Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (14)
- Children (12)
- Sentencing (6)
- Eighth Amendment (5)
- Graham v. Florida (5)
-
- Child welfare (4)
- Michigan (4)
- Parents (4)
- Parole (4)
- Due Process Clause (3)
- Crimes (2)
- Foster care (2)
- Miller v. Alabama (2)
- Punishment (2)
- Roper v. Simmons (2)
- Stanley v. Illinois (2)
- Teenagers (2)
- Abortion (1)
- Access to information (1)
- Adequacy (1)
- Adoption and Safe Families Act (1)
- Advocacy (1)
- Americans with Disabilities Act (1)
- Best interests (1)
- Best interests of the child doctrine (1)
- Child (1)
- Child custody (1)
- Child labor (1)
- Child placement (1)
- Child protection (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 19 of 19
Full-Text Articles in Juvenile Law
Educational Equality For Children With Disabilities: The 2016 Term Cases, Samuel R. Bagenstos
Educational Equality For Children With Disabilities: The 2016 Term Cases, Samuel R. Bagenstos
Book Chapters
One of the most longstanding debates in educational policy pits the goal of equality against the goal of adequacy: Should we aim to guarantee that all children receive an equal education? Or simply that they all receive an adequate education? The debate is vexing in part because there are many ways to specify “equality” and “adequacy.” Are we talking about equality of inputs (which inputs?), equality of opportunity (to achieve what?), or equality of results (which results?)? Douglas Rae and his colleagues famously argued that there are no fewer than 108 structurally distinct conceptions of equality. And how do we …
Child Welfare's Scarlet Letter: How A Prior Termination Of Parental Rights Can Permanently Brand A Parent As Unfit, Vivek S. Sankaran
Child Welfare's Scarlet Letter: How A Prior Termination Of Parental Rights Can Permanently Brand A Parent As Unfit, Vivek S. Sankaran
Articles
In many jurisdictions, once a parent has her rights terminated to one child, the State can use that decision to justify the termination of parental rights to another child. The State can do so regardless of whether the parent is fit to parent the second child. This article explores this practice, examines its origins, and discusses its constitutional inadequacies.
The New Unconstitutionality Of Juvenile Sex Offender Registration: Suspending The Presumption Of Constitutionality For Laws That Burden Juvenile Offenders, Spencer Klein
Michigan Law Review
In Smith v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that Alaska’s sex offender registration and notification statute did not constitute punishment and was therefore not susceptible to challenge under the Ex Post Facto Clause. In reaching that conclusion, the Court looked to the seven factors articulated in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez. To evaluate those factors, the Court applied a presumption of constitutionality, conducting the sort of narrow factual inquiry characteristic of rational basis review. Since Smith, courts have disagreed as to whether sex offender laws are punitive when applied to juveniles, and the Supreme Court has not yet addressed …
Random If Not "Rare"? The Eighth Amendment Weaknesses Of Post-Miller Legislation, Kimberly Thomas
Random If Not "Rare"? The Eighth Amendment Weaknesses Of Post-Miller Legislation, Kimberly Thomas
Articles
First, this Article surveys the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to analogize life without parole for juveniles to the death penalty for adults, and discusses the Eighth Amendment law regarding the parameters around death penalty statutory schemes. Second, this Article examines the state legislative response to Miller, and scrutinizes it with the Court's Eighth Amendment death penalty law-and the states' responses to this case law-in mind. This Article highlights the failure of juvenile homicide sentencing provisions to: 1) narrow offenses that are eligible for life without parole sentences; 2) further limit, once a guilty finding is made, the categories of …
Miller V. Alabama: Something Unconsitutional Now Was Equally Unconstitutional Then, W. Patrick Conlon
Miller V. Alabama: Something Unconsitutional Now Was Equally Unconstitutional Then, W. Patrick Conlon
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat
In June 2012, the United States Supreme Court found mandatory life-without-parole sentences against juvenile offenders unconstitutional in Miller v. Alabama. The Court determined that because children possess “immaturity, impetuosity, and [fail] to appreciate risks and consequences,” they are fundamentally different than adults. Although Miller invalidated every juvenile mandatory life-without-parole (JMLWOP) statute across the United States, there is no clear indication regarding whether Miller retroactively applies to juveniles sentenced to mandatory life-without-parole before the Court’s ruling. As a result, states are split on whether to apply Miller retroactively. Fifteen states have yet to decide whether Miller applies retroactively, while several other …
Transforming Juvenile Justice: Making Doctrine Out Of Dicta In Graham V. Florida, Jason Zolle
Transforming Juvenile Justice: Making Doctrine Out Of Dicta In Graham V. Florida, Jason Zolle
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
In the late 1980s and 1990s, many state legislatures radically altered the way that their laws treated children accused of crimes. Responding to what was perceived of as an epidemic of juvenile violence, academics and policymakers began to think of child criminals as a "new breed" of incorrigible "superpredators." States responded by making it easier for prosecutors to try and sentence juveniles as adults, even making it mandatory in some circumstances. Yet in the past decade, the Supreme Court handed down four opinions that limit the states' ability to treat children as adults in the justice system. Roper v. Simmons …
Juvenile Life Without Parole: Unconstitutional In Michigan?, Kimberly A. Thomas
Juvenile Life Without Parole: Unconstitutional In Michigan?, Kimberly A. Thomas
Articles
Last term, in Graham v Florida,1 the United States Supreme Court found unconstitutional the sentence of life without parole for a juvenile who committed a non-homicide offense. This attention to the sentencing of juvenile offenders is a continuation of the Court's decision in Roper v Simmons,2 in which the Court held that juvenile offenders could not constitutionally receive the death penalty. This scrutiny should be a signal to Michigan to examine its own jurisprudence on juveniles receiving sentences of life without parole. Michigan has the second-highest number of persons serving sentences of life without parole for offenses committed when they …
Kids Are Different, Stephen St.Vincent
Kids Are Different, Stephen St.Vincent
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The Supreme Court recently handed down its decision in Graham v. Florida. The case involved a juvenile, Graham, who was sentenced to life in prison after being convicted as an adult of a nonhomicidal crime. The offense, a home invasion robbery, was his second; the first was attempted robbery. Due to Florida's abolition of parole, the judge's imposition of a life sentence meant that Graham was constructively sentenced to life without parole for a nonhomicide crime. Graham challenged this sentence as unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Somewhat surprisingly, the Supreme Court invalidated Graham's sentence by a 6-3 majority. By a …
What Does Graham Mean In Michigan?, Kimberly A. Thomas
What Does Graham Mean In Michigan?, Kimberly A. Thomas
Articles
In Graham v. Florida, the United States Supreme Court held that life without parole could not be imposed on a juvenile offender for a nonhomicide crime.1 In this context, the Graham Court extensively discussed the diminished culpability of juvenile criminal defendants, as compared to adults. The Court relied on current scientific research regarding adolescent development and neuroscience. While the narrowest holding of Graham has little impact in Michigan, the science it relies on, and the potential broader implications for adolescents in Michigan, are significant.
Protecting A Parent's Right To Counsel In Child Welfare Cases, Vivek Sankaran
Protecting A Parent's Right To Counsel In Child Welfare Cases, Vivek Sankaran
Articles
A national consensus is emerging that zealous leagal representation for parents is crucial to ensure that the child welfare system produces just outcomes for children. Parents' lawyers protect important constitutional rights, prevent the unnecessary entry of children into foster care and guide parents through a complex system.
But I Didn't Do Anything Wrong: Revisiting The Rights Of Non-Offending Parents In Child Protection Proceedings, Vivek Sankaran
But I Didn't Do Anything Wrong: Revisiting The Rights Of Non-Offending Parents In Child Protection Proceedings, Vivek Sankaran
Articles
Steven, a minor living with his mother, enjoyed a nurturing relationship with his father, Mark. He saw his father every weekend and looked forward to their time together. Mark looked for ways in which to stay involved in his child's life. Two days ago, the Department of Human Services (DHS) removed Steven from his mother's custody because, unbeknown to Mark, Stevens mother was selling drugs in the home. At the time of removal, the police did not inquire about the whereabouts of Stevens father; DHS immediately placed Steven in a foster home.
To Surf And Protect: The Children's Internet Protection Act Policies Material Harmful To Minors And A Whole Lot More, Michael B. Cassidy
To Surf And Protect: The Children's Internet Protection Act Policies Material Harmful To Minors And A Whole Lot More, Michael B. Cassidy
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
This Note will examine the constitutional issues raised by installing Internet filtering software in public libraries. Part I explores the First Amendment, the standard of review for restricting Internet material, and the government's role in protecting minors and regulating speech. Part II discusses library patrons' First Amendment rights in public libraries. Part III provides the statutory framework of the E-rate and LSTA programs, as well as the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA). Part IV examines the effectiveness of current Internet filtering technology and provides the American Library Association's policies on Internet filtering in public libraries. Part V discusses the district …
Judicial Review & The Policy Of Federal Abstention: A Juvenile's Right To Ensure The Existence Of A "Substantial Federal Interest", Matthew Drexler
Judicial Review & The Policy Of Federal Abstention: A Juvenile's Right To Ensure The Existence Of A "Substantial Federal Interest", Matthew Drexler
Michigan Law Review
The problem of juvenile delinquency must be dealt with in an effective and meaningful manner if we are to reduce the ever increasing levels of crime and improve the quality of life in America. With these words, the United States Senate opened its report in support of the first major federal juvenile delinquency statute in almost forty years. The goal of the statute and of federal involvement in juvenile delinquency proceedings was to give the highest attention to preventing juvenile crime and to minimizing the involvement of juveniles in the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Until 1974, the federal government …
Judging Girls: Decision Making In Parental Consent To Abortion Cases, Suellyn Scarnecchia, Julie Kunce Field
Judging Girls: Decision Making In Parental Consent To Abortion Cases, Suellyn Scarnecchia, Julie Kunce Field
Articles
Judges make determinations on a daily basis that profoundly affect people's lives. On March 28, 1991, the Michigan legislature enacted a statute entitled The Parental Rights Restoration Act (hereinafter "the Michigan Act" or "the Act"). This statute delegated to probate court judges the extraordinary task of deciding whether a minor girl may have an abortion without the consent of a parent. Nothing in law school and little in an average judge's experience provide a meaningful framework for making such a decision. Although many commentators, including the authors, argue that decisions about abortion should be left to the woman regardless of …
Forcing Protection On Children And Their Parents: The Impact Of Wyman V. James, Robert A. Burt
Forcing Protection On Children And Their Parents: The Impact Of Wyman V. James, Robert A. Burt
Michigan Law Review
This Article will focus on one of the concerns implicated in Wyman: the government's power to force assistance for the protection of children, when they or their parents are unwilling to accept that assistance. The state's protective purposes in insisting that Mrs. James accept its assistance or suffer serious loss of benefits played an important role in the Wyman decision. Only a few years ago, in In re Gault, the Court refused to defer to a state's similarly beneficent motives when it was asked to withhold the imposition of procedural safeguards in juvenile delinquency proceedings. Wyman does not …
Foster Parents Versus Agencies: A Case Study In The Judicial Application Of "The Best Interests Of The Child" Doctrine, Sanford N. Katz
Foster Parents Versus Agencies: A Case Study In The Judicial Application Of "The Best Interests Of The Child" Doctrine, Sanford N. Katz
Michigan Law Review
A recurring problem which courts face is the need to resolve the conflict which arises when foster parents challenge the decision of agencies that have disqualified these persons from continuing their relationship with or adopting their foster child. This article will explore the role of courts in resolving these disputes and will suggest some criteria by which the courts may be guided in deciding such questions.
Authorization Of Involuntary Blood Transfusion For Adult Jehovah's Witness Held Unconstitutional--In Re Brooks' Estate, Michigan Law Review
Authorization Of Involuntary Blood Transfusion For Adult Jehovah's Witness Held Unconstitutional--In Re Brooks' Estate, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
Despite serious illness, plaintiff requested, in accordance with her religious beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness, that blood transfusions not be administered to her. Upon the request of her physician and several assistant state's attorneys, a court-appointed guardian was authorized to consent to a blood transfusion for the plaintiff, and a transfusion was administered. On appeal of the court's action to the Supreme Court of Illinois, held, order reversed. The authorization of a blood transfusion for an adult Jehovah's Witness who has only adult children is an unconstitutional interference with the patient's right to the free exercise of her religion.
Child Custody In A Federal System, Leonard G. Ratner
Child Custody In A Federal System, Leonard G. Ratner
Michigan Law Review
Among the most difficult of judicial functions is the determination of a child's custody after its parents have separated. The difficulties are acute enough when all the parties remain in the same place; when the parties are in different states, an additional perplexing problem arises as to which state should have authority to make the custody decision. This broad question can be resolved into three distinct though interrelated issues: (1) what state may initially determine custody; (2) what state may later modify that determination; (3) to what extent is such a determination binding on other states.
Child Labor Law Case, Commerce Power Of Congress And Reserved Powers Of The States, Henry M. Bates
Child Labor Law Case, Commerce Power Of Congress And Reserved Powers Of The States, Henry M. Bates
Articles
The decision in the Child Labor Law case, Hammer v. Dagenhart, - U. S. -, 62 L. ed. -, decided June 3, 1918, would have caused much less surprise twenty-five years ago than it did when announced last June, for it is based upon two constitutional provisions concerning which the much wider and more varied experience of the last quarter century had developed theories, better defined and sounder than those of the earlier period. Those two provisions are the Tenth Amendment regarding the powers reserved to the States and the Commerce Clause. There has been an astonishing amount of faulty …