Vol 38 · No 07 September 2016

The NACC envisions a justice system that protects the rights of children by ensuring their voices are heard through the

assistance of well-trained, well-resourced, independent lawyers.

NACC

page 1The Guardian is a publication of the National Association of Counsel for Children © 2016 NACC www.NACCchildlaw.org

with disabilities being placed and served in the

community and with family, we increase the odds

that they will successfully transition to adulthood.

t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n :Interagency Planning Meetings

As part of an overall effort to improve outcomes for

youth with disabilities in Philadelphia’s child welfare

system, Juvenile Law Center partnered with the

local child welfare agency and behavioral health

managed care agency to host monthly planning

meetings for individual youth with disabilities. At

each meeting, an interagency team came together

to address barriers to a successful transition to

adulthood for the youth. The majority of the youth

we worked with were either in congregate care

placements or had spent significant time in them

previously, and returning the youth to a family-

based or community environment was often a key

objective of the meeting. These meetings sought to

reduce reliance on congregate care by:

t h e i s s u e :Youth with Disabilities are Overrepresented in Congregate Care

A significant percentage of the foster youth who

spend long periods of time in congregate care have

some type of disability or special health care need.

Some of these youth remain in congregate care

because they are wrongly presumed to be unable

to thrive in a family-based setting. Others require

significant care coordination to ensure community-

based services are in place, which can delay step-

downs, especially when there are too few family-

based placement options available for youth with

complex health needs. Still other youth languish in

group placements without anyone asking the ques-

tion of whether they are ready for a step-down.

Virtually all of these youth would do better in fami-

lies, even those with significant physical or devel-

opmental impairments, yet too often they remain

in congregate care for months or years on end. By

making a focused effort to reduce barriers to youth

Interagency Planning Meetings for Youth with Disabilities

a b o u t t h e a u t h o r :

Karen U. Lindell, Esq., Skadden Fellow, Juvenile Law Center

Karen joined Juvenile Law

Center in October 2014 as

a Skadden Fellow, and her

work focuses on developing legal strategies to

improve outcomes for older youth with disabili-

ties as they transition out of the child welfare and

juvenile justice systems. Before coming to Juvenile

Law Center, Karen served as a law clerk to the

Honorable Kent A. Jordan of the Third Circuit

Court of Appeals and to the Honorable Eduardo

C. Robreno of the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Karen gradu-

ated from Vanderbilt University Law School in 2012,

and she has her undergraduate degree from the

University of Georgia.

f o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n :

Please contact Karen U. Lindell at Juvenile Law

Center for more information on interagency planning

meetings and services for youth with disabilities.

klindell@jlc.org (215) 625-0551 ext. 137

the Guardian September 2016 www.NACCchildlaw.orgVol 38 · No 07

page 2NACC

• Providing a forum for questioning whether a

youth needed to remain in an institutional place-

ment. In many cases, just asking the question

was a vital first step to reexamining the appropri-

ateness of a placement.

• Identifying barriers to family-based placements

by thinking holistically about the youth’s needs,

including education and employment issues,

behavioral health challenges, and the need for

supportive adults and mentors; and

• Bringing multiple city agencies together to

address those barriers, identify possible supports,

and provide the care coordination needed to get

services in place.

o u r m o d e l :Key Components of Effective Planning Meetings

Through Juvenile Law Center’s decade of experi-

ence facilitating these planning meetings, we have

identified several key components to effective plan-

ning meetings:

• Bring the right people and systems together.

By including the youth and all the key members

of her team (child advocate, caseworkers,

psychiatrists, supportive adults, etc.), as well as

high level personnel from all the relevant agen-

cies (including the child welfare agency, school

district, behavioral health, intellectual disability

services, and advocacy organizations), you can

ensure that the youth’s needs are fully under-

stood and appropriate services in both the child

and adult-serving systems are identified.

• Gather information ahead of the meeting. We

tried to get all relevant information about the

youth’s situation in advance, so that the conver-

sation during the meeting could focus on next

steps. We asked team members to share the

youth’s IEP, recent evaluations, case plan, transi-

tion plan, and any other relevant information.

• Discuss all aspects of the youth’s situation. It’s

easy to focus just on placement or housing when

that is the most pressing issue, but there are

often less obvious problems that might affect the

success of a family-based placement. We made

sure that each meeting covered employment,

education, health, and supportive connections, in

addition to placement/housing.

• Put together a detailed action plan. After each

meeting, we wrote an “action plan” to connect

the youth with the services and supports needed

for a successful transition out of the child welfare

system and into the community. The plan

included a summary of the meeting, the contact

information for each of the team members, and

a list of concrete action items to be completed

after the meeting. Each action item had a specific

team member assigned to it, and a date by which

it needed to be completed.

Additional Resources

Here are some additional resources to help foster

youth with disabilities prepare for adulthood:

I N T H I S I S S U E :

• Transition Planning for Youth with Disabilities

from the Child Welfare System to Adulthood

(Juvenile Law Center, 2nd ed., 2015), and other

transition planning tools, available at http://jlc.

org/current-initiatives/transition-adulthood/older-

youth-disabilities.

• Imagine Different… Achieve Different! A Workbook

for Facilitators (PEAL Center and EveryChild, Inc.

2013), http://www.imaginedifferent.org/ .

• Every Kid Needs a Family (Annie E. Casey

Foundation, May 2015), http://www.aecf.org/

resources/every-kid-needs-a-family/ .

» Interagency from previous page

Interagency Planning Meetings for Youth with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Executive Director’s Message : Next Year, New Orleans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Membership Matters : Featured Member : Karen Langsley, JD, CWLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

As the Pendulum Swings: Child Welfare Roles and Specialization Over the Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

It’s Here! #RedBook3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Amicus Curiae : Brief Summary – Right to Counsel for Children in Dependency Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Child Welfare Law Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2016 Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

What the #Hack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Thanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

National Association of Counsel for Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

the Guardian September 2016 www.NACCchildlaw.orgVol 38 · No 07

page 3NACC

Featured Member : Karen Langsley, JD, CWLS

Membership Mattersby Sara Whalen, NACC Membership Director

Featured Member

Karen Langsley, JD, CWLSOriginally from California, Karen is one of the first 11 attorneys to be certified

in Texas as a Child Welfare Law Specialist. Currently Vice-Chair of the Texas State Bar Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect, she had worked for several years to bring the NACC certification to Texas and was thrilled when NACC’s annual conference occurred in Austin. She is extremely proud to have served as a court-appointed family attorney for several Child Welfare “cluster courts” throughout Central Texas from 2004 until this year, when she relocated to the Denver area. Completely committed to improving all family law courts for children — in govern-mental and private custody cases — Karen has advocated both through testifying at legislative committees and through writing and teaching CLEs and trial skills trainings. As part of her goal to raise the proficiency level of attorneys who represent children, Karen has served as the Course Director for the Child Welfare Track of the Texas Bar CLE

Thank you to all our members, for your continued support of NACC!

Advanced Family Law conference since 2012. She was recognized in 2013 by the Travis County Women Lawyers with its Pathfinders Award, and by the Texas State Bar LGBT Law Section in 2016 with its Judge Norman W. Black award. Karen is happy to have the opportunity to work more directly with NACC in her recent move, and honored to be supported in her effort by the superb law firm of Gutterman Griffiths, PC, where she is of counsel. Karen and her wife, Jill, are the proud parents of Zach (University of Denver, 2014) and Kim (University of Arkansas, 2016).

Profile Update ReminderIf you haven’t recently done so, please check your NACC membership profile and update it with your latest information and preferences. Both NACC members and website visitors search our directory looking for experts and networking opportunities.

Need Help?Forgot your username or password? It happens! Contact us at Membership@NACCchildlaw.org and we can assist you personally.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE

Next Year, Thanks to the 595 attorneys, judges, and other professionals that made our 39th National Child Welfare, Juvenile

and Family Law Conference a huge success. We produce the largest annual conference of its kind, and that’s because of the contributions of NACC members. You took the challenge of our PowerPoint ‘ban’ and created conference sessions that were rich in content but also lively and interactive in their form. You also covered an impressively wide range of issues, from services to LTBTQ populations to reducing reliance on congregate care to implementation of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Conference planning is a continuous quality improvement process, and so we’ve already started working on next year, again with your help. We learn best when we learn directly from you, so please complete this survey on the 2016 conference in Philly. Tell us what was most valuable and what you’d like changed or even transformed. As of September 1, you’ll also be able to register in advance (and save a few dollars) for our 40th annual conference in New Orleans (yes, we’re in a great hotel near the French Quarter).

It’s also not too early to start thinking about what you’d like to present and facilitate for next year’s conference. The best ideas come from the membership, and we’re always looking for new approaches to old challenges. Every year, we seek content on juvenile justice, parent, and agency representation, in addition to sessions on representation for children and youth. Members also call for more practical, skill-based sessions that address the question, “How can I be a better lawyer for my clients when I return from the conference to my daily practice?” Once abstract submissions open October 1, all of us at NACC are looking forward to hearing your answers!

Kendall Marlowe Executive Director

the Guardian September 2016 www.NACCchildlaw.orgVol 38 · No 07

page 4NACC

My pediatrician father always talked about the swinging pendulum. After 40 years I see some interesting twists in our child welfare system. In 1976, we, the lawyers, had no particular exper-tise in child welfare. The CPS workers were the experts. Most in my jurisdiction had MSW degrees, life experience, children, and common sense. They were actual social workers. The lawyers were mostly young, passing through, and just trying to get some case and trial expe-rience. We didn’t stay in the field long enough to know the medium- and long-term conse-quences of our interventions. We saw a bad situation, advocated the removal of the child to a safe foster home, and felt we had done a good thing. We thought we were heroes.

As some of us stayed in the field longer, we saw the ramifications of our interventions. We saw kids cut off from everything and everyone that mattered. We saw parents frustrated, removed from ongoing involvement in their children’s lives, and for some, resolved to just giving up and moving on to have other chil-dren, who may then be removed and placed in the system. We saw older kids placed in group homes, where their acts of frustration and rage, such as breaking things, were reported to the police, and they entered the juvenile justice system. We saw kids aging out of foster care with few, if any, resources of any kind. Most returned to the families from whom they

had been removed, many became homeless, and

many went to jail. Our smug satisfaction at being

do-gooders wasn’t so satisfying anymore.

Over the past 40 years a lot has changed. Federal

laws and funding, trauma-informed best practices,

seemingly endless budget cuts, poverty-related

neglect and abuse, rampant substance abuse,

dismantling of mental health services… I could go

on with all the challenges, good and bad.

I remember sitting at an NACC board meeting

discussing whether we could create a specialization

in child welfare law. We could build it, but would

anybody come? I am a certified specialist in family

law, which gives me some credibility and ability

to charge more for my services, obtained mostly

by paying clients. But child welfare lawyers were

only rarely privately retained. We either worked

as agency attorneys, in public defenders offices,

had court contracts, or were expected to practice

our “specialty” entirely or functionally pro bono.

HHS gave us a grant, and we created a specialty,

endorsed by the ABA, hoping that someone would

apply. I was hired to write “the Red Book”, which

was ultimately a much better conceived multi-

author work, and create a training curriculum. The

NACC hoped that people beyond the 3 pilot states

would pay to get a certification, which didn’t neces-

sarily have any ability to help us attract clients who

would pay for our expertise.

As the Pendulum Swings: Child Welfare Roles and Specialization Over the Years

To my surprise, pride, and joy, people did come, and state AOCs were willing to put some money behind the program to facilitate attorneys becoming certified child welfare law specialists. I now have had clients hire me because I had the CWLS credential. Juvenile judges have come to see the benefits of having trained, experienced child welfare lawyers, who can help make the system more responsive and achieve better outcomes in individual cases. Don Duquette’s QIC program has shown that we can make a positive difference when we know what we’re doing. Professor Jean Koh Peters has challenged us with an aspirational model that should make

by Ann Haralambie, JD, CWLS Ann M. Haralambie is

a Child Welfare Law

Specialist, Certified

Family Law Specialist,

and a Martindale-Hubbell AV® Preeminent™

rated attorney in private practice in Tucson,

Arizona since 1977. Her practice is restricted to

family and (non-delinquency) juvenile cases,

with an emphasis on custody and child abuse.

She is a past president and former member

of the Board of the NACC, a principle author

and co-editor of Child Welfare Law and

Practice, “the Red Book,” and the author of

many articles, chapters, and books, including

the The Child’s Attorney and the annually

updated 3-volume West treatise, Handling

Child Custody, Abuse, and Adoption Cases.

She has been an NACC member since 1979.

the Guardian September 2016 www.NACCchildlaw.orgVol 38 · No 07

page 5NACC

It’s Here! #RedBook3

us all think very hard about what we are doing. The ABA Standards and Model Act have shown us that we need to be real lawyers, who do what all lawyers do and then some. The “Red Book” has gotten bigger and better in each of its three editions. We have turned attention on those whom Professor Marty Guggenheim has called “legal orphans” and have given greater focus to youth involvement and empowerment in reforming our state child welfare systems.

But I started out by talking about my father’s swinging pendulum, and I return to my own pendulum. I am distressed to see that in the 40 years of my experience, the reverse has occurred with CPS workers, now mostly caseworkers, not social workers. Many are in their 20s, as I was as a young lawyer, have no children, no relevant life experience, not enough education and training in the field. As I lacked wisdom in the 1970s, many of these caseworkers lack wisdom now. And wisdom is what is most assuredly needed, especially as caseloads have exploded and resources have shrunk. It is no wonder that people who did not pursue a specific education because their heart was in child welfare don’t stay long in a job that doesn’t pay well and makes unreasonable time, emotional, and financial demands on them.

When I started out, the CPS workers were the experts, and the lawyers were only tran-sient participants in the child welfare field. Now it is the CPS workers who often are the transient participants and the lawyers who are the experts who obtained the training because their hearts were in it. So it is up to us–the lawyers who represent the children, the parents, and the agencies, and the CWLS judges–to use our expertise in individual cases and systemically to improve the outcomes for

children and families. We have state and federal

laws that can help us. We have trauma-informed

best practices and evidence-based services. We

know more about what works and what doesn’t.

We know more about the damage done to children

from improvident removals.

It has been said that budgets are moral documents.

In this election season, we need to use our exper-

tise and our voices to bring to our state legislative

candidates the seldom discussed issue of our child

welfare system, including the need for adequate funding, for home-based resources, for well-trained and well-paid CPS workers who have reasonable caseloads and available resources. How about creating a scorecard to see where our candidates stand on these issues? “Family values” are always a topic in an election year. Let’s use 2016 to focus not only on the national election, but also on what our state and local officials can and should do for the families and children we serve.

As the Pendulum Swings: Child Welfare Roles and Specialization Over the Years

CHILD WELFARE LAW and PRACTICE: Representing Children, Parents, and State Agencies in Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Cases 3RD EDITION

Child welfare law is complex and ever-changing. The practice of representing children, parents, and agencies in dependency cases requires extensive knowledge and skill in both legal and non-legal subjects. This third edition of Child Welfare Law and Practice (“The Red Book”) captures the wide body of information and expertise that define child welfare law as a specialized field, from legal standards in federal law to techniques for interviewing children to innovations in serving older youth.

The 35 chapters in this edition include extensive updates and revisions from the second edition, including new chapters on issues such as coping with secondary trauma and engaging in systemic advocacy for policy change. The National Association of Counsel for Children (NACC) has certified dependency attorneys and judges as Child Welfare Law Specialists (CWLS) since 2006. This treatise serves readers as a practice reference, a training manual, and a study guide for the CWLS certification exam.

Order now! NACC Members Non-Members

Soft Cover $ 79 $ 99

Hard Cover $ 119 $ 149

Order online www.bradfordpublishing.com

By phone 1-800-446-2831

Or via email customerservice@bradfordpublishing.com

B P C.

the Guardian September 2016 www.NACCchildlaw.orgVol 38 · No 07

page 6NACC

Amicus Curiae

Brief Summary – Right to Counsel for Children in Dependency ProceedingsThe National Association of Counsel for Children,

along with Children’s Rights, Inc., Juvenile Law

Center, Professor Michael J. Dale of the Nova

Southeastern University Law Center Children and

Families Clinic, First Star Institute, and Lawyers for

Children, filed an amicus curiae brief regarding

the case In re the Dependency of S.K.P. before the

Court of Appeals of the State of Washington.1 The

brief argues that in order to ensure fair and effec-

tive dependency proceedings, children should be

provided counsel who can advocate on their behalf

with both loyalty and confidentiality.2 The brief

further urges the court to consider that without the

assistance of counsel, children’s legal rights cannot

be fully protected. Ultimately, the brief seeks to

ensure enforcement of a child’s right to counsel.3

In support of Appellant’s argument, the brief argues

that the Federal and state Constitutions mandate

counsel for youth in dependency proceedings. The

brief focuses on the actual and substantial risks that

these proceedings pose to a child’s physical liberty,

as well as national scholarship and trends in favor

1. Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Counsel for Children, In the Dependency of S.K.P., Minor Child (2016) (No. 48299-1-II).

2. Id. at 6.

3. Id.

Summary by Jerin Damo,NACC Legal Intern

Jerin is a third-year law student

at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

His focus is on child advocacy and international

human rights law. Jerin has previous experience

as an intern with NACC and the Colorado Office

of the Child’s Representative. In his free time,

Jerin enjoys hiking, fishing, and spending time

with his dog, Stella.

of recognizing children’s constitutional rights to independent legal counsel in dependency matters.4

The brief first argues that a child’s physical liberty interests are always at stake in dependency proceedings.5 Individual physical liberty interests are fundamental in our constitutional system, and it is well established that children share these inter-ests. It then follows that children have an interest in avoiding the state’s unnecessary intrusion on their physical liberty.6 Dependency proceedings directly impact the child’s physical liberty because the state may involuntarily remove a child from her home and place her without her consent.7 The brief points out that national policy makers, as well as courts, recognize that children’s physical liberty interests are impacted by dependency proceed-ings.8 Of the numerous well-recognized risks to children in such proceedings, the brief highlights maltreatment, institutionalization, and involuntary medication to illustrate the important physical liberty interests of children in state custody.9

The brief maintains that the child’s liberty inter-ests are at stake with every change in custodial circumstances. The Washington Supreme Court has explicitly acknowledged that a child’s physical

4. Id. at 7.

5. Id. at 3.

6. In re Dependency of MSR, 174 Wn. 2d 1, 16 (2012) (en banc) (hereinafter MSR); see also Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 574-75 (1975) (concluding that children’s liberty interests must be protected by due process); In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 36 (1967) (holding that potential restraint of child’s physical liberty entitles him to due process protections); Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977) (holding that school children have physical liberty interest in freedom from wrongful or excessive corporal punishment).

7. Ingraham, 430 U.S. at 673-74 (providing that “the contours of this historic liberty interest ... always have been thought to encompass freedom from bodily restraint and punishment”); see also Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) (noting that liberty “denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right… to enjoy those privileges long recognized… as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men”).

8. Brief of Amicus Curiae, supra at 5.

9. Id. at 6.

liberty interests are impacted in dependency proceedings,10 but suggests that “moving a child into or out of [state] custody…is not a direct threat to the child’s physical liberty interest” because as a minor, “the child will be in custody regardless.”11 This argument is misplaced as the State’s parens patriae authority and the special treatment of children cannot be used to justify standards that harm their interests.12 Further, in other contexts, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that individuals in state custody have liberty interests that must be protected during state-initiated changes in custody.13 Like these federal prison cases, in a dependency action, the state may seek to change the kind and type of

10. MSR, 174 Wn.2d at 16.

11. Id. at 22-23.

12. Brief of Amicus Curiae, supra at 11.

13. Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980)(holding that the involuntary transfer of state prisoner to mental hospital implicates a liberty interest, and those with diminished capacity have “a greater need for assistance [of counsel] in exer-cising their rights; Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973)(same with regard to revocation of probation); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972)(providing that revocation of parole impacts liberty interests); see also Minson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 224 (2005) recognizing that (assignment to SuperMax prison, with attendant loss of parole eligibility and with only annual status review, constitutes an “atypical and significant hardship that impacts prisoner’s liberty interests).

CA

AK

NVCO

ORID

IAMI

TNAR

NCVAUT

NE

KS

OK

Certi�cation Open

IL WV

MD

ME

MO KY

MT

WY

WA

WI

NDMN

IN

SC

FL

OHPA

SD

NMAZ

TX

NHMA

HI

RI

GAMSLA

AL

NY

VT

DENJ

DC

CT

Certi�cation Not Yet Open

Certi�cation Unavailable

the Guardian September 2016 www.NACCchildlaw.orgVol 38 · No 07

page 7NACC

custodial situation in which a child is living, and

may only do so in particular circumstances.14 The

brief advocates that the Court should recognize

that a child in a dependency proceeding has at

least the same fundamental liberty interest as a

convicted felon facing involuntary changes to the

circumstances of his state custody.15

Secondly, the brief argues that independent legal

counsel is necessary to help guard against poten-

tial harm and to protect children’s interests in

dependency proceedings.16 National experts agree

that children in dependency matters require legal

counsel.17 The brief refers to the fact that depen-

dency proceedings are complex legal processes

that may involve expert medical testimony, impli-

cate numerous laws, and require an understanding

of service delivery systems.18 In Washington, the

state relies on counsel to represent its interests and

parents have also been determined to be in need

of counsel in these proceedings.19 This means the

child is the only party without a complete statutory

right to counsel.20 According to the brief, this leaves

“the most vulnerable” party “powerless and voice-

less” in the courtroom.21

14. Brief of Amicus Curiae, supra at 13.

15. Id. (citing Taylor ex rel. Walker v. Ledbetter, 818 F.2d 791, 797 (11th Cir. 1987) (en banc) (“[A] child involuntarily placed in a foster home is in a situation so analogous to a prisoner in a penal institution and a child confined in a mental health facility that the foster child may bring a § 1983 action for violation of fourteenth amendment.”)).

16. Id.

17. Id.

18. Donald N. Duquette & Ann M. Haralambie, Child Welfare Law and Practice: Representing Children, Parents, and State Agencies in Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Cases, 166-67 (2nd ed. 2010).

19. In re Myricks’ Welfare, 85 Wn.2d 252, 255 (1975) (en banc); see also RCW § 13.34.090 (codifying this requirement).

20. Brief of Amicus Curiae, supra at 14 (citing In re Parentage of L.B., 155 Wn.2d at 712 n.29.

21. Id. at 14. (quoting In re Parentage of L.B., 155 Wn.2d at 712 n.29).

The brief also points out that the majority of states

require independent legal representation in order

for children’s interests to be adequately repre-

sented in dependency proceedings.22 Further, the

United States Supreme Court has long recognized

that children need counsel to effectively navigate

complex legal proceedings,23 and at least thirty-one

states and Washington D.C. provide an automatic

right to legal counsel for children in dependency

cases.24 The State of Washington has the same

duties to its children that other states have and

the Court should consider national trends when

deciding the issue in this case.25

In re the Dependency of S.K.P. involves the issue

of whether a child has a right to counsel in depen-

dency and neglect proceedings. The NACC, along

with several other Amici, filed an amicus curiae

brief before the Court of Appeals of the State of

Washington, arguing that in order to ensure fair

and effective dependency proceedings, children

should be provided counsel who can advocate

on their behalf. The brief urges the Court to hold

that all dependency proceedings directly impact

every child’s liberty interests and that these inter-

ests require the appointment of legal counsel in

all cases.26

22. Id. at 18.

23. In re Gault, 387 U.S. at 38 n.65 (given that even “[t]he most informal and well-intentioned of judicial proceedings are technical; few adults without legal training can influence or even understand them; certainly children cannot.”) (holding - children have a due process right to counsel in delinquency proceedings)

24. These include Alabama; Arkansas; Colorado; Connecticut; Georgia; Iowa; Kansas; Kentucky; Louisiana; Maryland; Massachusetts; Michigan; Mississippi; Missouri; Nebraska; New Jersey; New Mexico; New York; North Carolina; Ohio; Oklahoma; Pennsylvania; Rhode Island; South Dakota; Tennessee; Texas; Utah; Vermont; Virginia; West Virginia; and Wyoming. The District of Columbia also requires representation for children in dependency proceedings.

25. Brief of Amicus Curiae, supra at 19.

26. Id.

» Amicus from previous page

Congratulations to these new CWLS!

Mark Semien, JD, CWLS Mental Health Advocacy/ Child Advocacy Program Baton Rouge, LA

Cynthia Widitora, JD, CWLS Children’s Law Center of California Monterey Park, CA

Kimberly Wong, JD, CWLS Legal Aid Society, Juvenile Rights Division Jamaica, NY

Child Welfare Law Certification

by Daniel Trujillo, Certification Director

the Guardian September 2016 www.NACCchildlaw.orgVol 38 · No 07

page 8NACC

2016 Conference

What the #Hack

Thanks

What the #HACK?by D. Andrew Yost, JD, MA Senior Staff Attorney

This year at the NACC Conference we tried some-thing new. We treated the

conference as a laboratory space to innovate new solutions to old problems. We banned PowerPoint, selected cutting-edge presenters, and encouraged facilitators to try new things and engage their peers in fresh, creative ways. We hosted our first hackathon.

What’s a hackathon? Glad you asked. A hack-athon is the tech industry’s model for solving complex problems that seem to plague a system. Basically, you get a bunch of subject matter experts, end-users, and tech developers in one room, close the door, give them a day or two, and see what they come up with. You can hack a piece of software or program. You can hack a computer or a server. You can hack just about anything. At the NACC Conference we invited groups to work on thorny problems in child welfare.

One group prototyped an app to promote quality legal representation for children by allowing

youth to rate and review attorneys and hire them from a pool of dependency lawyers in their jurisdiction – all from their phone. Another group developed a bench card to ensure judges hear children first before any other party gets to speak. A third group designed a pre-loaded phone with apps that bring together all in one place a youth’s case and important documents like medical records, court information, professional contacts, and even life goals. This is exciting stuff.

So what next? The NACC is committed to moving these projects forward through partnerships with the Children’s Bureau and Baker & McKenzie. There’s still work to be done but we’re off and running. Stay tuned for more hackathons. Several child welfare organizations are hip to the model and see what it can do. Hackathons can’t solve everything. They’re not designed to. But they are a great tool for tackling discreet problems that have been lurking around for quite a while. The NACC is onboard and believes these kinds of innovative practices might hold the key to sustainable change. These are exciting times.

Thanks to all who joined us in Philadelphia! We hadn’t been to Philly since 1992 when we had just 204 attendees (including faculty). We nearly tripled that number this year! We continue to grow and become stronger because you return year after year. We have a great program that introduces new (or new to NACC) practitioners to an active member-ship, certified attorneys, and the resources they need most to be on top of their game.

A few conference close out items:

• CLE certificates can be found here and here.

• Pre-approved certificates for CA, CO, FL, and PA.

• Uniform certificate for all other jurisdictions. Submit the certificate with the conference program to obtain credit for your attendance.

• Evaluation — tell us how we did and what could make an even better conference for you in New Orleans.

• Conference Handouts are also available.

Early Registration for New Orleans (August 2017) is now open with a special discount for those that attended Philadelphia! Abstracts will open October 1.

Thank you again and…

2016Conference

Photo credit : Rebecca Harkness

the Guardian September 2016Vol 38 · No 07

page 9NACC www.NACCchildlaw.org

Join Us!

Like Us!

Follow Us!

Read Us!

Engage with Us!

P R E S I D E N T

H.D. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D., ABPPDiplomate in Forensic Psychology · CHARLOTTE, NC

V I C E P R E S I D E N T

Leslie Starr Heimov, JD, CWLSExecutive Director · Children’s Law Center of California · MONTEREY PARK, CA

T R E A S U R E R

Candi M. Mayes, JD, CWLSCEO & Executive Director · Dependency Legal Group of San Diego · SAN DIEGO, CA

S E C R E T A R Y

Jane Okrasinski, JDExecutive Director · Georgia Association of Counsel for Children · ATHENS, GA

P A S T P R E S I D E N T

Gerard Glynn, MS, JD / LLMChief Legal Officer · Community Based Care of Central Florida · ORLANDO, FL

M E M B E R S

Candace J. Barr, JD, CWLSCAP Attorney · Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada · LAS VEGAS, NV

Janet L. Bledsoe, JD, LLMAssistant Director, Attorney Ad Litem Program · Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts · LITTLE ROCK, AR

Robert Fellmeth, JDExecutive Director / Professor · University of San Diego Law School, Children’s Advocacy Institute · SAN DIEGO, CA

Joseph D. Gunn III, MDAssociate Professor of Pediatrics · Washington University School of Medicine · ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI

Stephanie Smith Ledesma, JD, CWLS, MAAssistant Professor / Director of Experiential Learning Programs · TSU/Thurgood Marshall School of Law · SUGAR LAND, TEXAS

Hon. Wille J. Lovett, Jr., CWLSJudge · Fulton County Juvenile Court · ATLANTA, GA

Hon. Erik S. PitchalJudge · Bronx Family Court · BRONX, NY

Henry J. Plum, JDAttorney & Consultant · WAUWATOSA, WI

Robert Schwartz, JDExecutive Director Emeritus · Juvenile Law Center · PHILADELPHIA, PA

Janet G. Sherwood, JD, CWLSAttorney at Law · Law Offices of Janet G. Sherwood · CORTE MADERA, CA

John H. Stuemky, MDSection Chief, Pediatric Emergency Medicine · Children’s Hospital at OU Medical Center · OKLAHOMA CITY, OK

Sonia C. VelazquezExecutive Director · ECLT Foundation · GENEVA, SWITZERLAND

Hon. Judith Waksberg, JDJudge · Kings County Family Court · BROOKLYN, NY

NACC Staff

Kendall Marlowe, JD, MAExecutive DirectorKendall.Marlowe@ChildrensColorado.org

D. Andrew Yost, JD, MASenior Staff AttorneyD.Andrew.Yost@ChildrensColorado.org

Brooke Silverthorn, JD, CWLSStaff AttorneyBrooke.Silverthorn@ChildrensColorado.org

Betsy Fordyce, JD, CWLSStaff AttorneyElizabeth.Fordyce@ChildrensColorado.org

Daniel TrujilloCertification DirectorDaniel.Trujillo@ChildrensColorado.org

Sara WhalenMembership DirectorSara.Whalen@ChildrensColorado.org

Carolyn MoershelBusiness Manager Carolyn.Moershel@ChildrensColorado.org

Amanda ButlerAdministrative & Programs CoordinatorAmanda.Butler@ChildrensColorado.org

Ginger BurtonCertification AdministratorGinger.Burton@ChildrensColorado.org

NACC Board of Directors

NACC Mission As a multidisciplinary membership organization, we work to strengthen legal advocacy for children and families by:

• Ensuring that children and families are provided with well resourced, high quality legal advocates when their rights are at stake

• Implementing best practices by providing certification, training, education, and technical assistance to promote specialized high quality legal advocacy

• Advancing systemic improvement in child-serving agencies, institutions and court systems

• Promoting a safe and nurturing childhood through legal and policy advocacy for the rights and interests of children and families

National Association of Counsel for Children

The Guardian is an NACC publication. Amanda Butler, Managing Editor Kendall Marlowe, Editor

National Association of Counsel for Children 13123 East 16th Avenue, B390 Aurora, Colorado 80045

303-864-5320 © 2016 NACC