Regent Law Students Working toward Family Restoration Around the World

Summer opportunities for Regent law students are directive and confirming of their calling to law and their future practice as attorneys.  This post will highlight three women and the work they did in the Summer of 2013, as well as give some glimpses of their future as lawyers.

Elizabeth Oklevitch is a 3L who served a summer internship in 2012 in South Africa working on aspects of the rule of law and also served as a student law clerk in United States District Court, Western District of New York.  She has sensed a calling to work in the area of child advocacy and family restoration.  This past summer she served in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Rochester, NY, largely working on child exploitation and constitutional law issues.  Read more about her perspective and experiences here.

 Abby Skeans is a 3L who came to Regent Law to gain critical training for her calling to rule of law development work in Sub-Saharan Africa through the Center for Global Justice, Human Rights, and the Rule of Law. Through her internships with a partner organization, Sixty Feet, and stipends provided by the Center, Abby has spent both of her summers serving the juvenile justice systems of Uganda and Malawi.  She has sought systemic reform by supporting a program that gave nearly 150 children access to justice in the past year, developing a database program that is transferable to other African nations, and implementing a legal literacy clinic for juvenile offenders.  Read more about Abby's work here, and on her blog. 

 Heather Pate, also a 3L, has worked as a student intern with the Center for Global Justice, Human Rights, and the Rule of Law and spent last summer in D.C. working with the National Coalition on Adoption in the legislative policy realm protecting children. This past summer, she worked with policy makers and law enforcement officials in Uganda to end child sacrifice in that nation.  Read more about her experiences here.

Each of these women have responded to God's call upon their lives and have been led to incredible opportunities around the world to make a difference for children.  Their desire to see family restoration happen has been turned into action, and they are making a difference now as students.  Each has been prepared to definitely make a difference as lawyers for the rest of their lives.

Key to Child Advocacy for Malawi Juveniles is Restorative Justice

Children in several nations around the globe do not enjoy basic protections of their due process interests when accused of a crime.  Often they sit in jail waiting for an initial hearing for years.  Child advocates can make a difference for them and their families.

Abigail K. Skeans, currently a 3L at Regent Law, is pursuing research in this area of law to protect children in various African nations.  An important aspect of her work has been to determine whether a program of reform for a juvenile law system in one African nation might also work effectively in the legal framework of another African nation.

Skeans worked on such a program to protect juveniles in Uganda, and this spring worked on a feasibility study to determine if the program being implemented in Uganda would also be feasible in Malawi.  She continued her work this summer on site in Malawi. Her work carries an expectation for policy recommendations for both practical legal development programs and legislative reform.  See her presentation here.

Some practical programs and documents might be beneficial in the Malawain context, her work hopes to accomplish several objectives. Some of those include:

1) developing an electronic child information tracking system in a nation that is largely without birth certificates for most children;

2) determining whether a restorative justice component and diversion programs coupled with an emphasis on plea bargaining in formal juvenile proceedings would be of assistance;

3) social service protections; and

4) providing legal protections for children in conflict with the law.

Protecting children around the globe is an important, but extremely challenging, objective. An attitude of family restoration and restorative justice can make a tremendous difference in the lives of children in Africa.

Living it Out - One Alum's Work to Defend the Unborn

By guest blogger Elizabeth Oklevitch, Regent University Law School, Candidate for J.D., 2014.

Every year, many students arrive at Regent Law eager to earn their degrees, get out in the real world, and champion the cause of the unborn. For Regent alumnus, Noel Sterett ‘06, defending life through the practice of law is not a dream, but reality. This month he celebrated a significant victory in a strenuous battle to protect unborn children, vulnerable teenage mothers, and concerned parents in Illinois.  

Noel Sterett

The clash over Illinois’ Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 spanned nearly two decades. Essentially, the Act requires parents be given 48-hours notice before a minor daughter undergoes an abortion, unless a parent accompanies the daughter or provides a written waiver, there is a medical emergency, the minor claims to be the victim of abuse or neglect, or a judicial by-pass is granted. For those committed to making abortion available to anyone, anytime, anywhere, this precaution that aims to ensure the well-being of vulnerable teenagers is a no can do. Six days after the Act’s enactment in 1995, its constitutionality was challenged in court. On July 11, 2013, eighteen years later, the Supreme Court of Illinois unanimously upheld the law as constitutional.  (More information on the history of this Act can be found within the decision).

Reporting on the court’s decision on the day it was issued, the Christian Newswire announced: 

Despite this law's passage in 1995, the court has not allowed the law to be enforced because of repeated lawsuits by the American Civil Liberties Union. The Illinois Supreme Court has now invalidated the ACLU's claims that the law violated the state constitution. Mauck & Baker filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the Hope Clinic for Women, Ltd., v. Flores case decided today.

The Court's opinion states: We conclude, therefore, that our Parental Notice Act furthers a "constitutionally permissible end" by encouraging an unmarried, pregnant minor to seek the help and advice of a parent or other adult family member in making the very important decision whether or not to bear a child.

The decision wording echoes that of the amicus brief filed by Mauck & Baker attorneys on behalf of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Catholic Medical Association. 

The brief, authored by Richard C. Baker, Amy Parrish, and Noel Sterett, argued that Illinois' Parental Notice Act served the legitimate purpose of helping minors make mature and informed decisions about whether to abort, allow parents to assist their daughter in selecting a safe and competent abortion provider, ensure that parents have the opportunity to provide additional medical history and information to assist abortion providers, and ensures that parents have adequate knowledge to recognize and respond to post-abortion complications.

Thus, in co-authoring an influential brief, Noel Sterrett’s work has impacted the landscape of constitutional law in Illinois, literally saved lives, and brought public recognition to the family as an institution providing needed protection and guidance to children. 

Students attending Regent frequently hear, “Law is more than a profession – it’s a calling.” It is encouraging to see a Regent alumnus walking out that calling, not merely holding it as a dream, but successfully fighting for the defense of the vulnerable and the restoration of the family. 

To find out more about Noel’s firm, Mauck & Baker, and their commitment to integrity, justice, and religious liberty, visit www.mauckbaker.com.   

Parental Tug-a-War Over a Child

Court room drama that places a child squarely in the middle of his or her parents cannot be good for that child. In "Tug-A-War: Protecting the Best Interest of the Child in Light of AB 1050" by Rachel Toberty, Regent Juris Doctor Candidate 2013, this problem is tackled in the context of California custody law.

The dilemma is clear, as Toberty writes, "A child age 14 sits on the witness stand, the subject of his parents’ custody dispute. His father questions him about whether he would prefer to live with his father or his mother. This seems like something no child should ever have to deal with. As a result of Senate Bill AB 1050, however, this very situation may not be an unfamiliar setting in California Family Courts. Child custody disputes are some of the uglier and more emotional cases that take place in California courtrooms; they can strain even an adult’s tolerance. So why would it ever be a good idea for a child to be invited into this often times hostile environment? The California Legislature, under AB1050, has decided that this a proper place for a child, if that child wishes that his desires in a custody dispute be heard. This article will examine whether changes in the California Family Code Section 3042 are really in the best interest of the child while presenting some useful tips for practitioners to uphold the best interest of the child in light of AB 1050."

Toberty researched changes to the California code on children testifying in their parents' custody battle. Her work considers the potential consequences to children as a result of these recently enacted changes to the Family Code Section 3042 because of AB 1050. Then her article discusses possible solutions for the Califorina Legislature to consider to protect children during a contested divorce proceeding, particularly if a child will be testifying, while also providing practical tips to practitioners to help them work with their clients to protect the best interest of the child. Read her entire article here.

Family restoration begins with parents who understand that placing their child in a court room to choose between mom or dad is never good for the child.

For more resources see the pages atop this blog entitled "UpToParents," "Proud to Parent," and "Spare the Child."

Follow me on Twitter to get up-to-the-minute facts on family restoration

Libraries, Parents and the Protection of Children

"Fear Paradigms in the Electronic Age: How Focusing on Privacy Rights from Government Intrusion Overlooks the Best Interests of the Child" by Elizabeth Kowal, Regent Law J.D. 2012 discusses California's new privacy laws that prohibit parents from monitoring their children's library reading material. She writes,

"In this time of Facebook, Twitter, and e-books, privacy is a popular, frequently discussed issue. In January of 2012, two new privacy laws were enacted in California. Both laws address privacy in the electronic age, and responses to both show that Californians are appraising these new laws from positions of fear of the government. Unfortunately, the narrow focus of a fear paradigm makes it difficult to realize when there may be other important issues implied in new laws. Although California’s new laws address privacy in the electronic age, they may be harming families. This article examines whether California ignores the best interests of the child and creates liability without authority under the new privacy rules for libraries."

Library privacy policies are good and important; but how those law and policies work together to harm or protect children and their protection is explored in the first section of the article. Section II examines reactions to the new privacy laws and explains the narrow viewpoint of fear paradigms. Section III illuminates and contrasts the interplay of family privacy and children’s rights. Section IV analyzes the new privacy standards under the best interests of the child standard and suggests solutions to these concerns.

Analyzing the fear paradigms in which privacy laws are established is an important task. A narrow focus on individual rights violates the best interests of the child when parents are prohibited from protecting their own children. Parental liability without legal authority does not work toward family restoration, but rather preys on vulnerable children without their parents' protection.

Juvenile Girls, Gangs, and Family Restoration

When girls are devalued, families are harmed. Further evidence of that fact is contained in this article by Michele Cavanaugh, Regent University School of Law Candidate (December 2011) entitled "Girls in Gangs: This Ain't the Girl Scouts, but it may be Your Family." Her article examines whether female participation in gangs can be curbed by solutions that restore family strength to society and to girls in a culture where gang affiliation now replaces the family.

She writes, "[T]his article presents and discusses the history of gang research in America and the problems with the early research on female gang participation. [It] touch[es] upon the evolution of female gang members and the growth of female participation in gangs. Section II will cover gang recruitment, the initiation process females must endure, and the reasons females seek membership in the gang. Section III will provide some of the solutions that have emerged to curb gang participation. These solutions focus on implementing polices that strengthens the girls’ connections with their families and community and work to displace the position gangs have taken for girls. In addition, this section will cover the economic benefit received by society through gang prevention and family restoration. Lastly, Section IV concludes that an alternative solution will prevent girls from being lured into gangs by restoring the family structure and the development of community programs. Restoration of the family is essential in providing the strength society and girls need to combat female gang membership."

Read the entire article here. Girls and their protection and safety within families are a pivotal key to large scale family restoration.

Teen Courts Could Help Restore Teen Offenders to their Families

Over time societies have contemplated how to correctly implement ideas that effectively rehabilitate juvenile offenders. Since the creation of juvenile courts some jurisdictions have instituted “Teen Courts” in an effort to promote the philosophy that “positive peer pressure in an educational setting” will help teenagers be less likely to run afoul of the law after their initial wrongdoings. Now Teen Courts “are considered one of the fastest growing juvenile prevention and intervention programs in the country.” Jonathan Falk, Regent Law Rising 3L, has researched this topic, and written a fabulous article entitled "Stuck in the Middle With You: The Rise of Teen Courts and the Ability of Juveniles to Positively Influence Each Other’s Lives." Teen Courts can be extremely useful in helping to restore teen offenders to their own families, rather than to a prison cell.

He writes:

"Teen Courts have been implemented throughout the nation, and many have led to reduced recidivism rates along with improved attitudes of youthful offenders. Further inquiries are required, however before claims about Teen Court effectiveness can be sustained. Based on statistical research and other evidence, this article will show that Teen Courts are effective in discouraging and preventing juvenile delinquency by providing teens with both second chances and positive peer influence."

Falk's article analyzes the impact of Teen Courts nationally, and specifically in North Carolina. The first section provides a short synopsis of the rise of the juvenile justice system and its history within the United States. The second section lays out the standard Teen Court model showing its procedures and listing its participants while also providing the statutory background for the North Carolina Teen Court system. The third section provides the rationale behind the Teen Court system, referencing the model’s mission statement, listing the specific benefits to those involved, and noting the long-term goals of the Teen Court model. The fourth section provides research to show the effectiveness of the Teen Court model both in North Carolina and nationally. Finally, a short conclusion brings together all these arguments to show that Teen Court’s are cost effective in rehabilitating juveniles, and that all jurisdictions should implement these ideas within their juvenile justice system.

The history behind the juvenile justice system illuminates the importance of the recent trend of implementing Teen Courts. The context and progression of justice for teens is well served by Teen Courts, because it invovles the teen's parents, family members and peers in the judicial process. This method of juvenile jurisprudence is one which thrives in a restorative context for teen offenders.

Read the entire article here.

Fathers are Needed for Family Restoration

Children growing up without a loving father in their home have, sadly, the greatest likelihood of juvenile delinquency and difficulties in the transition to adulthood.

"Have You Seen My Daddy?" by Sammy Ayer, Regent University School of Law 2011 Juris Doctor Candidate, and Honors Graduate from Christopher Newport University (2008) has written a comprehensive review of this dilemma in the context of Virginia's Putative Father Statute. He writes:

"Imagine waking up and anxiously awaiting a phone call that you know will change your life forever. You know you are about to be a proud father, so you are frantically sitting by the phone and waiting for it to ring, but the phone never makes a sound. You then decide to call your significant other to see what’s going on, but her cellular phone is off. You get out of bed, brush your teeth, and rush to the hospital for the moment you have waited nearly a year for. When you finally arrive at the hospital, full of emotions, you are told by administration that no such baby and no such mother are currently there. You spend the next several days searching for your child, but can’t track down her or her mother. When you finally discover the whereabouts of your first born child, it is too late, because she has been adopted by a family on the other side of the country, and you are told that your paternal rights have been terminated, and someone else now has custody of your child. Sadly, this is exactly what happened to John Wyatt in February of 2009. [1]"

Ayer's article examines whether Virginia's putative father statutes violate a father's constitutional rights when all of his parental rights are terminiated by waiving his right to an adoption proceeding without his consent with the use of a ten-day letter as the code allows, and even requires. Section I discusses the relevant background information for putative father statutes, and it will discuss the recent case history of this dilemma. Section II examines and analyzes the statutes, statistics, and cases pertaining to putative father statute. Section III then presents and discusses some possible solutions to the problems that currently exist with putative father statutes, and it recommends that we create a national putative father registry.

Read the entire article here.

---

[1] The baby he’s never met, Va. Father fights for child his girlfriend sent to Utah for adoption, Jerry Markon, The Washington Post, April 14, 2010.

Juvenile Justice and Brain Development

A Sunday front page headline screams, “THROWING AWAY THE KEY ON TEEN OFFENDERS: DEBATE SWIRLS ON TREATING JUVENILES AS ADULTS IN VA. IS THE STATE GOING TOO FAR?” detailing stories of teens sentenced to decades of prison time for their various crimes. “More than 400 juveniles went to prison in Virginia from 2005 through 2009, according to the Department of Corrections.”

The story cites Dr. Steven Berkowitz, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, who describes the transition from the rehabilitative model to more of a punitive model for juvenile justice, and refers to the growing evidence that brain development is not complete in adolescences until well past the age of majority. This effects judgment and decision making, giving some scientific grounding for some of the “enormous mistakes” that adolescents make. Could an understanding of juvenile brain development help families and courts to restore and rehabilitate juvenile offenders?

Ellen Lloyd, Regent University Juris Doctor 2011 Candidate, also a former juvenile probation officer and foster parent from Santa Fe, New Mexico, has pursued research in this area as it relates to juvenile law, following up on her University of Colorado undergraduate work in psychology where she focused on neurological and biological psychology, and her University of New Mexico Masters in Public Administration specializing in the management of government and non-profit agencies. She writes, "Although it has always been clear that children and adults are different, it has only been in the last twenty-five years that the understanding of these differences has passed from psychological theorizing to developmentally based understanding. With the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology neurologists can now watch the brain function while subjects perform different tasks and their discoveries, while amazing, add credence to what every parent of a teenager already knew; kids don’t think like adults do."

Her work cites to Dr. Jay N. Giedd, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the National Institute of Mental Health who specializes in brain imaging, who has noted that:

Across cultures and millennia, the teen years have been noted as a time of dramatic changes in body and behavior. During this time most people successfully navigate the transition from depending upon family to becoming a self-sufficient adult member of the society. However, adolescence is also a time of increased conflicts with parents, mood volatility, risky behavior and, for some, the emergence of psychopathology. The physical changes associated with puberty are conspicuous and well described. The brain’s transformation is every bit as dramatic but, to the unaided eye, is visible only in terms of new and different behavior.

In Part I of her article, Lloyd takes a brief look at the history of the juvenile justice system noting the change in focus brought about by several landmark federal cases, all of which infused due process protections into a largely discretionary and ideally rehabilitative system. She notes that most recently in Roper v. Simmons the United States Supreme Court outlawed the juvenile death penalty based in large part on neurological research showing that adolescent brains are not fully developed in some important and significant ways. Part II examines crime trends with special attention to the age of the offenders as statistics show a consistent spike in offense rates for those between fifteen and twenty-five years of age. Part III explains this spike by examining, in fairly simplistic terms, the growth and development of the adolescent brain. "During adolescence important changes take place in the brain, especially in the pre-frontal cortex, which effect how juveniles process information and act and react within their environments." The article then turns to policy implications for the juvenile justice system, noting what programs are most beneficial and effective in juvenile probation and sentencing toward rehabilitation, while also making suggestions for "helping juveniles survive adolescence and, hopefully, stay out of the juvenile justice system entirely."

An understanding of juvenile brain development may indeed help families and courts to restore and rehabilitate juvenile offenders, and more adequately move into adulthood.

Read the entire article here.

Juvenile Law for Rehabilitation Can Restore a Child's Life and Family

The Juvenile Law system generally focuses "on rehabilitating rather than punishing juvenile offenders.^[1]  Judges are given broad discretion to act within the "best interests of the child" without needing to involve attorneys, juries, or evidentiary rules.^[2]  Moreover, juvenile offenders are given added protection from societal scrutiny with confidentiality and limited access to their juvenile records, as well as new terminology that basically had the same effect as adult criminal courts in substance, but was called something different to avoid labeling juveniles as criminals.^[3]"

Johnita Mayo, Regent Law 2011 Juris Doctor Candidate, discusses the double-edged sword juvenile offenders may face when states try to protect their best interests in the juvenile law system - longer and harsher sentences design for their rehabilitation.  She explores attempts to maintain due process protections for children, how juvenile criminal sentences have been amended in case law, and how juveniles can be restored to their families and their lives if the proper action is taken for their crimes and circumstances.  She writes:

"Consequently, juvenile courts in their infancy did not give constitutional protections to juvenile offenders because they were more focused on rehabilitating juvenile offenders.  After all, they were supposed to be using the best interest of the child standard.  With juvenile offenders and child advocates outraged over the way juvenile offenders were starting to receive harsher sanctions without parental notification and without attorneys being present, it was not long before constitutional challenges to state laws and juvenile court decisions erupted.  In 1966, the Supreme Court in Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, limited juvenile judges' discretion in transferring juveniles to adult courts for criminal prosecution.[4]  In 1967, the Supreme court in In Re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, held that juveniles in delinquency proceedings were entitled to a right to counsel, notice of charges, privilege against self-incrimination, and a right to cross-examine witnesses.[5]  These rulings seem like a victory for juvenile offenders, however, they create a double-edged sword.

In rulings following Kent and In re Gault, the juvenile delinquency crackdown was in full swing.  In 1971, the Supreme Court in McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, held that juvenile offenders in juvenile delinquency proceedings have no constitutional right to a jury because that is a fact-finding function and juries are not necessary for that purpose.[6]

With juveniles getting younger and their offenses more serious, in the mid-1970s, facing public pressure to toughen up on juvenile offenders, state legislatures, and superior courts began to turn away from a rehabilitative philosophical approach and moved toward punitive sanctions.[7]  Moreover, some state legislatures began creating laws that allowed juvenile offenders to be put to death for offenses they committed.

However, the United States Supreme Court saw things differently.  In March of 2005, the Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, held that it was unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on juvenile offenders who were under the age of eighteen at the time they committed their offense.[8]

In 2010, the Supreme Court in Graham v. Florida, No. 08–7412, slip op at 31 (U.S. May 17, 2010), held that the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause does not permit a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison without parole for a crime where there was not a homicide.[9]  
"You're now seeing more kids at younger ages in the adult system."^[10]  Consequently, an increasing number of juveniles in the juvenile justice system are receiving longer sentences for less serious offenses.[11]  Currently, in the United States of America, all fifty states allow juveniles to be criminally prosecuted and sentenced in some capacity.[12]  However, whether states choose to criminally prosecute juveniles as adults within a Juvenile Court versus in the Criminal Justice System is where things get a little trickier. 

This article analyzes how states approach juvenile offenders in the context of criminal prosecution and sentencing and how transfer and blended sentencing laws affect prosecutorial and judicial discretion.  Consequently, transfer and blended sentencing laws have a direct correlation to the non-uniformity among states in determining whether to prosecute juvenile offenders within the Juvenile Justice System or in the Criminal Justice System.  Also contained in this article are examples of states that use some sort of transfer, blended sentencing, and in most cases a combination of the two types of laws to determine whether to criminally prosecute and sentence juvenile offenders.  Section I discusses the current laws and factors that state legislatures, juvenile courts, prosecutors, and in some cases criminal courts, take into consideration when making determinations of whether to transfer a juvenile to criminal court or apply juvenile and/or adult sanctions to juveniles in juvenile or criminal court.  Section II reviews what is wrong with the current laws and factors used by juvenile courts in the United States.  It reveals the non-uniformity of the system and the failure to address the core issues of why the juvenile is a delinquent in the first place.  It also sheds light on how legislatures, prosecutors, juvenile court, and criminal court judges, justify their use of discretion under the best interest of the child theory for rehabilitation of juvenile offenders, but in practice are really analyzing the best interest of the child within the framework of the benefit and safety of society and applying more punitive measures.  Finally, Section III discusses proposed additional factors that juvenile court judges, state legislatures, and prosecutors, should consider in making determinations of whether to apply adult sanctions or transfer juvenile offenders to criminal court. 

Read the entire article here.

---

[1] See Id. (stating the original focus of juvenile courts).

[2] See Id. at 96-97 (stating the best interest of the child standard that should govern juvenile court judges' decisions concerning juvenile offenders).

[3] See Paul Marcotte, Criminal Kids, 76 A.B.A.J. 61 (1990) (stating the unique protections that juveniles are afforded).

[4] See Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966) (addressing fairness of juvenile courts and stating that juveniles were getting the worst of the adult and child worlds).

[5] See In Re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) (addressing constitutional protections afforded to juveniles in juvenile proceedings).

[6] See McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971) (stating in a 6-3 plurality opinion that a jury is not necessary for fact-finding).

[7] See Paul Marcotte, Criminal Kids, 76 A.B.A.J. 61 (1990) (Quoting Robert Shepherd Jr., former director of the Youth Advocacy Clinic at the University of Richmond School of Law).

[8] See Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (ruling the death penalty for juvenile offenders who were under the age of eighteen years old at the time they committed a crime as unconstitutional).

[9] See Graham v. Florida, No. 08–7412., slip op. at 7-31 (U.S.  May 17, 2010) (ruling that life sentences for juvenile offenders who committed non-homicide offenses are unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution).

[10] See Paul Marcotte, Criminal Kids, 76 A.B.A.J. 61 (1990) (Quoting the late Robert Shepherd Jr., former director of the Youth Advocacy Clinic at the University of Richmond School of Law).

[11] See Id. (stating juveniles are being held on drug offenses, and are being incarcerated longer)

[12] See NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE, STATE JUVENILE JUSTICE PROFILES (2008) available at http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/ (Stating that all states allow adult criminal prosecution and sentencing of juveniles under some circumstances).

Consistency in Application of the Mature Minor Exception for Medical Procedures Could Strengthen Families

The mature minor doctrine has been used by courts nationwide to create an exception for certain medical procedures to be undertaken based on the consent of the minor, without the consent of his or her parents, if a judge determines that minor to be mature enough to make an informed decision in his or her best interests.

That doctrine, sadly, has only been applied in a widespread manor to the abortion decision. Jessica Simon, Regent Juris Doctor Candidate 2011, has researched this area of law, and her study of this doctrine has led to an excellent article and presentation. Her work concludes with a proposal for a better application of the doctrine to truly consider the maturity of the minor's decision in all aspects of medical decision making, not simply in it's application for abortion.

You can see her presentation article below:

School is Out on Home Education - and States Should Take Notice

Educational choice is a hot button issue in the realm of childhood education, and the homeschooling choice is gaining in popularity, particularly with parents who wish to take active responsibility in their children's education.

One of the primary issues surrounding home schooling in the United States is one of parental rights. Parents have a right to teach their children values and to prepare them to become self-sufficient and productive members of society. While this preparation, often referred to as 'socialization,' is one of the most commonly cited concerns about the homeschooling movement, research shows that home-educated adults are doing exceptionally well academically, civically, and socially.

Today an increasing number of parents are teaching their children at home, effectively saving the state thousands of dollars each year while parents spend their own funds on curricular resources, without so much as even a tax deduction for those expenses. This method of education is extremely economical for the state, and student results reveal that they are academically far surpassing their public school counter-parts.

Aaron Block, J.D. Candidate 2011 Regent Law, examined the results of the home schooling movement in America in his recent work for Juvenile Law. He makes the case that both states and the federal government should adopt public policies that proactively support parental rights especially as they relate to home education. He describes both the history and the present day success of home schooling and the various reasons why parents are returning to it. Then his work considers alarming international trends to ban home education and limit parental rights.

Finally, he suggests what lawmakers should do to protect parental rights and home education within the United States, arguing that based on fundamental parental rights, the higher academic achievement, and the cost-saving effects of home schooling, states should protect if not promote home schooling as an alternative to public education. At the very least, states should allow home schooling as form of school choice. His final article is forthcoming.

Juvenile Justice Rehabilitation Through Victim Offender Restitution Restores the Families of Both Victim and Offender

When a juvenile offender is not held accountable for their first offense, which is most like a less serious offense, Danielle Fields, Regent J.D. Candidate 2011, argues that this is a failure of the juvenile justice system.  She writes, "Instead of a wake-up call, the juvenile gets the message that the offense was no big deal.  According to the National Center for Juvenile Justice, juvenile courts have an opportunity to intervene in the lives of a large percentage of youth at a time when problems are apparent and courts have the authority to effect change. 

Early intervention may halt the juvenile’s court career and reduce the drain on the court’s limited resources.  A study by the U.S. Department of Justice found that very young juvenile delinquents have a greater percentage of serious, violent and repeated patterns of offenses than older onset delinquents.  In practice, this means that after probation for a less serious crime, the younger offender is likely to return for a more serious offense in the future. If then the juvenile is incarcerated, the juvenile may emerge with very little competency, less prepared for adult life and reintegration into the community, thus more likely to recidivate.  Other trends in the juvenile justice system, such as lowering the age of accountability and automatic transfers to the adult criminal system has not proven effective. [1][6].  The public safety is not increased by adult incarceration or incarceration as juvenile because in both circumstances, the system has failed to divert children from a life of crime. A system of just desserts and retribution is not accomplishing the goals of public safety, offender accountability and victim restoration. “The problems of juvenile delinquency and violent youth crime cannot be meaningfully addressed until refocus on the underlying causes of juvenile delinquency and provide our children with guidance instead of punishment."

This article argues for the implementation of restorative justice processes as a dispositional alternative following the adjudication of delinquents, with a focus on Virginia juvenile courts. The intent of the juvenile justice system in Virginia is to balance three interests (1) the welfare of the child and the family, (2) the safety of the community and (3) victim’s rights, and the legislature has given judge’s the powers and discretion to protect those interests[2][9].  The code also uses language in the purpose clause to promote the use of diversion programs, protect the family unit and hold offender’s accountable for their actions.

Implementation of a balanced restorative justice approach in the Virginia juvenile court system would serve to balance public safety, accountability and competency development of young offenders while giving a voice to the victims.[3][10]   The goals of (1) restoring the family, (2) protecting the community, and (3) victim restoration would be accomplished. 

Section I will set the stage for restorative justice model in the juvenile justice system by establishing the traditional role of the state as parens patraie, exploring the current status of the juvenile justice system, and calling for a change.  Section II will examine the philosophy of the restorative justice movement, and the existing movements internationally and at the state and local level. This article concludes in Section III that family group conferencing should be a vital component of the juvenile justice system because it successfully balances the three interests of the Virginia purpose clause and intervenes into offender’s life, halt their court career and prepare them to become a member of the community.  Section III suggests ways to implement restorative justice programs in the Virginia juvenile court system by the legislature, the juvenile’s prosecutor, defense counsel and the juvenile court judges."

This article, its thesis and its proposal goes a long way toward family restoration for juvenile offenders.  Read the entire article here.  

---

[4][6] Jacqueline Cuncannan, Only When They’re Bad: The Rights and Responsibilities of Our Children, 51 Wash. U. J. Urb. & Contemp. L. 273, 300, (1997) “Given the available information on child’s cognitive development, this trend is also morally unsound.  Furthermore, the presumptions that society is willing to make regarding a delinquent child’s legal capacity are not consistent with the presumptions made regarding non-delinquent children.” and Cynthia Conward, The Juvenile Justice System: Not Necessarily in the Best Interests of Children, 33 New Eng. L. Rev. 39, 49 (1998) “Florida was one of the first states to inaugurate automatic transfer policies.  Researchers, however, have found that by every scientific measure that they used, re-offending was greater among juveniles who were transferred to adult court as opposed to those charged with similar crimes in juvenile justice system….lead them to conclude that that automatic transfer in FL has had little deterrent value nor has it enhanced public safety.” Id.

[5][9]Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-227 (2010); see also, Tross v. Commonwealth, 21 Va. App. 362, 370-71 (Va. Ct. App. 1995) and Hairfield v. Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 649, 655 (Va. Ct. App.1996). 

---

[3][10] Sacha M. Coupet, What to Do with the Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing : The Role of Rhetoric and Reality About Youth Offenders in the Constructive Dismantling of the Juvenile Justice System, 148 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1303, 1346 (2000).

Early Sexuality Destroys Childhood ldeals of Family

"Pedophiles New Playground: How Primetime Television and Movies Are Supporting Pedophilia," by Caitlin Walters, Regent Law Juris Doctor Candidate 2011, is an excellent analysis of popular entertainment as excellent fodder for child abuse by pedophiles. After detailing some notable scenes in recent film and television, she writes,

"Primetime television and movies are making it so that pedophiles no longer have to purchase illegal pornography to fulfill their perverted desires. Pedophiles can simply turn on the television or go to the movies and see depictions of minors acting sexually or having a relationship with someone over the age of 18. These depictions could lead a pedophile to believe that it is acceptable to view children as sexual objects and acceptable for children to engage in sexual acts. Even more dangerous than a pedophile believing that children are sexual objects and that it is acceptable for adults to engage in sexual relationships with minors is that minors may start to believe that these are acceptable behaviors. It may be easy for the average viewer to only view a television show or movie that paints a minor as a sexual being for the entertainment value. However, the public needs to realize that pedophiles and minors do not have this same ability.

Society needs to decide whether the potential of high ratings and entertainment value provided by these shows is worth encouraging or supporting pedophiles and confusing and victimizing children. Section I of this paper will discuss how the media is giving pedophiles materials that they can watch privately to fulfill their desires, replacing illegal child pornography. Child pornography is a form of child abuse that presents unique dangers to the victims. This section will discuss part of the history of American court's treatment of child pornography. It will demonstrate how the line between prime time television and pornography is becoming increasingly blurry. It is disturbing to think that the types of images that a pedophile uses to satisfy their perverted desires are the same images that are shown during the largest watched time slot on television. Section II of this paper will discuss how pedophiles use child pornography to victimize children, and how different television shows and movies are making it possible for pedophiles to move away from using illegal child pornography. Pedophiles use child pornography to desensitize children to sexual acts and to give the child something to mimic. This section will discuss how the provocative scenes in movies like Little Miss Sunshine and network television shows like Glee can be used by pedophiles to seduce children. Section III of this paper will briefly question whether the increasing number of television shows and movies that sexualize children has the possibility of resulting in a greater acceptance of this type of behavior.

The media has historically desensitized society to many controversial topics. Multiple groups are fighting for recognition and support for relationships between minors and adults. Physical relationships between adults and minors are present in different shows and movies, including shows that are on "family friendly" stations like ABC Family. Research has shown that media plays an important role in adolescent sexual socialization. This role may lead to a greater acceptance of minors acting sexually, and an eventual desensitization and acceptance of sexual relationships between adults and minors."

Read the entire article here.