Surveyed statutes and social science literature in a lawsuit involving the interpretation of the “reasonable efforts” to preserve and reunite families provision of the Adoption and Assistance Child Welfare Act.
Supported the position that the state must apply children’s federal insurance benefits under Title II and Title XVI in accordance with the children’s best interests and not to reduce the state’s foster care system’s financial burden.
Argued that the PA Juvenile Act authorizes child welfare courts to retain jurisdiction over foster children aged 18 to 21 and to order agencies to continue to serve those youth in a course of treatment or instruction.
Argued that the court should recognize a youth’s constitutional right to a jury trial when he faces public sex offender registration upon conviction of sex offenses under Kansas’ juvenile court statute.
Argued that the use of delinquency adjudications to enhance an adult criminal sentence violates US Supreme Court precedent as well as California's commitment to maintaining a separate juvenile justice system.