Integrating Evaluations in Practice: Lessons Learned from Representing Survivors of CSEC within a Treatment Court Model—Materials
This content is only available to members.
Strogner v. California: NACC joined this amicus brief in support of extending California’s statute of limitations for certain child sexual abuse offenses.
In the Matter of Ethan, Emily, Tarah, and Titus Bratcher: NACC filed an amicus brief arguing that a parent’s fundamental liberty interest in the custody of their children cannot be lawfully infringed without a judicial finding of unfitness.
In the Matter of David and Joshua Moore: NACC filed an amicus brief contending that the mother’s procedural due process rights were violated when her children were removed from her custody without an adjudication on her fitness.
Sam and Tony M. v. Carcieri: In this amicus brief, NACC argued that foster youth are entitled to have an individual other than their GAL to sue as their representative in a federal class action lawsuit.
Alan and Sheryl Sidman v. Michael and Renee Sidman: NACC joined an amicus brief arguing that after an extended guardianship and infrequent parental contact, the burden shifts to the parents to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that termination of the guardianship to which they had consented, would be in the child’s best interests.
People v. Gabriesheski: NACC filed an amicus brief urging the Colorado Supreme Court to find that conversations between a GAL and a child client in dependency proceedings are confidential communications protected by attorney-client privilege.
People v. McBride: NACC filed an amicus brief supporting a Michigan father’s right to appointed counsel at a TPR hearing and contending that the failure to do so was structural error.
Khaled AF Al Odah v. United States: NACC joined an amicus brief arguing that military commissions convened pursuant to the Military Commission Act lacked jurisdiction over juveniles.
Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana: NACC filed an amicus brief explaining why the “reasonable person” standard for defining “testimonial” statements under the Confrontation Clause is flawed.
