (r = –.09). For foster youth, neither maltreatment history nor age when entered foster care was significantly correlated with ratings of the dependency system. As a result, these factors were not considered further.

Table 2.

Bivariate Pearson Correlations for Foster Youth (n = 74).

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. Age entered foster care	1
2. Receiving public assistance	−.12	1
3. Reported neglect^a	−.19	.09	1
4. Reported sexual abuse^b	.09	.12	.18	1
5. Reported physical abuse^c	−.01	−.02	.10	.31**	1
6. Reported “other” abuse^d	.08	.03	−.45***	−.22	−.18	1
7. Frequency of in-court appearances	−.02	.20	.04	.03	.004	−.04	1
8. Frequency of child–attorney contact	−.12	−.14	.11	.18	.18	.04	.002	1
9. Quality of attorney representation	−.08	−.01	.13	−.09	−.06	−.10	−.02	.23	1
10. Quality of child–attorney communication	−.03	.001	.03	.04	−.03	.09	.10	.62***	.50***	1
11. Ratings of the dependency system	.07	.05	−.08	.10	−.06	−.09	.13	.19	.38**	.46***	1

0 = did not report neglect, 1 = reported neglect.

0 = did not report sexual abuse, 1 = reported sexual abuse.

0 = did not report physical abuse, 1 = reported physical abuse.

0 = did not report other maltreatment, 1 = reported other maltreatment.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Comparison of Nonfoster and Foster Youth’s Ratings of the Dependency System Overall

We next compared overall ratings of the dependency system for foster and nonfoster youth in an independent samples t test. No significant group differences emerged between foster youth (M = 2.68, SD = .89) and nonfoster youth (M = 2.39, SD = .84) in their ratings of whether the dependency system was good or bad for youth in foster care, t(108) = −1.61, p = .11. Thus, there was no overall significant group difference in dependency system views.

Comparison of Nonfoster and Foster Youth’s Ratings of the Dependency System Considering Frequency and Quality of Foster Youth’s Voice Opportunities

We hypothesized that foster youth’s dependency system ratings would be driven by their perceived frequency and quality of prior voice opportunities. We, therefore, examined whether there were differences between foster and nonfoster youth’s ratings of the dependency system when taking into account the foster youth’s reports of their prior dependency system experiences (e.g., frequency of in-court appearances, quality of attorney representation). Inclusion of a separate nonfoster youth group permitted us to create a “baseline” comparison for the foster youth groups. We then conducted a series of four different one-way between-subjects ANOVAs with youth’s indications of their prior experiences as the independent variables and their ratings of the dependency system as the dependent variable. As depicted in Figure 1, for these analyses considering the youth’s reports of the frequency of their voice opportunities, we divided the sample into four groups: nonfoster youth (no reported prior dependency system experience), foster youth who reported low frequency of prior experience, foster youth who reported moderate frequency of prior experience, and foster youth who reported high frequency of prior experience. (Figure 1 and its corresponding note provide additional details about the groups.)

A one-way between-subjects ANOVA, with foster youth’s reports of the frequency of their in-court appearances as the independent variable and ratings of the dependency system as the dependent variable, failed to yield a significant main effect, F(3, 109) = 1.32, p = .27: Nonfoster youth did not significantly differ in their ratings of the dependency system compared with foster youth who reported low, moderate, or high frequency of in-court appearances. However, a one-way between-subjects ANOVA, with foster youth’s reports of the frequency of their child–attorney contacts as the independent variable, produced a significant main effect on ratings of the dependency system, F(3, 109) = 3.62, p = .02, η_ρ² = .09. Planned comparisons revealed that foster youth who indicated high frequency of contact with their dependency attorney (M = 3.09, SD = .92, 95% CI = [2.68, 3.50]) had significantly more favorable ratings of the dependency system than nonfoster youth (M = 2.39, SD = .84, 95% CI = [2.11, 2.67]; p = .003) and youth who reported moderate frequency of attorney contact (M = 2.41, SD = .80, 95% CI = [2.09, 2.72]; p = .006). Although the ratings made by foster youth with high frequency of attorney contact were not significantly different from foster youth who reported low frequency of attorney contact (M = 2.60, SD = .87, 95% CI = [2.24, 2.96]), there was a trend in that direction, p = .05.

For analyses concerning the quality of voice opportunities, we analyzed the youth into four groups: nonfoster youth (no prior dependency system experience), foster youth who reported low quality of prior voice opportunities, foster youth who reported moderate quality of prior voice opportunities, and foster youth who reported high quality of prior voice opportunities (Figure 1). To preview the results, similar patterns were found for quality of attorney representation and for attorney communication. Specifically, a one-way between-subjects ANOVA, with four levels of ratings of quality of attorney representation as the independent variable and ratings of the dependency system as the dependent variable, revealed a significant main effect, F(3, 109) = 5.81, p = .001, η_ρ² = .14. Planned comparisons indicated that nonfoster youth’s ratings of the dependency system (M = 2.39, SD = .84, 95% CI = [2.11, 2.67]) did not significantly differ from such ratings made by foster youth who reported low (M = 2.21, SD = .80, 95% CI = [1.75, 2.68]) or moderate (M = 2.45, SD = .87, 95% CI = [2.12, 2.78]) quality of attorney representation. Notably, however, foster youth who reported high quality of attorney representation (M = 3.10, SD = .79, 95% CI = [2.81, 3.39]) reported significantly more favorable ratings of the dependency system than all other groups, ps < .008.

For ratings of quality of child–attorney communication, a one-way between-subjects ANOVA of the four groups, with ratings of the dependency system as the dependent variable, produced a significant main effect, F(3, 109) = 6.85, p < .001, η_ρ² = .16. Planned comparisons revealed that nonfoster youth’s ratings (M = 2.39, SD = .84, 95% CI = [2.11, 2.67]) did not significantly differ from foster youth who reported low (M = 2.16, SD = .83, 95% CI = [1.76, 2.56]) or moderate (M = 2.54, SD = .76, 95% CI = [2.23, 2.85]) quality of communication between themselves and their attorneys. However, foster youth who reported high quality of child–attorney communication (M = 3.14, SD = .83, 95% CI = [2.82, 3.45]) had significantly more favorable ratings of the dependency system than all other groups, ps < .003.

Quality of Prior Voice Opportunities Predicts Foster Youth’s Ratings of the Dependency System Controlling for Frequency of Prior Experiences

We tested multiple linear regression models, excluding the nonfoster youth, to examine whether the quality of attorney representation and the quality of child–attorney communication predicted foster youth’s ratings of the dependency system after controlling for the self-reported frequency of prior experiences (Table 3). The variables in these analyses met assumptions of normality. We addressed issues of multicollinearity (including the correlation between frequency of child–attorney contact and quality of child–attorney contact) by first entering each predictor into a separate model, which also permitted us to test the unique predictive power of quality over and above frequency. For the models reported below, variance inflation factor (VIF) scores among predictors ranged from 1.03 to 2.15 and Tolerance scores ranged from .47 to .97, indicating that collinearity between variables was not problematic.

Table 3.

Linear Regression for Foster Youth’s Ratings of the Dependency System Controlling for Quantity of Prior Experience (n = 74).

Variable	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3			Model 4			Model 5
Variable	B	SE	β	B	SE	β	B	SE	β	B	SE	β	B	SE	β
Age entered foster care	.01	.02	.07	.01	.02	.07	.02	.02	.10	.02	.02	.11	.02	.02	.09
Frequency of in-court appearances				.10	.09	.13	.10	.09	.13	.10	.08	.14	.07	.08	.10
Frequency of child–attorney contact							.19	.11	.20	.11	.11	.12	−.02	.12	−.02
Quality of attorney representation										.34	.10	.36**	.16	.13	.18
Quality of child–attorney communication													.31	.13	.35*
R ²	.01			.02			.06			.19			.25
F	0.34			0.79			1.52			3.96**			4.40**
ΔR²	.01			.02			.04			.13**			.06*

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

In the first model, we analyzed whether age when entering foster care predicted ratings of the dependency system. This permitted us to determine whether time of first exposure to the foster care system was related to this dependent variable. The model was not significant, p = .56. Neither the second model, which added ratings of frequency of in-court appearances, nor the third model, which further added whether the rating of frequency of child–attorney contact, were significant, ps > .22. The fourth model adding the quality of attorney representation was significant. Quality of attorney representation significantly predicted foster youth having more favorable ratings of the dependency system, even after controlling for frequency of prior experiences. The fifth model adding the foster youth’s ratings of the quality of their child–attorney communication was also significant (Table 3). Quality of child–attorney communication was a significant unique predictor of ratings of the dependency system, even after controlling for the frequency of prior voice opportunities and quality of attorney representation.

A potential reason for the lack of a significant finding regarding frequency of contact is that children who have increased contact with the dependency system could also be experiencing more difficulty. To test this alternative possibility, we examined correlations between, on one hand, frequency of in-court appearances and the frequency of child–attorney contact, on the other hand, experiences with homelessness, treatment for drug or alcohol usage, confinement to jail or prison, failing to attend high school, having fathered or birthed a living child, and number of homes lived in (see Requirements Applicable to Title IV-E, 2012, for further details on these NYTD questions). The only significant correlation to emerge was between quantity of in-court appearances and number of homes lived in, r(71) = .29, p = .01. We reran the regression analyses above adding numbers of homes lived in (M = 7.12, SD = 4.11) into the first model, with age entered foster care, and the same significant findings held even with the addition of this variable (e.g., Model 4, quality of attorney representation, F(5, 67) = 3.57, p = .006; B = .32, SE = .11, β = .34, p = .003; Model 5, quality of child–attorney communication, F(6, 66) = 3.97, p = .002, B = .30, SE = .13, β = .34, p = .03). We also conducted correlational analyses between youth’s reports of, on one hand, the quality of child–attorney communication and quality of attorney representation and, on the other hand, prior life experiences. The only significant correlation to emerge was between quality of child–attorney communication and being homeless, r(50) = –.31, p = .03 (with children who reported higher quality child–attorney communication also reporting fewer experiences with homelessness). Thus, we added homelessness (M = 0.20, SD = 0.40) into the first model, with age entered foster care. Due to missing data on the homelessness variable, we imputed the missing scores for homelessness. The same significant effects held even with the addition of homelessness to the models (e.g., Model 4, quality of attorney representation, F(5, 68) = 3.20, p = .01; B = .33, SE = .10, β = .36, p = .002; Model 5, quality of child–attorney communication, F(6, 67) = 3.62, p = .004, B = .30, SE = .14, β = .35, p = .03). Thus, it was not simply that more positive outcomes drove more favorable views of the quality of legal representation and communication in our study.

Discussion

Many youth in foster care have experienced interpersonal violence and/or neglect at the hands of their caretakers and then face the challenges associated with navigating the dependency system. Due to the violence perpetrated on them, or in front of them, foster youth have major life decisions enacted on their behalf by professionals in the dependency system, with these adults unlikely to be well known to the youth. Given these circumstances, foster youth’s views of the dependency system should be considered: Foster youth’s ratings are informative of their impressions and needs.

Ratings of the dependency system by nonfoster youth who have no direct dependency system experience provide an important baseline of societal views, within the age group of interest here, specifically those who are on the brink of “emerging adulthood” (Arnett, 2000). Our findings reveal that a lack of overall group differences between foster and nonfoster youth’s ratings, followed by more detailed analyses within the foster youth group, is particularly informative: Our analyses make clear that the overall two-group comparison obscures important differences in foster youth’s ratings of the dependency system. Specifically, results show that in addition to overall comparisons of nonfoster and foster youth’s views, it is important to consider foster youth’s experiences within the dependency system. Within the foster youth group, adolescents’ assessments of the quality of their voice opportunities, both attorney representation and child–attorney communication, predicted the favorability of their ratings of the dependency system. This study thus clarifies that a relation between attorney services and legal attitudes for foster youth exists; our findings are consistent with recent movements for increased quality of representation for youth in legal proceedings (“Congressional Briefing on Children’s Right to Counsel,” 2016).

Although causal inferences cannot be drawn given the correlational nature of our data, the relation between perceived quality of voice opportunities and ratings of the dependency system was robust: The rating of quality of attorney representation remained as a significant unique predictor even after controlling for the reported frequency of prior voice opportunities. Quality of child–attorney communication also remained significant after controlling for perceived quality of attorney representation. Thus, foster youth having the opportunity to be well informed and express their views, as well as being adequately represented, appears to play a significant role in shaping the foster youth’s ratings of the dependency system. (See Goodman et al., 1992, for similar findings for child victims involved in criminal court prosecutions.) These results offer support for the important role that legal actors play in shaping foster youth’s positive views of the dependency system.

Two findings might initially seem counterintuitive. First, it might be surprising that foster youth who report low quality attorney communication had similar ratings to those with no dependency system involvement; one might assume that youth with low quality attorney communication would more negatively view the system than those without any foster care experience. Our finding may be the result of negative opinions generally in society regarding the dependency system (e.g., Hincapie, 2014; Soronen, 2014). Individuals learn about the legal system both through one’s own experiences and others’ experiences (Cavanagh & Cauffman, 2015; Fagan & Tyler, 2005; Piquero et al., 2005). Those who do not have any personal legal experiences may, at least partially, develop their ratings of the legal system via word of mouth or from the media. If others or the media negatively portray the dependency system, individuals without personal exposure to the system may assume that involvement is an adverse experience for foster youth. The inclusion of nonfoster youth as a comparison or “baseline” group here allowed analyses to detect these potential differences in indirect stereotypes compared with actual contact. Without such a comparison group, one cannot fully determine how perceived dependency system experiences relate to youth’s attitudes toward that system. Future research should more thoroughly consider the influence of community attitudes, media exposure, and children’s concerns on nonfoster and foster youth’s views of the dependency system.

Second, quality of child–attorney representation predicted foster youth’s ratings of the dependency system, but frequency of in-court attendance did not. Because we may have lacked sufficient statistical power to detect this and other relations (such as those between diversity factors and dependency system ratings), the absence of significant associations should be interpreted with caution. That said, we examined other potential reasons for the null finding concerning frequency of in-court attendance. For instance, we attempted to rule out whether foster youth who had increased courtroom visits also had more life challenges: Our results held even after controlling for differences in the number of moves the youth experienced, which was our only life-difficulty variable that significantly correlated with frequency of courtroom visits. It may be that these foster youth had life experiences not measured that resulted in their needing additional courtroom attendance.

Our findings suggest that views of the quality of voice opportunities are more important to foster youth’s ratings of the dependency system than the mere reported frequency of experiences—it is how individuals are treated within the legal system that may truly matters. Of importance, here youth’s ratings of quality of experience were also not solely driven by differences in outcomes. This finding is consistent with Block et al.’s (2010) and Weisz et al.’s (2011) work showing that quality matters in determining foster youth’s ratings of the dependency system regardless of the frequency of such interactions.

This study provides additional support for procedural justice theory’s argument that having one’s voice heard helps shape ratings of the legal system. Critically, it also suggests that there are outlets outside of directly testifying to the court through which one’s voice can be heard, including via interactions with an attorney. These interactions may be particularly important for foster youth who likely have had little or no control or predictability in life decisions. Indeed, these children may have experienced interpersonal violence and other adversities during which or after which their thoughts, emotions, and beliefs were belittled or ignored. Permitting voice now in life decisions may provide these children with an outlet for improving their mental health, as has been found with adult victims of interpersonal violence (Calton & Cattaneo, 2014; Cattaneo & Goodman, 2010; but see Kunst, Popelier, & Varekamp, 2015). Additional research should consider the particular facets of attorney communication—such as relationship or rapport building, age-appropriate knowledge provision, conveying respect, or use of educational tools to help youth understand dependency proceedings—that are most valuable to foster youth. Such information would help to clarify the factors of indirect voice that are critical to youth.

Several limitations of our study are worth noting. One is our reliance on self-report data concerning the quality and frequency of youth’s voice opportunities within the dependency system and specifically with attorneys. We asked youth about the dependency system (both foster care and the dependency court) because we wanted youth’s ratings to broadly reflect their experiences with dependency court actors and actions. However, we were not able to verify that youth were considering only interactions within their dependency system experience. Another limitation is that our dependent variable was limited to a singular question, without supporting validity or reliability, as to “how good or bad” the dependency system was for the foster youth. A broader range of questions may better capture youth’s experience.

We also did not have access to objective measures of quantity or quality of interactions. Additional data—such as frequency counts of meetings with counsel, objective ratings of communication quality, and a match/no-match score between the children’s stated preference and what is advocated in the courtroom—could provide a richer picture of factors that drive youth’s legal reactions and permit further analyses as to potential differences in treatment due to possibly influential variables, such as maltreatment history, race/ethnicity, or developmental disabilities. This study is limited to foster youth’s views of their own experiences. We note, however, that the foster youth’s views are not only valuable in their own right, but self-reports are particularly important for understanding psychological reactions to legal involvement. Objective data, as compared with the subjective data in this study, do not allow for differences in how legal experiences are viewed and interpreted (e.g., differences in views of what constitutes sufficient attorney contact are arguably best captured by subjective as opposed to objective measurement). Furthermore, if dependency decisions are in the children’s best interests, then the children’s viewpoints should be given weighty consideration.

Another potential limitation is that self-report responses may show a bias in the way that foster youth viewed their prior legal experiences. We did not have objective measures of biases or personality (such as of a positivity bias or extraversion, respectively) to account for such factors. However, not all legal ratings were significantly correlated with each other, suggesting that participants showed some variation across ratings and not a pervasive bias. Experimental research with random assignment reveals that quality of legal communication (i.e., providing additional rationales for legal decisions) positively affects reactions to the legal experience and the legal system (Eckberg & Podkopacz, 2004), findings that offer support to the proposition that changes to legal experiences can affect legal attitudes. Another way in which our findings may reflect bias is in youth’s decisions to respond to the survey at all or in their reports that they did not know or did not have an opinion about the fairness of the dependency system. Unfortunately, our method of enrollment of nonfoster youth precluded calculation of a response rate for them. Moreover, our approach to data analysis excluded participants who indicated “don’t know” or lacked an opinion about the dependency system’s fairness.

Future research is needed to better understand factors that determine foster and nonfoster youth’s views of the dependency system. Given current initiatives to increase the quality of attorney representation for foster youth (e.g., “Congressional Briefing on Children’s Right to Counsel,” 2016), we chose to focus on voice. However, youth’s experiences with other procedural justice components (such as fact finder neutrality and respectful treatment) may explain additional variance in foster youth’s assessments of the legal system. Our findings are also potentially affected by the response rate we obtained and the relatively small samples included, particularly of nonfoster youth, who may have lacked detailed knowledge of the dependency system. It is possible, for example, that only the more agreeable, knowledgeable, or responsible youth consented to answer our questions, resulting in a skewed view and, as such, results may not be generalizable to the population of youth exiting foster care. Moreover, not all youth chose to answer questions regarding their experiences in the legal system. Ideally, experimental research with larger sample sizes and random assignment, as opposed to a correlational study as carried out here, could be ethically performed in the future, enabling valid causal inference.

In conclusion, foster youth’s ratings of the quality of their legal experiences predicted their ratings of the dependency system. These results provide support for the proposition that quality of interactions with the legal system matter more for legal attitudes than frequency of interactions (Weisz et al., 2011), consistent with procedural justice theory (Lind & Tyler, 1988). The findings also support continued advocacy for high quality legal representation for foster youth involved in the legal system (“Congressional Briefing on Children’s Right to Counsel,” 2016). The findings suggest that it is not just increased direct legal contact that determines adolescents’ attitudes toward the dependency court system, but rather what matters even more is quality representation that ensures communication and the opportunity for effective voice. Communication and voice may hold special value for foster youth struggling in adolescence to cope within a legal system that determines crucial facets of their life course.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the participants for generously sharing their voices. They also thank the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) for providing data for this study.

Authors’ Note

Administrative data were made available through the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN), Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) survey for California was conducted under Contract 09-2041 between CDSS and the Regents of the University of California (Goodman, Principal Investigator). The California Youth in Transition Database (CYTD) project for nonfoster youth and the part of the NYTD project involving the dependency system questionnaire were funded by a grant from the University of California, Davis. Neither funding agencies, nor NDACAN, bear any responsibility for the analyses or interpretations presented. The opinions and conclusions expressed are solely those of the authors and should not be considered as representing the policy of the collaborating agencies or any agency of the California government.

Notes

Author Biographies

Deborah Goldfarb, JD, PhD, is an assistant professor at Florida International University. She received her bachelor’s degree in psychology from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, her law degree from the University of Michigan, and her doctoral degree in psychology from the University of California, Davis. She has published articles on children in the court, eyewitness memory, and children’s legal rights.

Sarah M. Tashjian, JD, is a doctoral student in psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). She obtained her bachelor’s degree at the University of Florida and her JD degree at Columbia University. She was a visiting student at the University of California, Davis. She is currently pursuing her doctoral degree in developmental neuroscience and adolescence at UCLA.

Gail S. Goodman, PhD, is Distinguished Professor at the University of California, Davis. She is internationally known for her research on eyewitness memory, child maltreatment, and children’s legal involvement. She has received numerous national awards and grants for her research and writings. She received her PhD in developmental psychology from UCLA.

Daniel Bederian-Gardner, PhD, obtained his bachelor’s degree at Concordia University in Canada, and his doctoral degree at the University of California, Davis. He has published several papers on child maltreatment, adults’ empathy for child victims, and children in foster care. He is currently employed as a researcher with the California Department of Motor Vehicles in Sacramento, California.

Sue D. Hobbs, PhD, is an assistant professor of Child Development at California State University, Sacramento. She graduated summa cum laude with a bachelor’s degree from California State University, East Bay. She earned her MA from the University of the Pacific, and her PhD in psychology at the University of California, Davis. She publishes research in the areas of child victims in the legal system, child forensic interviewing, and children in foster care.

Ingrid M. Cordón, PhD, obtained her undergraduate degree, graduating summa cum laude, from UCLA. She holds a master’s degree from California State University, Northridge and a doctoral degree from the University of California, Davis. Her postdoctoral training was in neuroscience. She has published widely on such topics as child maltreatment, children’s memory development, and child forensic interviewing techniques.

Christin M. Ogle, PhD, obtained her bachelor’s degree in psychology at Reed College, conducting research on eyewitness identification. She attended graduate school in psychology at the University of California, Davis, and obtained postdoctoral training at Duke University. She is currently a research psychologist at the Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress at the Uniformed Services University.

Sarah Bakanosky, MA, obtained her bachelor’s degree from Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts. She then, was a professional researcher at the University of California Medical Center and the Developmental Research Center/Center for Public Policy Research at the University of California, Davis. She obtained her master’s degree at the City University of New York, working with Dr. Margaret-Ellen Pipe.

Rachel K. Narr, MA, obtained her bachelor’s degree in psychology at the University of California, Davis and then worked there as a researcher. She is currently a doctoral student in child clinical psychology at the University of Virginia. She has published papers on child abuse and memory. Her current research focuses on adolescent development.

Yoojin Chae, PhD, is an associate professor in human development and family studies at Texas Tech University. She has published on memory and suggestibility in maltreated children in relation to trauma-related psychopathology (e.g., dissociation, depression) and on the link between attachment and memory for distressing events. She received her doctorate in human development from Cornell University.

References

Arndorfer

Malloy

L. C.

Cauffman

(2015). Interrogations, confessions, and adolescent offenders’ perceptions of the legal system. Law and Human Behavior, 39, 503-513. doi:10.1037/lhb0000138

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.

Block

S. D.

Oran

Baumrind

Goodman

G. S.

(2010). Abused and neglected children in court: Knowledge and attitudes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 659-670. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.02.003

Calton

Cattaneo

L. B.

(2014). The effects of procedural and distributive justice on intimate partner violence victims’ mental health and likelihood of future help-seeking. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84, 329-340.

Cattaneo

L. B.

Goodman

L. A.

(2010). Through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence: The relationship between empowerment in the court system and well-being for intimate partner violence victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 481-502.

Cavanagh

C. A.

Cauffman

(2015). Viewing law and order: Mothers’ and sons’ justice system legitimacy attitudes and juvenile recidivism. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21, 432-441. doi:10.1037/law0000054

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 USC § 5106a(b)(2)(B)(xiii).

Cooper

Wallin

A. R.

Quas

J. A.

Lyon

T. D.

(2010). Maltreated and nonmaltreated children’s knowledge of the juvenile dependency court system. Child Maltreatment, 15, 255-260.

Congressional briefing on children’s right to counsel. (2016, September 12). First Focus. Retrieved from https://www.periscope.tv/First_Focus/1BdGYNWNWrEJX

10.

Eckberg

D. A.

Podkopacz

M. R.

(2004). Family court fairness study. Minnesota: Fourth Judicial District of the State. Retrieved from: http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/4/Public/Research/Family_Court_Fairness_Report_Final_(2004).pdf

11.

Fagan

Tyler

T. R.

(2005). Legal socialization of children and adolescents. Social Justice Research, 18, 217-241. doi:10.1007/s11211-005-6823-3

12.

Fondacaro

M. R.

Dunkle

M. E.

Pathak

M. K.

(1998). Procedural justice in resolving family disputes: A psychosocial analysis of individual and family functioning in late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 101-119.

13.

Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, Public Law 106-169 (1999).

14.

Goldfarb

Goodman

G. S.

Lawler

M. J.

(2015). Children’s evidence and the convention on the rights of the child: Improving the legal system for children. In Mahmoudi

Leviner

Kaldal

Lainpelto

(Eds.), Child-friendly justice (pp. 85-109). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill.

15.

Goodman

G. S.

Taub

E. P.

Jones

D. P.

England

Port

L. K.

Rudy

Prado

(1992). Testifying in criminal court: Emotional effects on child sexual assault victims. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(5), 1-159.

16.

Hincapie

(2014, December 8). The foster-care system has failed our children. Miami Herald. Retrieved from http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article4371831.html

17.

Hirschman

A. O.

(1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

18.

Hobbs

S. D.

Goodman

G. S.

Block

S. D.

Oran

Quas

J. A.

Park

. . . Baumrind

(2014). Child maltreatment victims’ attitudes about appearing in dependency and criminal courts. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 407-416. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.07.001

19.

Khoury

(2006). Seen and heard: Involving children in dependency court. Child Law Practice, 25, 145-155.

20.

Kunst

Popelier

Varekamp

(2015). Victim satisfaction with the criminal justice system and emotional recovery: A systematic and critical review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16, 336-358.

21.

Lind

E. A.

Tyler

T. R.

(1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum.

22.

Piquero

A. R.

Bersani

B. E.

Loughran

T. A.

Fagan

(2016). Longitudinal patterns of legal socialization in first-generation immigrants, second-generation immigrants, and native-born serious youthful offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 62, 1403-1425.

23.

Piquero

A. R.

Fagan

Mulvey

E. P.

Steinberg

Odgers

(2005). Developmental trajectories of legal socialization among serious adolescent offenders. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 96, 267-298.

24.

Pitchal

E. S.

(2008). Where are all the children? Increasing youth participation in dependency proceedings. Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy, 12, 233-262.

25.

Protection of Human Subjects, 45 CFR § 46.

26.

Quas

J. A.

Wallin

Horwitz

Davis

Lyon

T. D.

(2009). Maltreated children’s understanding of and emotional reactions to dependency court involvement. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 97-117. doi:10.1002/bsl.836

27.

Requirements Applicable to Title IV-E. 45 CFR Part 1356 (2012).

28.

Runyan

D. K.

Everson

M. D.

Edelsohn

G. A.

Hunter

W. M.

Coulter

M. L.

(1988). Impact of legal intervention on sexually abused children. Journal of Pediatrics, 113, 647-653. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(88)80373-1

29.

Saywitz

K. J.

Jaenicke

Camparo

(1990). Children’s knowledge of legal terminology. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 523-535.

30.

Soronen

(2014, April 17). We are abandoning children in foster care. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/16/opinion/soronen-foster-children/

31.

Tapp

J. L.

Levine

F. J.

(1972). Compliance from kindergarten to college: A speculative research note. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1, 233-249.

32.

Trinkner

Cohn

E. S.

(2014). Putting the “social” back in legal socialization: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and cynicism in legal and nonlegal authorities. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 602-617. doi:10.1037/lhb0000107

33.

Weisz

Wingrove

Beal

S. J.

Faith-Slaker

(2011). Children’s participation in foster care hearings. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35, 267-272. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.12.007