1. Do you have any prior personal or professional experience in juvenile court?

Yes, I served in juvenile court from 1995-1999.

2. Are you currently using any types of ADR in juvenile court, in particular family group conferencing and restorative justice programs?

Yes. We are currently involved in a pilot program that utilizes volunteer mediators for our Child Protection cases. We also use family group conferencing in our child protection cases and restorative justice in our low level delinquency cases.

3. Do you have any new or innovative ideas that you are implementing to manage the high volume of juvenile court cases?

There are currently three general initiatives underway to manage our juvenile cases more efficiently and more effectively:

The first is the child protection mediation pilot referenced above. Eligible cases are referred to mediation at the emergency protective care hearing and the mediation is scheduled within 30 days. A trial date is also set at 60 days; if the case settles at the mediation, the trial date is converted to a review hearing. If the case does not settle, then the matter proceeds to trial on the trial date. The goal of the mediation is to foster cooperation and engage the parents and the department in a mutually satisfactory relationship that enhances compliance with the case plan and reunification of the family.

The Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) is directed at reducing the use of secure detention for juveniles charged with crimes who don’t present a risk to public safety. Among other things, we now refer juveniles charged with first time domestic assault out of the detention center to the Bridge, we have new policies and procedures in place to assist families in coming to court, thus reducing the issuance of bench warrants, and we have implemented a probation violation response grid that has dramatically reduced the use of warrants for probation violations.

We are also in the process of redesigning the way that juvenile probation responds to delinquent youth, relying on evidence based research and practices. The focus is on using out of home placement only for those offenders who pose the greatest risk to public safety and using community based services for the rest. We have new programs underway including an evening reporting center, family functional therapy and multisystemic family therapy, all proven interventions that assist youth in becoming law abiding.

4. Are you in compliance with the timelines in the Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure and the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and if not, what procedures are you implementing to attempt to get in compliance?

We have improved our compliance with the time lines and are monitoring our cases on a monthly basis to be sure we are aware of those cases that need special attention, and that we address any systemic problems that are hindering compliance with the time lines. As a general rule, most of my cases are in compliance with the timelines.

5. How do you schedule hearings on these cases that often involve 4 or 5 attorneys (county attorney, public defender, attorneys for parent(s), children, guardian ad litem, etc.) and what are you doing to handles the delays that often arise in starting the hearing when all of the attorneys may not be present and may be handling other matters in other courtrooms (especially county attorneys and public defenders)?

The cases with multiple attorneys that present the most significant scheduling problems are the child protection cases. I schedule the pretrial and the trial date at the first hearing when all the attorneys are present so the dates can be set aside on everyone’s calendars. I have the same practice for permanency cases, where I set aside as many as three days for trial at the admit/deny stage to be sure that we are able to get the case scheduled and do so within the timelines. Once a hearing is set, I rarely reschedule hearings because of the scheduling difficulties.

Getting cases to start on time with multiple parties and attorneys is a great challenge; the attorneys are very good about notifying everyone if they are going to be delayed, but it is still a problem in our court.

6. How do you make sure that private attorneys are kept apprised of possible “standing juvenile court orders” and even that the private attorneys get copies of the orders from their own cases given that the system is so much more geared to government attorneys (i.e. county attorneys and public defenders)?

We have a central collection of standing orders that can be accessed through Angela Willms, Juvenile Court administrative law clerk; (angela.willms@courts.state.mn.us or 612=596-7113)

7. Is the court administrator using the Supreme Court forms for private CHIPS petitions and private TPR petitions?  Is the court taking responsibility for serving these documents and is a filing fee being charged?

Yes, the Supreme Court forms are used. There is a filing fee of $323.00 and may be additional fees for service.

8. With private placement adoption pleadings that receive ex parte review, do you prefer that these go to the adoption clerk or directly to the signing judge?

These pleadings should go directly to the adoptions clerk; they are processed through a law clerk with specific knowledge in this area.

9. Are you allowing motions to be heard at pre-trial conferences?

Yes, motions can be heard at the pretrial conference in both delinquency and child protection cases where the motions have been filed and served as required in the Rules. Please provide a courtesy copy to the court since filed copies are not always in the court file by the hearing.

10. Do you actively engage yourself in settlement negotiations at pre-trial conferences, including expressing what you would do on the case if you were asked to decide it then?

I generally do not engage in settlement discussions in delinquency cases unless requested by the parties, and then I am constrained by case law which limits the judge’s role in these settlement discussions.

In child protection cases, I do engage in settlement discussions if requested by the parties, particularly in permanency cases.

I never state what I would do on a case if asked to decide it then.

11. Do you routinely allow the entire child protection file into evidence or do you require each document in file to be admitted separately and in compliance with the rules of evidence?

I do not allow the entire child protection file into evidence. In my scheduling order, I require the parties in advance of the trial to make specific objections as to foundation or to stipulate as to foundation for each proposed exhibit. Any objections on a basis other than foundation are heard at the time the specific exhibit is offered into evidence.

Lucy Ann Wieland
Originally published in the January/February 2005 issue.
Author: Andrew Luger

Ask any Hennepin County judge, and they will probably tell you that the chief judge has an impossible task. The chief judge must organize, motivate, and direct a diverse group of 61 judges, all of whom were appointed or elected in their own right based on their own views of how the court system must operate. In addition, the chief judge must work with 600 employees, the police, prosecutors, practitioners, and government entities that fund the court’s $39 million budget. It is impossible to make all of these people happy. So why would anyone want this job?

The answer can be found in the caliber of the people who have sought and who have served as chief judge of the Hennepin County bench. For the past four years under Chief Judge Kevin Burke, our court system was recognized as innovative and groundbreaking. And despite the seemingly overwhelming task of trying to lead and motivate judges, police, lawyers and government bodies, our prior chief judge received national awards and honors. Those who complain that Minnesota’s days as a beacon of good government and innovation are behind us have not paid attention to the Hennepin County court system.

On July 1, 2004, Kevin Burke stepped down as chief judge after serving with distinction for four years. On that date, Lucy Wieland became our new chief judge, advancing from the position of assistant chief, a title she held while Burke served as the chief. Given all of the praise and recognition Kevin Burke has received, our new chief has big shoes to fill. It appears she is more than up to the task: Around the court house, there is an overwhelming sense of excitement about Wieland serving as chief and a general belief that the great work of Kevin Burke will continue and will be raised to new levels over the next few years.

Lucy Wieland began her legal career in 1982 as a prosecutor with the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office. She quickly developed a reputation as a savvy trial lawyer, and in 1985, she left the government for private practice and was soon appointed to the bench by Gov. Rudy Perpich.

When I was first given the assignment to write about the new chief, I was determined not to write yet another puff piece about a judge. So, I went about interviewing judges, lawyers, and court personnel to learn about the new chief and how she will govern this group of 61 judges and 600 employees. I learned that Chief Judge Wieland is extremely well liked, and is highly respected by her peers and by those who work for her. So, if this seems like the very puff piece I promised not to write, blame those who know Lucy Wieland, not me.

Chief Judge Wieland is described by fellow judges and court personnel as smart, tough, gracious, approachable, and a great communicator. The judges I spoke with remarked on her ability to forge a consensus where none seems possible and to lead in a skillful and forceful way. She is considered apolitical, someone who approaches problems without a fixed agenda, but with a commitment to working out solutions that will be the best for the court system and its users.

As if all of this respect and admiration were not enough, current and former employees of Chief Judge Wieland describe her as an ideal boss—one who treats everyone with respect and who encourages people to grow as professionals. As one employee succinctly put it, "She is the judge everyone wants to work for." Not a bad calling card.

In addition to these personal and professional traits, her peers say that Chief Judge Wieland has a keen ability to listen and to translate what she learns from others into sensible solutions for the Hennepin County court system. As assistant chief, Wieland spent time learning about the issues and problems facing the court systems of other counties in Minnesota. She also became familiar with judges around the state, listening to their issues and learning about their solutions. A number of Hennepin County judges remarked that Chief Judge Wieland’s strong relationships with judges around Minnesota, including the chief judges, provide additional benefits for Hennepin County as our court system changes and improves. Many in the courthouse believe that Hennepin County must work cooperatively with our state government and other courts to address the new problems that changes in court funding and administration present. Based on her four years as assistant chief, and her ability to listen and to learn from others, Lucy Wieland brings a great deal of experience and insight to this task.

Unlike most Hennepin County judges, the chief judge traditionally does not carry a regular caseload of civil or criminal matters. Rather, the chief judge organizes the bench and focuses on the broader issues facing our justice system. As the court and the job of chief have grown, it has been a struggle for modern chief judges to develop the knowledge and the expertise to do the job. As chief judge, Lucy Wieland is trying to approach the management of the court with a focus on using facts and data to drive decision making. She is also relying on professionals with the necessary expertise in specific areas. As a manager, Chief Judge Wieland says she intends to focus on achieving objective results, and will expect to oversee the court system and those to whom she has delegated authority by managing to those results. Also, the new chief judge is developing internal processes that she hopes will be accepted by all in order to provide predictability and confidence in administrative decisions.

The following are a few of the issues that will be the focus of Chief Judge Wieland’s tenure:

Court Funding: 
By the end of 2005, all of Minnesota’s judicial districts will be funded by the state. This represents a significant change for the Hennepin County courts, which previously received significant funding from the county. These days, each chief judge must spend more and more time working with budget constraints, improving efficiency, and managing decreasing resources. The Hennepin County court system has spent much of the last four years focusing on increasing its efficiency in the handling of a wide variety of case types. In the criminal area in particular, the court has expanded the hearing office to handle a greater number of traffic cases, has developed a drug court and property court to handle almost two-thirds of the county’s felonies, and has worked to streamline case processing in family and juvenile court.

Chief Judge Wieland does not believe that the court system can get much more efficient. She says that the court is operating without enough staff and judges and cannot continue to provide its current level of service if forced to take more budget cuts. Making this point to the Legislature will be an important focus of Wieland’s work during the next legislative session. She also expects to reach out to the bar, working with lawyers so that those who appear before the Hennepin County bench are fully aware of the funding issues the court faces.

Information Technology:  
Chief Judge Wieland is working with the state on the implementation of the Minnesota Court Information System (MNCIS). This is a statewide system that will provide court users in Minnesota with an information system better than almost any other state in the country. Implementing it in 87 counties around the state is a major project; implementing the system in Hennepin County is a major undertaking in itself. The probate/mental health division has already moved onto the MNCIS system, and the juvenile, civil, and family divisions will move on to MNCIS in 2005. The criminal division will take longer, but Chief Judge Wieland hopes it will be ready in 2006. The new MNCIS system will give users statewide access to court data, and Chief Judge Wieland believes, will be a tremendous improvement over the current system.

Presiding Judges and Specialty Courts:
During our interview, Chief Judge Wieland emphasized the confidence she places in the judges who preside over the specialty courts. Our new chief judge expects to delegate significant authority and responsibility to the presiding judges and has empowered them to make important decisions over their divisions. In addition, she will rely heavily on the experience and insight that our new assistant chief, Gary Larson, brings to his position. As she surveys the state of the specialty courts, Chief Judge Wieland is particularly proud of the use of early neutral evaluation in family court, the work of the Community Courts which has been expanded and now has a mental health court. Chief Judge Wieland has great hopes for the new traffic court, which is designed to help break the cycle of unpaid fines and driving without a valid license or insurance—cases that represent a tremendous percentage of cases in the criminal justice system. In the juvenile court, the Children’s Justice Initiative has been in place for some time and is a best practices model that focuses on expediting permanency for abused and neglected children. The juvenile court is also beginning to work on a mental health court initiative and on decreasing the use of the juvenile center, particularly for juveniles charged with minor offenses. Chief Judge Wieland believes these initiatives will make the courts more efficient and less congested.

The Greater Hennepin County Community:
In addition to organizing the county court system and working with the state on funding and technology issues, Chief Judge Wieland is focusing a great deal of attention to issues facing our community at large. In our interview, she highlighted just a few of the these.

• Racial Disparity. Chief Judge Wieland says she is extremely concerned about data that show how our criminal justice system too often focuses on and targets communities of color. She says she will continue to partner with the police and the community to address these disparities.

• Livability Crimes. The new chief judge sees the Hennepin County court working with the city of Minneapolis to address property and other crimes that affect how we live in the city.

• Accessibility of the Court System. Initiatives like the Restorative Justice program will continue to be a focus of the Hennepin County court as Chief Judge Wieland seeks out innovative solutions to make our courts more accessible and more useful to citizens who need a system of justice that does more than just punish wrongdoers.

By all accounts, the transition from Kevin Burke to Lucy Wieland has been seamless. After serving as the assistant chief, Lucy Wieland hit the ground running and has focused her time and energy on the issues facing the court system and the community.

On a more personal note, those who know Chief Judge Wieland express their amazement at her ability to multi-task and to stand firm when taking positions of policy and direction. Perhaps this should not be a surprise. Wieland ascribes her talents in these areas to her time spent raising two teenagers and overseeing a household that includes a busy litigator for a husband. When she is not on the bench, Chief Judge Wieland is running an extremely busy household. She believes that some of the skills she has developed as a working mother and wife (patience, organization, humor, and a strong will) should serve her well as the chief judge of a very diverse and active court.

Back to Top

Back to Top