OSU Navigation Bar

The Ohio State University

Moritz College of Law

Moritz Home Page

Moritz College of Law

Moritz College of Law


News and Events

News & Events RSS feed

Amicus Brief by Justice for Children Project Cited by Washington Supreme Court

Case involved dispute between a biological mother and her same-sex partner over the custody of their 9-year-old daughter

November 23, 2005

 

On November 3, 2005, the Washington Supreme Court held that a nonbiological mother was a de facto parent and therefore, could seek to establish and assert her parental rights.

That case, In re Parentage of L.B., involved a dispute between a biological mother, Page Britain, and her same-sex partner, Mian Carvin, over the custody of their 9-year-old daughter. Carvin, who had stayed home to raise the child, had been denied custody and visitation. The trial court never heard from the child and refused to appoint an attorney or a guardian ad litem for the child.

The Justice for Children Project at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, in a brief it filed with the Court of Appeals, argued that the child has a constitutional right to maintain a parent-like relationship and was denied procedural due process when the trial court denied her an opportunity to be heard.

The Washington Court of Appeals ruled that the child has a constitutional right to maintain a relationship with her parent, citing to amicus briefs filed by the Justice for Children Project and others. The case was appealed to the Washington Supreme Court; the Project filed another brief, explicitly arguing that the child was entitled to counsel.

In rendering its ruling, the Washington Supreme Court, in footnote 29, recorded the following significant observation:

Particularly relevant, amicus curiae the Justice for Children Project advocates on behalf of L.B. for appointment of independent counsel. Because no party to this dispute, Britain, Carvin, nor L.B., through her GAL, has raised or otherwise addressed this issue at any stage in the proceeding, we decline to consider the issue of whether appointment of counsel is in fact constitutionally mandated. See RAP 13.7(b). That being said, we strongly urge trial courts in this and similar cases to consider the interests of children in dependency, parentage, visitation, custody, and support proceedings, and whether appointing counsel, in addition to and separate from the appointment of a GAL, to act on their behalf and represent their interests would be appropriate and in the interests of justice. Cf. RCW 13.34.100(6); RCW 26.09.110; King County Local Family Law Rule 13. When adjudicating the 'best interests of the child,' we must in fact remain centrally focused on those whose interests with which we are concerned, recognizing that not only are they often the most vulnerable, but also powerless and voiceless. We, however, reserve for another day the underlying question raised by amicus of whether the United States or Washington Constitution mandate appointment of counsel in a given circumstance. But see Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 356 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1359-61 (N.D. Ga. 2005) (holding children have fundamental liberty interest in deprivation proceedings and due process requires appointment of independent counsel to represent child's interests).

Professor Katherine Hunt Federle, Director of the Justice for Children Project, and Professor Angela M. Lloyd, Assistant Clinical Legal Professor, filed the amicus brief on behalf of the Project. Current and former Moritz law students in the Practicum who worked diligently on the brief included Melissa Callais, Kim Rigby, Lindsey Lathwell, Erin Davies, Dianna Parker, and Rachel Relle.

News Archives

2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001