Law Commons^™

The Strange Life Of Stanley V. Illinois: A Case Study In Parent Representation And Law Reform, Josh Gupta-Kagan

Faculty Publications

This Article helps describe the growth of parent representation through an analysis of Stanley v. Illinois—the foundational Supreme Court case that established parental fitness as the constitutional lynchpin of any child protection case. The Article begins with Stanley’s trial court litigation, which illustrates the importance of vigorous parental representation and an effort by the court to prevent Stanley from obtaining an attorney. It proceeds to analyze how family courts applied it (or not) in the years following the Supreme Court’s decision and what factors have led to a recent resurgence of Stanley’s fitness focus.

Despite Stanley’s requirement that states prove …

In Re Sanders And The Resurrection Of Stanley V. Illinois, Josh Gupta-Kagan

Faculty Publications

In 1972, the Supreme Court in Stanley v. Illinois declared that parents are entitled to a hearing on their fitness before the state places their children in foster care. Somewhat oddly, Stanley went on to be cited as a leading case regarding the rights of unwed fathers to object to private adoptions favored by mothers -- an issue not present in Stanley. Odder still, most states routinely violated Stanley in child welfare cases -- the context in which the Stanley rule arose. Most states apply the "one parent doctrine," which holds that finding one parent unfit justifies taking the child …

Protecting Our Children: A Reformation Of South Carolina's Homicide By Child Abuse Laws, Brigid Benincasa

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Jurisprudence Clarified Or "Mcleod-Ed"?: The Real Constitutional Impact Of Court-Mandated Postsecondary Educational Support, Emily A. Evans

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Beyond Law Enforcement: Camreta V. Greene, Child Protection Investigations, And The Need To Reform The Fourth Amendment Special Needs Doctrine, Josh Gupta-Kagan

Faculty Publications

The Fourth Amendment “special needs” doctrine distinguishes between searches and seizures that serve the “normal need for law enforcement” and those that serve some other “special need,” excusing non-law enforcement searches and seizures from the warrant and probable cause requirements. The Supreme Court has never justified drawing this bright line exclusively around law enforcement searches and seizures but not those that threaten important non-criminal constitutional rights.

Child protection investigations illustrate the problem: Millions of times each year, state child protection authorities search families’ homes, and seize children for interviews about alleged maltreatment. Only a minority of these investigations involve an …

Not Perfect, But Better Than Most: South Carolina's Tpr Process And Its Surprisingly Fair Treatment Of Incarcerated Parents, Stuart M. Jones Jr.

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.