Law Commons^™

State Representation Of Children's Interests, Naomi R. Cahn

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

The state's claim that it can represent children's interests plays a significant role in defining the structure of families, the relationships within families, and the development of children's interests. This paper explores three different contexts involving the state and the contested nature of how the interests of minors are represented in both national and international law: first, in restricting the abortion rights of minors, the state claims to be protecting them; second, in allowing parents to decide who will act as caretaker for their children if both parents are dead, the state defers to parents' wishes; and third, in dysfunctional …

Foster Children Awaiting Adoption Under The Adoption And Safe Families Act Of 1997, Catherine J. Ross

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

This article discusses the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 and how it relates to the rules created by constitutional law and federal legislation about shifting children between foster care and adoption. The article focuses on the 15/22 months rule, which provides that a state should pursue adoption for a child who has remained in foster care for fifteen of the preceding 22 months and encourages states to take action to implement the 15/22 months rule to comply with the Constitution and federal law, noting that many children in foster care will need pre-adoptive and adoptive homes.

Constitutional Obstacles To Regulating Violence In The Media, Catherine J. Ross

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

This chapter examines whether speech containing violent imagery that is made available to children can be subjected to government regulation that will survive constitutional scrutiny. The first section of this chapter reviews the general limits that the First Amendment places on the government’s power to regulate speech. The second section arguees that violent speech may not be regulated based on its content because “violence” is not one of the limited legal categories constituting “unprotected” speech, such as obscenity.

The third section examines the government’s burden to demonstrate that violent speech harms children before it can regulate such speech, and concludes …