Combating International Human Trafficking

January is National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention month, and Regent 2012 graduate Keila Molina works with California's Chairman Ed Royce to continue his office's work to combat International human trafficking. 

On Saturday, January 11, 2014, they held National Human Trafficking Awareness Day.  Visit the Orange County Human Trafficking Task Force website for more information.  

Raising awareness in order to prevent and abolish this modern-day slavery is the best start toward family restoration for victims of human trafficking.  Keila E. Molina, Esq. is making a tremendous difference as Director of Community Relations, Hispanic Affairs, and Anti-Human Trafficking Efforts for U.S. Representative Ed Royce, the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

She is also making a difference through academic writing, as Keila and I have just published an article with the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal entitled Are We There Yet? Immigration Reform for the Best Interests of Children.   That piece will also be reprinted in the Regent Journal of International Law.  (I have written elsewhere about the challenges of immigration to family law which can be  accessed and downloaded anytime.)  Human trafficking is another tragic incidence of illegal immigration, and could potentially be a significant aspect of any legislative immigration reform to protect children.

Press Release
For Immediate Release January 9, 2014	Media Contact: Shane Wolfe (202) 225-5021
Chairman Royce Continues Work to Combat International Human Trafficking Ahead of Human Trafficking Awareness Day Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, spoke on the House floor to express his support for Human Traffic Awareness Day and encouraged his colleagues to continue to fight against this form of modern-day slavery.  Today’s floor speech follows the Chairman’s recent introduction of H.R. 3344, the Fraudulent Overseas Recruitment and Trafficking Elimination (FORTE) Act of 2013.  The legislation combats the growing problem of international human trafficking by requiring overseas labor recruiters to provide detailed employment information to overseas workers, to avoid the bait-and-switch into slave labor or sexual slavery once they enter the U.S., and creating additional penalties and enforcement mechanisms. Video of Chairman Royce on the House floor is available HERE. Text of Chairman Royce’s remarks on the House floor, as prepared for delivery, follows: “Mister Speaker, this Saturday, January 11th, people throughout our country and around the world will be observing Human Trafficking Awareness Day.  The start of this new year is a fitting time to focus on the shameful fact that human slavery is not a relic of ancient history.   Today it is the brutal reality faced by more than 20 million victims around the world, primarily women and girls. Even in my work as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have learned that human trafficking is not just a problem “over there” in faraway countries with developing economies.  It is a scourge even in the communities that we serve and represent. In my own community in the last two years, the Orange County Human Trafficking Task Force has assisted more than 250 victims.  Ninety-three percent were women, and more than 80 of those women were from foreign countries.  At our November field hearing in Fullerton, the Orange County District Attorney testified that “Shockingly, the average age of a child being trafficked in this country is 12 -- a little girl who has not even reached her teens.”  We also heard from one brave survivor, Angela Guanzon, who was trafficked from the Philippines into forced labor in Long Beach, California. I have heard many other stories from the members of the Human Trafficking Congressional Advisory Committee that I established last year in my Los Angeles County district office.  This forum for communication between law enforcement, advocates, service organizations, and survivors has contributed profoundly to my own understanding of this issue.  I encourage my colleagues to get to know those on the front lines of the fight against human trafficking in their own districts.  You will be informed, challenged, and inspired by what you learn. This January – designated as National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month – is a perfect time to shine a spotlight on this dark issue.  But awareness is only a first step, and needs to lead to action. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring H.R. 3344, the Fraudulent Overseas Recruitment and Trafficking Elimination (FORTE) Act, to combat one critical form of recurring abuse: Namely, unscrupulous recruiters who bait foreigners to travel to the U.S. with promises of good jobs, but trap them in sexual exploitation or forced labor once they arrive.  For example, in my home county, the Salvation Army’s Network of Emergency Trafficking Services reports that a full third of their clients – 33 percent– were recruited in a foreign country by a labor recruiter.  This represents not only an assault on the dignity of the victim, but also a subversion of United States labor laws and our nonimmigrant visa system.  In response, this bipartisan bill: Requires that prospective foreign workers be given accurate information about the terms of employment, and anti-trafficking protections under U.S. law; Prohibits recruitment fees or hidden charges used as coercive leverage over workers; Requires foreign labor recruiters to register and remain in good standing with the Department of Labor; And it provides new incentives and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that recruiters and employers follow these disclosure and registration requirements. Members may contact the Foreign Affairs Committee to join this important anti-trafficking initiative. As people of goodwill around the world observe Human Trafficking Awareness Day this weekend, let us move beyond mere awareness to abolish this injustice, and to protect and restore the dignity of those who have survived such exploitation.” NOTE:  Last year, Chairman Royce held a number of hearings on human trafficking, including a field hearing to examine international human trafficking and to assess efforts to combat trafficking at the international, Federal, State and local levels.  He also launched a Human Trafficking Congressional Advisory Committee (HTCAC) to address human trafficking concerns, as well as offer policy recommendations; the HTCAC is comprised of victims’ rights groups, local and federal law enforcement agencies, and community advocates.
Connect with the Committee ------------------------------ https://foreignaffairs.house.gov

Fox News Highlights Regent Law Graduates Protecting Life

The Kelly Files, a Fox News program, hosted and highlighted the work of the Texas Center for the Defense of Life, a pro-life public interest law firm dedicated to the protection of victims of abortion.  You can view the video of Stephen Casey and Greg Terra here. 

In this situation, a judge had previously ordered a teenage girl to live in the home of a sex offender, who raped her and was coercing her to have an abortion of his child.  The young girl was not removed even after admitting abuse to the court, her teachers, and her other caregiver – a woman who was recently found dead in the home.  Texas Center for Defense of Life was the conduit for justice, and protection of this teenage girl victimized by these events.

Regent Alumnus Works Nationally on Adoption and Family Restoration

The JURIST posted a piece interviewing Megan Lindsey (Regent Law 2007) which highlighted her work on an amicus brief for the Supreme Court of the United States case regarding adoption and the Indian Child Welfare Act.  The piece posted on July 17, 2013 was entitled  “Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl — What's Next?”  Read  an introduction to Megan’s insight below, and catch the full interview at the JURIST:

JURIST Guest Columnist Megan Lindsey, counsel for the National Council for Adoption, discusses the legal and practical impact of the US Supreme Court's decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl...

---

I think the US Supreme Court got it right. We'll just start there. When I wrote on this case before, I expressed my discomfort with the many questions regarding which side of this case we came down on due to the fact that the tricky details of a real child's life come into play. Still, the National Council for Adoption became involved in this case in order to help the lives of many children to come. Since the question everyone is asking now is something along the lines of "Do you think the Court got it right?", I'll go ahead proclaim my agreement with Justice Alito's opinion from the start.

What's next for Veronica?

Veronica should never have been removed from Adoptive Couple — it wasn't in her best interest to face the trauma of being removed from the only family she'd known, it wasn't appropriate under state law's definition of a father, and now, according to the Supreme Court, it wasn't necessary under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). I'm glad I'm not the South Carolina judge who this case has been remanded to. I can only imagine that it will feel nearly impossible to get a decision like this just right when so much has already gone wrong. The best interests standard seems much more difficult to apply now. The trauma of removing a child from the only family she's ever known to the custody of a biological father who had been a complete stranger up to that point cannot be undone. However, we're about eighteen months past that point and Dusten Brown is no longer a stranger. Brown has now served as Veronica's primary caretaker and unquestionably, some parental attachment has been formed. Eighteen months in the life of a child is an extremely significant amount of time — particularly a child in the young developmental years. Although Brown could have provided a far gentler transition for Veronica by allowing continued contact with the adoptive parents, Matt and Melanie Capobianco, I have heard no evidence that indicate that Brown has provided any sort of problematic environment during the last eighteen months. Still, Veronica is young and should be able to thrive in either environment at this point. A thorough, but expedient examination of Veronica's unique needs at this point in her life needs to occur in order to make that decision. And while I am in no position to make that decision and without having made that careful review, I think it is worth considering that we may need to think outside our too often adversarial notions for a moment and consider some variations in her future care options.

Veronica may best thrive with the influence of any and all the characters at play in this story. One reasonable option might be to allow some degree of continued communication and connection between Veronica and all parties. The grown-ups need to act like adults here. Although there are perhaps some hard feelings, reasonable adults share the care and custody of children to varying degrees all the time because it is best for the children. In cases of divorce, open adoptions and terms while children are in kinship or foster care settings more than one adult influence touch their lives. Legal mechanisms are neatly in place for compromises that prioritize kids. In my opinion, we need to be very careful about saying anybody has the right to parent until we've looked first at Veronica's needs and right to be parented in a way that meets those needs. This is not a property dispute, this is a life — dynamic, unique, and living through the developmental years that will frame her whole future. A judge who has that in mind will have a great framework to move forward from.

What's Next for Children and the Indian Child Welfare Act….

Read the rest of Megan’s interview at the JURIST.

I have discussed the importance of adoption to the best interests of the child in a piece entitled Tracing the Foundations of the Best Interests of the Child Standard in American Jurisprudence, 10 J. L. Fam. Stud. 337(2008) which can be downloaded at SSRN. As National Adoption Month November is a great time to remember that adoption provides a family for a child in need of one, and is a pivotal part of family restoration.

Regent Law Grad Coordinates Human Trafficking Hearing to Restore Victims

Keila E. Molina, Esq. (Regent Law 2012), is now the Director of Community Relations, Hispanic Affairs, and Anti-Human Trafficking Efforts for U.S. Representative Ed Royce (CA-39), Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee, and is actively working on the issue of human trafficking in Southern California.  She is in charge of coordinating outreach and establishing connections with organizations and law enforcement agencies directly working to combat human trafficking and to assist victims.  During her law school career at Regent, Keila garnered the legal training necessary to follow her passion for child advocacy and her heart for pursuing justice through the legal profession. (To hear more about Keila’s work, sign up for Rep. Royce's newsletter).  The press release here demonstrates the work she is involved with now in the global fight against human trafficking, and offers a link for public participation in the hearing process set for Nov. 1.  

Regent Law graduates are making a real difference. 

Press Release
For Immediate Release October 15, 2013	Media Contact: Audra McGeorge (202) 225-5021
Chairman Royce Announces Southern California Field Hearing on Human Trafficking Continues Push to Combat “grievous offense against human dignity” Washington, D.C. – Today, Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced that on Monday, November 4 he will hold the Committee’s first field hearing to examine international human trafficking and to assess efforts to combat trafficking at the international, Federal, State and local levels.  The hearing, entitled “Regional Perspectives in the Global Fight Against Human Trafficking,” will begin at 10:00 a.m. PT in the Titan Student Union building on the campus of California State University, Fullerton. Chairman Royce said: “Each year, human trafficking victimizes millions around the world; many are women and girls from our own neighborhoods.  This threat is on the rise in communities across southern California.  This field hearing will examine efforts to combat this form of modern-day slavery and provide the Committee an opportunity to assess the efforts of the State Department, law enforcement officials and community organizations to fight the spread of this grievous offense against human dignity.” Note: Earlier this year, Chairman Royce launched a Human Trafficking Congressional Advisory Committee (HTCAC), which is comprised of victims’ rights groups, local and federal law enforcement agencies, and community advocates.  HTCAC meets on a monthly basis to address human trafficking concerns, as well as offer policy recommendations.  In May, Chairman Royce convened a Committee hearing to examine local and private sector initiatives to combat international human trafficking.  What: Hearing: “Regional Perspectives in the Global Fight Against Human Trafficking” Where: California State University, Fullerton Titan Student Union 800 N. State College Blvd. Fullerton, CA 92834 For a campus map and parking information click HERE. When: Monday, November 4, 2013 10:00 a.m. PT Witness List: Panel I The Honorable Luis CdeBaca Ambassador-at-Large Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons U.S. Department of State Panel II The Honorable Tony Rackauckas District Attorney Office of the Orange County District Attorney Ms. Kay Buck Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking *Witnesses may be added. ***Important planning note for press covering hearing:  The hearing will be webcast at www.foreignaffairs.house.gov.  Members of the media must RSVP by Friday, November 1 at 12 p.m. to Audra McGeorge at audra.mcgeorge@mail.house.gov to receive credentials to cover the hearing from the press viewing area. Following the hearing, there will be a media availability to discuss human trafficking. ###
Connect with the Committee ------------------------------ https://foreignaffairs.house.gov

Family Restoration and Advance Directives in Protocal Medical Care

Advance Directives afford individuals an important opportunity to make their wishes regarding end of life decisions known to medical professionals, courts, and family members.  These documents, signed by the creating party, can confer decisions regarding pain management, hospitalization, and resuscitation decisions.

These decisions are important for individuals and families to understand.

Recent Regent Law Graduate, Colby Barron Hein, researched these concerns under Texas law for her article and presentation entitled "Death Panels in Texas?  An Examination of the Texas Advanced Directives Act." She writes about the case of one individual named S.M., and her family's fight for her life:

For several weeks, S.M. had been complaining of severe headaches to her parents.  S.M. was desperate for relief from the pain, so her parents took her to the emergency room to ensure there were no serious problems.  The doctors performed a brain scan and discovered she had severe sinusitis, which had leaked into the brain and caused an abscess.  To drain the abscess, the doctors performed a routine craniotomy.   S.M. was expected to fully recover in a matter of weeks.  However, the day after the surgery S.M. felt nauseous and complained of severe pain.  Nurses gave her morphine, but it failed to alleviate the pain.  S.M. begged for help and started vomiting.  Frantically tearing at the I.V. and the post-surgical wrappings on her head, the nurses strapped her arms with restraints and administered another dose of morphine.  Without warning, S.M.’s body seized up, her back arched, she gasped, and then collapsed onto the bed.  She flat-lined.

 The hospital staff revived S.M., but the swelling pressure in her head necessitated an emergency brain surgery.  After the second surgery, S.M.’s parents were told that their daughter had two strokes and was in a coma that the doctors believed would be permanent.  Within days of the second surgery, the hospital staff began discussing S.M.’s “options” with her parents.  Doctors and nurses began pressuring S.M.’s parents to withhold treatment, food, and water, which would starve S.M. to death.  When her parents refused to withdraw life-sustaining treatment (LST), the hospital repeatedly harassed them to terminate care and “did everything they could to end . . . [S.M.]’s life  . . . .”  The hospital eventually threatened to convene the ethics committee, which under Texas law can withdraw LST from a patient over the objections of the patient or the patient’s surrogate decision maker.  Fortunately for S.M., an experienced attorney intervened and transferred S.M. to another hospital willing to provide medical care.  S.M. will never be able to take care of herself again; but on the other hand, she is still alive.

S.M.’s parents requested medical treatments that would have permitted S.M. to leave the hospital and be cared for at home, but the doctor’s refused alleged that the doctors refused to provide the treatments because the doctors felt S.M. “wouldn’t have a high quality of life.”  The doctors and nurses believed it was futile to provide S.M. with additional medical treatment, for the appropriate course of action was to “pull the plug.”  When a physician views medical treatment as medically inappropriate and refuses to provide the additional care in spite of the express wishes of the patient or surrogate decision maker, this situation is called a futility dispute.  When a doctor refuses to provide “futile” treatment that conflicts with the standard of care, the doctor must determine the appropriate course of action: transferring the patient to another physician, continuing the futile treatment, or unilaterally removing the treatment from the patient.  Most jurisdictions accept transfer as an appropriate resolution to futility disputes, but, if no providers are willing to accept the patient, the physician can either unilaterally withdraw the treatment or be forced by a court to continue providing LST.   In every single state but Texas, the law prohibits healthcare providers from unilaterally overriding a patient or surrogate’s wishes to continue LST.  The Texas Advance Directives Act (TADA) permits doctors to refer futility disputes to a hospital’s ethics or medical committee, which can choose to deny or withhold wanted medical treatment—including LST—over the express wishes of the patient or surrogate.

When S.M.’s parents discovered the ethics committee had the statutory authority to withdraw LST from their daughter, they were shocked.  S.M.’s case was never officially referred to the ethics committee,  but her story is one in a series of cases raising serious ethical and constitutional issues regarding the broad powers given by the TADA to review committees.  Opponents of the law—ranging from the liberal ACLU to conservative right-to-life groups—claim it gives medical providers too much power and encroaches on patient autonomy.  Proponents—primarily those working in health care—argue the TADA is essential to protect physicians when medical standards indicate treatment is inappropriate and emotional relatives cannot objectively determine the best interest of the patient.  The American Medical Association recommended an approach based on due process as the best method for balancing patient and physician rights in futility disputes.  Texas sought to incorporate a process-based approach to futility determinations in the TADA, but the law does not accurately reflect a true due-process model.

Hein's article is an attempt to reconcile advocates and opponents of the TADA by analyzing the existing law and proposing amendments that would incorporate a true process-based method. She discusses the history of futility disputes, different definitions of futility, and clarifies which definition should be adopted. Her work also describes the genesis of the Texas Advance Directives Act and explains the procedures for futility disputes set forth under the TADA, and lays out the flaws of the TADA and submits proposals to alter and improve the current law. Read the entire article here.

An understanding of the law surrounding the use and application of advance directives is necessary for strong families and a nation's attempts toward family restoration.

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.