Law Commons^™

A Child-Centered Response To The Elkins Family Law Task Force, Amy M. Pellman, Robert N. Jacobs, Dara K. Reiner

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In Elkins v. Superior Court, 163 P.3d 160 (Cal. 2007), California’s Supreme Court asked the Judicial Council to form a task force to make recommendations to increase “access to justice” in family court, because it was concerned about rules, policies, and procedures that put self-represented litigants at an unfair disadvantage in parentageand dissolution cases.

Neither the task force’s report in 2010 nor the legislation that the report inspired the same year addresses children’s due process rights, even though children ordinarily have no access to justice. This Article shows that due process sometimes requires the trial court to appoint counsel for …

Burke Triumphs Over Jefferson In New York Same-Sex Marriage Decision, Nathan B. Oman

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Deporting Families: Poliltical Question Or Legal Issue?, Angela M. Banks

Faculty Publications

Last year 245,424 noncitizens were removed from the United States, and courts played virtually no role in ensuring that these decisions did not violate individual substantive rights like freedom of speech, substantive due process, or retroactivity. Had these individuals been deported from a European country, domestic and regional courts would have reviewed the decisions to ensure compatibility with these types of rights. Numerous international law scholars and immigration scholars seek to minimize the gap between the legal processes offered in the United States and Europe for noncitizens challenging deportation orders. Many of these scholars contend that greater recognition of international …

No Place For Children: Addressing Urban Blight And Its Impact On Children Through Child Protection Law, Domestic Relations Law, And "Adult-Only" Residential Zoning, James G. Dwyer

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Defense Of Marriage Act And Uncategorical Federalism, David B. Cruz

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Essay addresses federalism objections to section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Ordinarily, the federal government accepts states’ determinations of what couples are validly married. Section 3 of DOMA, however, fashions a broad exception for same-sex couples, who are definitionally deemed not to be in “marriages.” In addition to equal protection and full faith and credit challenges to DOMA, litigants have made constitutional federalism arguments. In Massachusetts v. United
States Department of Health and Human Services, the federal trial court accepted one such argument, though in a form that might be read to categorically deny the federal …

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly Of Employment Division V. Smith For Family Law, James G. Dwyer

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.