Juvenile Law Commons^™

Justice Miriam Shearing: Nevada's Trailblazing Minimalist, Mary E. Berkheiser

Scholarly Works

Nevada Supreme Court Justice Miriam Shearing retired at the end of her second term on January 4, 2005. Over the nearly thirty years of her very public life on the bench, many have written of her accomplishments as the firs woman to enter the brotherhood of the Nevada judiciary. With Justice Sharing’s retirement, the time is ripe for an examination of her judicial decisions during the twelve years she served on the Nevada Supreme Court. The analysis here provides one perspective on her body of work. It begins, as it must, with a glimpse into the person behind the work.

The Ultimate Best Interest Of The Child Enures From Parental Reinforcement: The Journey To Family Integrity, John C. Duncan Jr.

Journal Publications

Most Americans agree that we are in the midst of a dangerous decline in moral and religious values that threatens the very foundation of our society. The facts are clear: marriage as a social institution is threatened and child well-being is affected. Part II of this Article traces the best interest of the child doctrine. Part III examines what the legally recognized rights of parents have been in the past and shows how those rights have been threatened or altogether eradicated in the best interest of the child. Part IV evaluates the opposing positions of both parental rights advocates …

The Need For A Two (Or More) Tiered First Amendment To Provide For The Protection Of Children, Kevin W. Saunders

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This Article addresses the two sorts of problems raised by Professor Etzioni, while also responding to the earlier articles in this Symposium. With regard to the spillover effect, the author argues that there are ways to limit the effect on adults of restrictions designed to protect children, even on the Internet. Furthermore, some spillover effect is allowed and may leave open the possibility of protecting children from tobacco or alcohol advertisements. The Article also addresses areas in which material has been seen as protected even for children. While agreeing that depictions of violence pose an important problem, the Article also …

The Liberal Theory Of Freedom Of Expression For Children, Colin M. Macleod

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This Article develops a liberal theory of freedom of expression which is sensitive to the interests of children as distinct, vulnerable but developing members of society. I argue that children have, in addition to welfare interests, interests in the development and exercise of basic moral powers. In virtue of such interests, children acquire, well before they become adults, nontrivial rights of free expression. Respecting children's rights to free expression entails limits on the prerogatives of parents and others to determine the sorts of cultural materials children should be permitted access. Nonetheless children's rights are importantly different from those of adults. …

Free Speech And Children's Interests, David Archard

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This Article endorses the conclusion of Etzioni's article that the First Amendment right of free speech should not trump the interests of children. However the picture is more complicated once we recognize that parents have a "basic" right to bring up their children as they see fit that may conflict with the state's duty to protect children in its jurisdiction.

Moreover there is an important difference between protecting children now from harms and safeguarding the interests of the adults they will grow into. Society has an interest in protecting children based upon its fundamental interest in ensuring the conditions of …

Shielding Children: The European Way, Michael D. Birnhack, Jacob H. Rowbottom

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The Internet crosses physical borders, and carries with it both its promises and its harms to many different countries and societies. These countries thus share the same technology, but they do not necessarily share the same set of values or legal system. This Article compares the legal response in the United States and in Europe to one important issue: the exposure of children to certain materials, which are deemed harmful to them but not harmful to adults.

This US-European comparison, in which the experience in the United Kingdom serves as a leading example, illustrates the traits of various kinds of …

The Speech-Enhancing Effect Of Internet Regulation, Emily Buss

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In this Article, the author suggests that certain speech-reducing regulations will, in fact, be speech-enhancing for children. This is because children are vulnerable to far greater censorship at the hands of their parents than at the hands of Internet regulators. Regulations that inspire parents to relax their grip on their children's access to information are likely to produce significant net speech gains for children. Viewed this way, regulations designed to protect children can be conceived as pitting the speech interests of adults against the speech interests of children. The Article suggests a number of reasons we might value the children's …

When Well-Being Trumps Liberty: Political Theory, Jurisprudence, And Children's Rights, William Galston

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Compared to most adults, children are dependent and vulnerable and therefore require special protection. Efforts to safeguard their well-being often collide with one or more of the liberty guarantees of the First Amendment. Professor Etzioni fears that current jurisprudence has tipped the balance too far towards individual liberty, making it difficult to extend children the legal protection they need. Drawing on a theoretical account of constitutionalism as well as existing case law, the author argues that mainstream jurisprudence is up to the task of balancing the well-being of children against the liberty of adults. The Supreme Court's recent decision in …

Give Them A Sword: Representing Parents In Child Custody Cases, William Tabac

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

First, this Essay demonstrates that, because the "best interests" standard that states use in awarding custody between parents is so arbitrary, lawyers cannot effectively protect the parental rights of their clients. Next, this Essay contends that, because fit parents will do anything to preserve their bond with their children, the state not only expects them to commit perjury to protect their parental rights, but encourages them to do so. Finally, this Essay argues that lawyers should lay out all possible strategies to their clients even if doing so invites parents to perjure themselves.

Child Protection Law, Suellyn Scarnecchia

Book Chapters

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protect a parent's custodial rights. However, such rights are not absolute and may be terminated. There is no substantive due-process right to live together as a family. Doe v Oettle, 97 Mich App 183, 293 NW2d 760 (1980). Parents are not held to ideal standards in the care of their children but to minimum statutory standards. Fritts v Krugh, 354 Mich 97, 92 NW2d 604 (1958).

Surrogate Parenting After Baby M: The Ball Moves To The Legislature’S Court, John R. Dunne, Gregory V. Serio

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Children's Preference In Adjudicated Custody Decisions, Elizabeth S. Scott, N. Dickon Reppucci, Mark Aber

Faculty Scholarship

Historically, courts usually paid little attention to the child's wishes in deciding which parent should have custody upon divorce. Today, statutes in many states direct courts to consider the child's preference, often as one among several factors that guide decisionmaking. With some exceptions, the law gives only general guidance and does not specify under what circumstances and to what extent the child's desire should affect the decision. Little is known about how important this factor is, what variables influence the weight accorded the child's preference, or how courts obtain and evaluate evidence about the child's wishes.

This Article began as …

Standard Of Proof In Proceedings To Terminate Parental Rights, Dean Michael Rooney

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note advocates the use of the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard of proof in proceedings to terminate parental rights permanently. The Note will commence with background considerations such as the authority of the state to terminate parental rights, the rights of the parties involved in a termination proceeding and a discussion of standards of proof. Consideration will also be given to the factors which should have an impact on the standard of proof in permanent termination proceedings. These factors include: the vagueness of termination statutes, the fundamental right of family integrity, the broad discretionary powers of the courts involved, the need for …