World-renowned child psychiatrist Bruce D. Perry, M.D., Ph.D., will speak in Dallas on Tuesday, October 31, 2006, from 12:00-1:30 p.m. at the 10th Anniversary Luncheon Celebration of AVANCE-Dallas in the Pavillion at Belo Mansion, 2101 Ross Ave. Dr. Perry is internationally acclaimed for his clinical research and practice focusing on the long-term effects of neglect and trauma on children. His work has been critical in understanding how childhood experiences, such as neglect and traumatic stress, impact the development of the brain. Click here for full details.

In an opinion that questions the practical applications and constitutionality of newly-enacted Tex. Fam. Code § 263.405(i), the Fort Worth Court of Appeals reluctantly dismissed the appeal of a mother whose parental rights had been terminated. In the Interest of D.A.R., 201 S.W.3d 229 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2006). The mother failed to file a statement of points with her specific challenges to the judgment. The court concluded that the new statute clearly requires a statement of points to be specific and not simply allege that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient. The court noted that this provision was enacted in response to conflicting opinions in the courts of appeal regarding this issue.

The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws published the "Uniform Representation of Children in Abuse, Neglect, and Custody Proceedings Act" in July 2006. The Act sets forth the circumstances under which children are appointed legal representatives in abuse or neglect proceedings, as well as in custody proceedings. A child can be appointed a "best interests attorney," to "protect the child's best interests without being bound by the child's directives or objectives," a "child's attorney," who "provides legal representation for a child," or a "court-appointed advisor," an "individual, not functioning as an attorney, appointed to assist the court in determining the best interests of a child." Under the Uniform Act, the court shall appoint either a child's attorney or a best interests attorney in an abuse or neglect proceeding. The court may consider factors such as the child's age and developmental level, any desire for an attorney expressed by the child, whether the child has expressed objectives in the proceeding, and the value of an independent advocate for the child's best interest. Individual states may choose between different alternatives in determining under what circumstances these three categories of attorneys can be appointed. To read the Act, click here.

The Amarillo Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and rendered acquittal of two women who had used drugs while pregnant and had pled guilty to violation of Texas Health and Safety Code section 481.122(a)(1), which states it is an offense to knowingly deliver a controlled substance to a child. In Ward v. State, 188 S.W.3d 874 (Tx. App.--Amarillo 2006), the court of appeals noted that "deliver" means to transfer possession, actually or constructively. The State had charged Ward with actual transfer, but the evidence showed only that the unborn child had the drug in his bloodstream. The court noted that there was no evidence that "the unborn child actually handled, touched, manipulated or otherwise exercised possession over the drug." Citing precedent that possession of a drug requires the ability to exercise control over it, the court concluded that mere presence of drugs in the blood does not constitute possession and is, therefore, not evidence of "delivery" of a controlled substance. The court did not consider whether the unborn child fit the definition of "child" in the statute, did not consider the issue of constructive transfer, and did not consider the constitutional issues raised. In the unpublished opinion in Smith v. State, No. 07-04-0490-CR, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 2370 (Tex. App.--Amarillo Mar. 29, 2006), the court adopted the same reasoning as in Ward. Both opinions were issued March 29, 2006.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued an opinion on February 28, 2006, in response to a request by the heads of two committees of the Texas Legislature. The request concerned whether Section 107.004(d) of the Texas Family Code requires an attorney ad litem appointed under Chapter 262 or 263 to meet in person with a child over four years of age before each court hearing or if a telephone interview satisfies that provision. Additionally, the request asked if, under Section 107.004(e) of the Texas Family Code, the court has meaningful discretion to determine if an attorney has shown good cause not to comply with subsection (d) because a meeting was not feasible or in the child's best interest. The Attorney General reviewed the meaning of "meet" and determined that the statute requires a face to face meeting with the child prior to each court hearing. Using the common definition of "feasible," the Attorney General stated that a court has discretion to find that good cause is established if the attorney shows that compliance was impracticable, not capable of being done, or was not in the best interest of the child. Click here to see the full text of the opinion.

Now you can link directly to the Department of Family and Protective Services ("DFPS") Child Protective Services (CPS) Handbook and the DFPS Licensing and Policy and Procedures Handbook. Once you select either handbook, choose an item in the left column of the page which appears in order to view the selected section of the handbook. A scroll bar will not appear until you make that selection. Click here to link to the CPS and Licensing Handbooks.

John E.B. Myers, Professor of Law at McGeorge School of Law at the University of the Pacific in Sacramento, California, is willing to take calls from TLC's registered judges and attorneys regarding evidence questions arising in child abuse cases. He will not charge a fee to discuss evidence questions by phone. Professor Myers is the author of several books on evidence and on child abuse and has been cited as an authority in numerous court opinions. TLC greatly appreciates his generous offer. Click here for contact information.

Do you need information on a topic not yet in the TLC database or more extensive information on a topic already here? TLC is now accepting requests for resources and/or research on topics of benefit to practitioners in the child abuse field. For example, based on site users' requests, we are currently compiling information on Osteogenesis Imperfecta, "brittle bone disease," and working to expand our case summaries on hearsay statements of a child. To submit a request, simply click on "Resources" on the blue menu bar above; then click on "Request a Resource," or email TLC at TexasLawyersforChildren@yahoo.com. (Please note that TLC cannot accept requests asking how the law applies to your particular case, and we may not be able to honor all requests.)

In a 7-2 opinion, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the mother of three murdered children could not sue a municipal police department for failure to enforce a restraining order against her ex-husband. Reversing the Tenth Circuit, the Court said that Colorado law does not create a mandatory duty on police to seek out and arrest a person who violates a restraining order. Furthermore, the interest held by the mother in enforcement of the order is not a "property interest" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The Court left open the possibility that a state could craft a law making it mandatory that police arrest violators. Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 162 L.Ed. 2d 658, 125 S.Ct. 2796, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5214 (U.S. 2005). Click here for commentary by the Family Violence Prevention Fund.

After seeing the TLC website demonstrated at various national conferences, other states are actively preparing to work with TLC in creating similar sites for their state's child advocacy professionals. Howard Davidson, Director of the ABA's Center on Children and the Law, shares TLC's vision of a national network of online resource centers, each addressing the unique needs of its child advocacy community, yet based on the strengths of the TLC site's functionality. Click here to read comments circulated nationally by Mr. Davidson about the TLC website. If your state might be interested in creating a site for your child advocacy community based on the TLC site, please contact us at 800-993-5TLC (5852) or email TexasLawyersforChildren@yahoo.com.

The TLC Expert Witness Databank allows TLC's registered attorneys to locate other site users who have information (favorable or unfavorable) about experts encountered in litigation. The Databank is now ready for you to add new experts to the list and/or add your name as someone with information about an expert who is already listed. Click on "Experts" on the blue menu bar above to see the first entries in this database. (Hint: need help finding an expert? Participate in Colleague Connection and send an email with your request; then see what recommendations come from your peers across the state.)

To answer your questions or correct any issues you may experience with the TLC website, the staff of the TLC Help Desk is available to assist you weekdays from 11:00 am to 6:00 pm. Our toll-free number is 800-993-5TLC (5852), and our local Dallas number is 214-219-5TLC (5852). To contact us through this website, simply click on "About TLC" on the blue menu bar above; then click on "Contact TLC." You are also welcome to email our Help Desk at TexasLawyersforChildren@yahoo.com.