Youth Crime Crisis in DC

Much attention is being given to the crime crisis in our nation's capital.  One of the must substantial contributors to this crisis is crime by adolescents. 

We have researched how D.C. used to handle its problem with youthful non-violent offenders - with Teen Courts.  Teen Courts, an alternative justice system for first-time juvenile offenders, were significantly productive in D.C. in particular. We discovered not only how they work, but why they are so effective in our article entitled Empowering Love and Respect for Child Offenders Through Therapeutic Jurisprudence: The Teen Courts Example, published in Volume 4 of Sociology and Anthropology at pages 212-221 back in 2016. Sadly the D.C. City Council cut the funding for Teen Courts in 2016. 

I began this research as part of a global project with scholars from around the world meeting in Israel in 2013.  You can download and review that work at Teen Courts: Empowerment through Child Participation, a chapter in International Perspectives and EmpiricalFindings on Child Participation (Tali Gal and Benedetta Duramy Eds.), published by Oxford University Press in 2015. 

The option of Teen Courts for non-violent juvenile offenders is still being used in various venues across the nation because these courts have an excellent track record of halting the crime pipeline for troubled kids, all while creating opportunities for youthful offenders to be empowered with meaningful restitution, and the chance to turn away from crime to a productive life. 

Family breakdown is a major reason for the youth crime crisis in D.C., but youth and family restoration can happen in a Teen Court.

Protecting your Family from Misinformation Regarding Gender Care

 

Has your child been confronted by doctors, teachers, counselors, or therapists with gender questioning?  Did this happen in your absence? Were you made aware of the risks of treatment for gender dysphoria?

This month the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) launched a public inquiry to collect data from consumers about their exposure to misinformation about the benefits of "affirming care” for minors, and to assess any harms caused by deceptive trade practices.

The FTC’s request for information builds off a July workshop where doctors, medical ethicists, whistleblowers, detransitioners, and parents of detransitioners spoke about their experiences with what is known as affirming care, and how medical practitioners may be deceiving patients.

In particular, the FTC is interested in potential violations of Sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act, which would include instances where doctors or organizations failed to disclose material risks, or made unsubstantiated claims about the effectiveness of “gender-affirming care.”

If your family has been confronted with this problem, you have the opportunity to make your concerns know.  The FTC has set up a comment forum for the next 60 days where you can submit comments.

Alerting the FTC about any deceptive practices can be a beginning to restored protections for families.  For more information see the research of the Manhattan Institute on this important issue.

You never want to leave your child alone with a health care professional. Even if your absence is requested, you should not leave, and you should ask for a list of whatever questions they intended to ask your child. Reporting this then to the proper oversight authorities is critical.

Parents are the best protectors of their children regarding gender care.

What Are Parental Rights and Where Do They Come From? Or How Are Parents Held Responsible for a Child’s Best Interests?

Parental rights essentially work to hold parents responsible for maintaining their children’s best interests.  This simple balance of rights and responsibilities reflects a set of values that make all the difference toward family restoration. 

It is a well-established constitutional principle protected as fundamental that parents have the right to direct the upbringing of their children.[1] Those parental rights are guaranteed until the parent has been shown to be unfit by clear and convincing evidence of abuse, neglect or abandonment,[2] and his or her parental rights have been terminated.[3]  Indeed, a fit parent is presumed to be acting in the best interests of his child.[4]

This constitutional protection of parental rights is balanced by the parental duty to provide for their children, and as the lawful guardians of their children are entitled to protect, train, direct, and speak for their children.[5] While these constitutionally protected parental rights are not absolute,[6] parental rights were “derived from. . . their duty; this authority being given them, partly to enable the parent more effectually to perform his duty, and partly as a recompense for his care and trouble in the faithful discharge of it.”[7] 

And while the Constitution of the United States does not explicitly mention parents’ rights, nevertheless, American courts have long recognized that parents are entitled to very broad latitude in raising their children,[8] the High Court stating, “[t]he liberty interest at issue []—the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children—is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court,”[9] emphasizing heavily the presumption of the parent’s “fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her [children],” thus preceding any discussion or analysis of the best interests of the child.[10]

Protection of parental rights is the first line of defense for a child’s best interests, and the last line of resistance and protection against government control of children and families. Parental rights protections serve children’s best interests.

---

[1] See Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)(holding unconstitutional a Nebraska law that prevented parents from allowing their children to learn German despite the state’s policy otherwise); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)(holding that parental choice of an appropriate education for their children is a constitutional right and liberty interest under the constitution); Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)(holding that state law cannot grant visitation to any third party against a fit parent’s objection).

[2] See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)(first setting out that standard).

[3] See Termination of Parental Rights, Child Welfare Information Gateway (2016), at https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/courts/processes/legal-issues-in-adoption/termination/. Family reunification is the state’s persevering objective, and termination of parental rights is a remedy of last resort. Id.

[4] Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 68 (2000).

[5] See generally Lynne Marie Kohm, Tracing the Foundations of the Best Interests of the Child Standard in American Jurisprudence, 10 J. L. Fam. Stud. 337, 354, 359 (2008). The guardianship relationship is grounded in the reality that children are born completely incompetent and dependent, and mature in a slow process over the course of many years. Id.

[6] See Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (curtailing those rights by prohibiting child labor).

[7] William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 447.

[8] 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

[9] Id. at 65. 

[10] Id. at 68, 72. For a comprehensive review of how case law has affected, established, and molded a new order of family law see David Wagner, The Family and American Constitutional Law, 1 Life, Liberty & Fam. 145 (1994).

Embryo Donation and Adoption

 

This post is courtesy of Elizabeth Magee, Regent Law Family Law student: 

 

In 2022 in the United States, 53,665 children were adopted from foster care. There are countless factors that drive parents to adopt. Some parents choose adoption as the result of infertility or high risk pregnancies, while others choose to adopt simply as an opportunity to expand their family and provide a loving environment for a child in need of a family. When most people think of adoption, they think of infants and children currently in the foster care system. But did you know that there is another form of adoption?

Parents who undergo in vitro fertilization store their frozen embryos for the future, but once the family is complete, there is a question of what to do with those that remain. With the rise of in vitro fertilization, there is a surplus of roughly 1,500,000 unused embryos in the United States. Because Christians believe that life begins at conception, embryo adoption provides a second chance for these embryos to come to term. Though embryo adoption is not legally recognized as formal adoption in the United States, it provides an additional option for expanding families. 

The National Embryo Donation Center (NEDC) operates as an embryo adoption and donation program and strives to protect the lives of embryos. Through organizations like the NEDC, families are given the opportunity to experience the joy of parenthood, and embryos are given the chance at life. In this unique form of adoption, hope is not only preserved, but it's given a new beginning.

Is Virtual Visitation the New Normal?

 

This guest post is from Naomi Bach, Regent Law 2L & Family Law student:

In the age of FaceTime, Zoom, and texting, virtual visitation is becoming more than a temporary solution. But what does that mean for co-parenting, court orders, and the parent-child relationship?

Virtual visitation is a court-sanctioned digital communication between a noncustodial parent and their child. This can include video calls, text messaging, social media interaction, email and chat, even shared digital activities (like playing a game together online). It’s not a replacement for physical custody, but a way to enhance and maintain connection – especially when geography work schedules, or health reasons get in the way. A few states, including Texas, have enacted laws or court rulings that address or allow for virtual visitation as part of parenting plans.  These statutes are designed to encourage frequent and meaningful contact with both parents, and virtual tools are increasingly seen as a way to support that goal. Courts often consider virtual visitation when one parent relocates (out of state or long distance), a parent is incarcerated or deployed, there are supervised visitation needs, physical visitation is limited due to illness or safety concerns. In Texas, courts can order virtual visitation under Texas Family Code § 153.015, provided it's in the best interest of the child and doesn’t interfere with school or other parenting time.

There are pros and cons to this system. The pros of virtual visitation are that it can keep bonds strong between visits, it adds flexibility for long-distance or busy parents, it can reduce conflict by offering neutral interaction spaces, it allows for daily contact (such as a bedtime story, help with homework, or a quick goodnight message), and encourages consistency and routine in the child's relationship with both parents. There are challenges and concerns to virtual visitation as well. Some worry it can become a substitute for real parent time. Privacy and safety concerns arise if communication is unsupervised. Tech issues, poor internet access, or one parent who is not cooperating can create conflict. Virtual visits may not satisfy a child’s emotional need for physical presence. Courts must tread carefully not to let one parent "gatekeep" access.

Virtual communication and visitation is a great enhancement to a parent’s communication with their children as long as it doesn’t become a replacement. Post-pandemic, many courts have begun formally incorporating virtual visitation into parenting plans, sometimes even requiring parents to facilitate daily check-ins or weekend video calls. Judges often emphasize that digital contact should complement, not replace, regular physical parenting time. It can really help move a parent-child relationship toward being restored a bit more.

Lavender Marriages?

 

This guest post is from Aaron Wheeler, Regent Law Family Law student: 

Traditional marriage is on the decline. The Institute of Family Studies analyzed data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau from 1985 to present-day and found that in 1985, around 15% of 25-year-old women and 30% of 25-year-old men had never married. In 2024, the percentage of “never married” 25-year-olds jumped to around 80% for both sexes.  This trend is similarly seen in those who are 35 and 45, revealing that marriage rates are falling for all ages.

 

Despite women (and men) growing disillusioned with the dating world, the need for marriage still exists.  Marriage provides a host of benefits that increase perceived well-being.  For women who recognize the value of marriage but are discouraged by a dating world dominated by dating apps and “rude, demeaning, [and] sometimes cloyingly pushy” straight men, James Grieg has offered a solution: try a lavender marriage. 

 

Lavender marriages are generally non-romantic marriages between a heterosexual woman and a homosexual man. Historically, lavender marriages were designed to primarily protect closeted gay men. But Grieg suggests that modern lavender marriages can be used by platonic friends to adopt some of the benefits inherent in traditional marriage, such as companionship and financial security, as well as new benefits like “fashion advice.”  Citing studies that suggest romantic love is “doomed to fade,” Grieg argues that almost all traditional marriages essentially evolve into relationships like lavender marriages, where the couple remains together for companionship and not sexual attraction. Lavender marriages are, in the long run, indistinguishable from traditional marriages, believes Grieg. 

 

Grieg’s conception of male-female relationships through lavender marriages may seem strange, but his argument echoes a core truth deeply held within all humanity: “It is not good for the man to be alone.” Genesis 2:18. Humans are designed to be partners. If they do not partner with God or a loving spouse in traditional marriage, they might seek a partner elsewhere. But these lavender marriages fail to provide the true partnership oneness that is inherent in committed, traditional, biblically designed marriage. Non-romantic lavender marriages reduce marriage to an economic and social transaction when husband and wife exist to “become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24. This oneness is absent when spouses are permitted to find romantic and sexual partners outside of the marriage. If one spouse later finds someone they truly want to marry, the spouses must first divorce their “bestie.” These lavender marriages are simply security measures: providing temporary safety and stability—without oneness, commitment, or even love—until something better comes along.  While they may seem wise, they are really simply a façade trying to restore the benefits of marriage, rather than creating true family restoration.

Why We Should Return to Traditional Gender Roles

 

This guest post is courtesy of Jarod Russo, Regent Law Family Law student:

If a person went back three hundred years ago and asked one of the American settlers, or any person during that time, what gender roles were, they would probably have no idea what you were talking about. I say that because back then, it was so rooted in society that men work outside the home, and women work in the home. I am in no way advocating that women should not be allowed to work, but I am advocating that, for the most part, we should encourage women to choose to work inside the home of they want to do so. There are plenty of great women in government, law, medicine, and so on. This article is not meant to disparage them in any way; it explains the rule, not the exception. The purpose of this post is to help women realize what most of them are called to do, and that is to be wives and mothers.

There is a viral trend of women on TikTok filming themselves in tears because they find the 9-5 job boring, dull, depressing, and hopeless. There is a reason for that, and that reason is that women generally find much more fulfillment from being mothers and wives. It is fundamentally rooted in nature that women have a gift for nurturing, just like it is fundamentally rooted in nature that men are supposed to be providers. The modern feminist movement vehemently advocates for women to abandon marriage and the family, to pursue a career only, and basically die alone. They claim that their husbands ‘oppress them,’ but they don’t want you to notice that their boss is often a man. The ‘oppression’ they get from a boss is far more real than that of a loving husband.

 

Depression and anxiety rates in both women and men are skyrocketing, and it’s not a mystery why. Men feel despair because they feel that everyone hates them for their ‘male privilege,' and women feel despair because they feel they can’t find a man who supports their career goals. This is why we should return to traditional gender roles for most people. Society needs to encourage men to work, not sit around all week playing video games. And, society needs to encourage women to pursue men who have aspirations for working outside the home, not the other way around. This doesn’t mean every man has to earn a big salary, but it does mean men should work, barring some extreme circumstance like illness or injury. Doing this would greatly strengthen the nuclear family, and both men and women would feel much more fulfilled by doing what God called men and women to do from the beginning.

Family Law Meets Reality TV

 

This guest post is from Kainat Chaudry, Regent Law Family Law student:

A Christian Reflection on Love, Conflict, and Public Drama 

At one point or another, a lot of us have found ourselves investing a significant amount of time in the world of reality TV shows. From dramatic rose ceremonies to shocking reunion episodes, reality TV has no shortage of emotionally charged moments — and many of them revolve around love, relationships, custody battles, and complicated breakups. Family law addresses these topics and uses the law to find an answer to complex issues. While undeniably entertaining, reality television often takes some significant liberties with the practicalities of family law. From custody battles to co-parenting dilemmas, the legal and emotional difficulties of family life are played out before our eyes. This also gives rise to the question: As Christians, how should we view the intersection between family law and entertainment?

The Courtroom is Not a Soundstage

Shows like Divorce Court and Paternity Court mix real-life legal disputes with a dash of made-for-TV theatrics. While the cases may be authentic, the drama is often dialed up for ratings.

Reality Check:
 Most family law proceedings, especially those involving children, are actually quiet, private, and emotionally complex. Judges are hardly giving out verdicts with one-liners. And courtroom outbursts? They work rarely, if ever. They can actually hurt your case.

 

“Will You Accept This Prenup?”

No one says that on The Bachelor, but perhaps they should. Shows centered on whirlwind romances almost never show the legal side of serious relationships.

Reality Check:
In real life, marriage involves navigating legal waters. It includes conversations on financial rights, debt sharing, and even prenups. More couples (especially younger ones) are utilizing prenuptial agreements to come to an agreement for some of those issues. Reality shows rarely mention this, but love and law go hand in hand.

 

Custody Battles Aren’t Decided Over Dinner

Reality shows sometimes give the impression that custody can be negotiated over a text or an explosive dinner table argument. In truth, courts focus on the best interest of the child, which requires the court to go through a thorough evaluation of living arrangements, each parent's ability to provide, and even interviews with children in some cases.

Reality Check:

Custody, thankfully, is not about who “wins” the argument. Rather, it is about what is safest and healthiest for the child’s future. Reality TV seldom shows the involvement of child psychologists, social workers, or custody evaluators.

 

Love is Blind... But Marriage Is Not

Netflix’s Love Is Blind turned dating into a social experiment, where couples get engaged without ever seeing each other. After spending only a few weeks together, the couples are standing at the altar with a decision to say “I do” or walk away. But when they do say yes? That’s a legally binding marriage.

Reality Check:

The show ignores the serious legal implications of marriage. These couples, practically strangers, walk right into a legal contract that affects property rights, spousal support, and in some cases, even immigration status. Unfortunately, if the marriage ends, they will need to go through formal divorce proceedings like anyone else, including splitting assets and dealing with spousal support.

 

The Court of Public Opinion Does not Operate Like a Legal Court

Reality TV is fueled by public perception, but the law gives attention to facts and evidence. For instance, a parent might be portrayed as unstable on TV; however, unless there is solid proof in court, that perception will not influence a judge.

Reality Check:

Judges do not watch reality shows to make decisions. They rely on testimony, legal standards, and court records. Media portrayals do not often align with legal outcomes.

 

Reality TV Can Actually Complicate Family Law Cases

When family law issues are broadcast on national TV, they can have real-world consequences. The most obvious consequence is how the statements made on air can become evidence in court, and the exposure can impact children, reputations, and legal strategies.

Reality Check:

Lawyers often advise clients to stay off social media (definitely off reality TV) while going through sensitive family law proceedings. “What you say can be used against you” is not just an aphorism.

 

Finally, how should Christians respond?

1.    Be Discerning Viewers
Not all reality TV is inherently harmful, but it does call for discernment. Are the shows promoting healing or simply monetizing pain?

2.    Model Christ-Centered Family Life
In our own relationships, let’s strive to reflect the grace, patience, and forgiveness that God shows us.

3.    Pray for Families in Crisis
It is important to remember that behind every on-screen dispute is a real family. Believers should aim to pray for families around them going through difficult seasons, including those navigating legal battles, and be the hands and feet of Jesus.

4.    Support with Compassion
If someone in your community is walking through divorce, custody disputes, or family legal matters, offer support—not gossip or judgment.

 

In the end, reality TV may show us a version of truth, but as followers of Christ, we are called to pursue something higher: peace, justice, and love in every aspect of family life—especially in the brokenness.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” — Matthew 5:9