Recently in Children's Legal Issues Category

If you're awake and you've been following this blog for any length of time, your probably know that during the past two years, victims of child pornography (represented by the Marsh Law Firm and pioneering attorneys Paul G. Cassell and Carol L. Hepburn ) have been seeking restitution in federal courts throughout the country.

Using a long forgotten passage in the Violence Against Women Act championed by then-Senator Joe Biden in 1994, child sex abuse victims are asking federal judges to award the mandatory restitution guaranteed by this law.

Unfortunately, the Justice Department has abandoned victims of child pornography on appeal by advancing a legal standard which the courts consider unworkable. The Justice Department's position is effectively preventing hundreds of child victims from receiving any money from the tens of thousands of child molesters and pedophiles who collect and trade child sex abuse images.

In October, the Justice Department filed a Supreme Court brief opposing child exploitation victims. Last month, the Justice Department asked the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to nullify a court-ordered million dollar award to a child sex abuse victim, arguing that the legal standard which resulted in the award is too easy.

Why is the Justice Department arguing for something which the courts of appeal say is unworkable and un-provable, while victims of child exploitation are left with nothing?

Now, just last week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals—at the Justice Department's urging—decided to reconsider a landmark decision in favor of victims of child pornography. The Justice Department has one more chance to do the right thing and support victims of child exploitation.

Please tell President Obama's political appointee to the Department of Justice Criminal Division, Lanny A. Breuer, to side with the victim in In re: Amy Unknown in the Fifth Circuit.

When Justice Department attorneys refused to even sit with Amy at last year's oral argument before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Chief Judge Edith Jones proclaimed:

"What I don't understand is why the government has switched sides. They were on Amy's side in the trial court, were they not? I'm not sure how they can switch sides now and say that the statute doesn't entitle her to relief. That seems very—if not duplicitous—very strange to me. And it's also in derogation of the obvious intent of that provision of the statute."

Amy and child victims like her need your help. Hundreds of victims are effectively shut-out of the federal courts by the Justice Department's wrongheaded policy.

Almost 20 years ago, then-Senator Joe Biden promised child victims that they would receive full restitution from criminals convicted of child exploitation. Ironically, Vice President Biden's own Justice Department is failing to live up to his vision in the Violence Against Women's Act.

You can help awaken the Justice Department lawyers in Washington with just a few clicks. Amy thanks everyone for their continued support. You can make a difference in her fight for justice!

For more information on this issue, visit http://www.childlaw.us/restitution/

In the January edition of Pediatrics researchers explored two issues: The Prevalence and Characteristics of Youth Sexting and How Often Are Teens Arrested for Sexting?

Prior to the research estimates of the prevalence of sexting varied considerably depending on the nature of the images or videos and the role of the youth involved.

A cross-sectional national telephone survey of 1560 youth Internet users, ages 10 through 17, discovered that only 2.5% of youth appeared in or created nude or nearly nude pictures or videos.

However, this percentage was reduced to 1.0% when the definition was restricted to only include images that were sexually explicit (ie, showed naked breasts, genitals, or bottoms). Of the youth who participated in the survey, 7.1% said they had received nude or nearly nude images of others; 5.9% of youth reported receiving sexually explicit images. Few youth distributed these images.

The researchers concluded that since policy debates on youth sexting behavior focus on concerns about the production and possession of illegal child pornography, it is important to have research that collects details about the nature of the sexual images rather than using ambiguous screening questions without follow-ups.

The rate of youth exposure to sexting highlights a need to provide them with information about legal consequences of sexting and advice about what to do if they receive a sexting image. However, the data suggest that appearing in, creating, or receiving sexual images is far from being a normative behavior for youth.

The second study examined the characteristics of youth sexting cases handled by police and their outcomes in response to clinical and other concerns about the risks of sexting behavior.

Mail surveys were sent to a stratified national sample of 2712 law enforcement agencies followed by detailed telephone interviews with investigators about a nationally representative sample of sexting cases handled by police during 2008 and 2009 (n = 675). The cases involved “youth-produced sexual images” that constituted child pornography under relevant statutes according to respondents.

The researchers discovered that US law enforcement agencies handled an estimated 3477 cases of youth-produced sexual images during 2008 and 2009 (95% confidence interval: 3282-3672). Two-thirds of the cases involved an “aggravating” circumstance beyond the creation and/or dissemination of a sexual image.

In these aggravated cases, either an adult was involved (36% of cases) or a minor engaged in malicious, non-consensual, or abusive behavior (31% of cases). An arrest occurred in 62% of cases with an adult involved, in 36% of the aggravated youth-only cases, and in 18% of the “experimental” cases (youth-only and no aggravating elements).

Most of the images (63%) were distributed by cell phone only and did not reach the Internet. Sex offender registration applied in only a few unusual cases.

The conclusion of this study is that many of the youth sexting cases that come to the attention of police include aggravating circumstances that raise concerns about health and risky sexual behavior, although some cases were relatively benign. Overall, arrest is not typical in cases with no adults involved.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Youth Sexting: A National Study

How Often Are Teens Arrested for Sexting? Data From a National Sample of Police Cases

Pedophilia occurs with disturbing frequency in athletic programs, churches, Boy Scout troops, and youth organizations—places that children congregate, including the homes of trusted family members.

Professor Daniel Pollack, a frequent contributor to ChildLaw, has co-authored a social work textbook called How to Screen Adoptive and Foster Parents: A Workbook for Professionals and Students. If you read this blog regularly, you'll know all about this book which we profiled earlier this year.

A recent op-ed written by the book's co-author, James Dickerson, highlights this important work:

It is accepted in professional circles that you can help child sex abuse victims with appropriate therapy, but there is little that you can do to help pedophiles. They will offend again and again if they are not incarcerated. Someday there may emerge an effective treatment for them.

Today it does not exist.

The best way to protect children, boys and girls, from abuse is to properly screen individuals who apply for jobs that will require them to work with children, just as you would individuals who apply for foster and adoptive children.

It will not come as a surprise to mental health professionals that Sandusky was married and had adopted six children, along with opening his home to an unknown number of foster children. It is a recognizable pattern.

Although the science does not exist to treat pedophiles, the science does exist to screen them for abusive tendencies. I deal with this in a social work textbook that I co-authored with Professor Daniel Pollack of Yeshiva University, and Dr. Mardi Allen of the Mississippi Department of Mental Health, on the subject of screening for abusive tendencies in adoptive and foster parent applicants.

In the book, we point out in a chapter devoted to the subject that pedophiles are naturally attracted to positions that require them to be around children. Of course, most Boy Scout leaders, church youth group leaders, and teachers are not pedophiles, but those categories are a natural draw to pedophiles and that is where you are most likely to find them.

What are some of the clues that should be recognized by social workers, parents, and employment screeners?

For the answer, buy the book at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or directly from the NASW Press.

Last week the United States Supreme Court ignored the extraordinary pleas of three nationally recognized child advocacy groups and granted the Justice Department's request to dismiss a child sex abuse victim's appeal for criminal restitution.

The case now returns to the district court which must follow the DC Circuit's holding that the victim in this case, Amy, does not have a clear and indisputable right to full restitution, but must instead trace precisely how her losses were “proximately” caused by each of the thousands of child molesters and pedophiles who collect and trade her child sex abuse images.

The Supreme Court's rejection means that a child pornography victim's right to criminal restitution in the federal courts will continue to be limited and denied in sixteen states and territories, including California, New York and Washington, DC. Only in the Fifth Circuit—encompassing the states of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi—is restitution still mandatory.

The Court's denial—and the Justice Department's stubborn refusal to abandon a legal standard which the influential Ninth Circuit concluded "present[s] serious obstacles for victims seeking restitution in these sorts of cases"—leaves child sex abuse victims like Amy with scant chance for justice in the federal courts.

Pedophiles, child molesters and the Justice Department are likely to seize on the high court's rejection as a sign that criminal restitution for child sex abuse victims is all but impossible in the federal courts except under the most egregious circumstances.

We continue to urge everyone to Make a Difference and ask the Justice Department to stop siding with convicted child molesters and pedophiles instead of child sex abuse victims!

Just go to http://bit.ly/ChangeJustice for full details on how you can help.

For the complete background on this issue, visit http://www.childlaw.us/restitution/.

In a series of interviews last night, accused Penn State child molester Jerry Sandusky was asked if he is “sexually attracted to underage boys?” He responded, “No. I enjoy young people.” When asked to explain Sandusky's alleged rape of a ten year old boy in the Penn State locker room on a Friday night in 2002, his lawyer Joe Amendola replied that “the kid was messing around and having a good time” in the shower with Sandusky:

“Jerry Sandusky is a big, overgrown kid. He's a jock,” Amendola told CNN's Jason Carroll. “The bottom line is jocks do that—they kid around, they horse around.”

Amendola told NBC's Today show the apparent person in question claims the alleged rape never happened.

“We believe we've found him and if we have found him, he's telling a very different story than Mike McQueary and that's big news,” Amendola said.

Clearly, the effort to whitewash the overwhelming evidence against Sandusky is in full swing. Unfortunately the willingness of otherwise honest and decent people to ignore and justify the actions of pedophiles and child molesters is nothing new and all too common.

Just last week in the New York Times, respected Ohio State law professor Douglas Berman referred to child pornography as nothing more than “dirty pictures.” This kind of flippant belittling effectively desensitizes and normalizes the collection and broad dissemination of pictures and videos of pre-pubescent children being raped and sexually exploited.

What Berman fails to recognize is that “in the context of children … there can be no question of consent, and use of the word pornography [let alone “dirty pictures”] may effectively allow us to distance ourselves from the material’s true nature. A preferred term is abuse images and this term is increasingly gaining acceptance among professionals working in this area. Using the term abuse images accurately describes the process and product of taking indecent and sexualized pictures of children, and its use is, on the whole, to be supported.” Sharon W. Cooper, et. al., Medical, Legal, & Social Science Aspects of Child Sexual Exploitation p. 258 (2005).

Not surprisingly, Professor Berman is a defense expert witness in child pornography cases and a critic of mandatory minimum sentences for inter alia producing, collecting and sharing child pornography.

In an interview with Cincinnati.com, Professor Berman claimed that “because the Internet has made this kind of material more readily available, it's not as obvious that someone who looks at these images will be a serious threat to do harm to a child.” Rationalizing the wide and ubiquitous availability of child pornography, Berman intoned “we're to a point now where it's just one click. There may be a lot of serendipity as to whether that one click gets you one picture or a thousand pictures.”

Berman is not alone in providing intellectual cover for child molesters. None other than the Administrative Office of the United States Courts has taken the position that “the only appropriate judicial role” is to deny restitution requests for victims of child molesters who are convicted of collecting child pornography.

That's right. In an illegal advocacy brief written by the federal court system itself, Assistant General Counsel Joe Gergits suggested that “even though federal law prohibits him from lawfully “engag[ing] directly or indirectly in the practice of law in any court of the United States,” his “legal advice” is something which might “coincidentally” be beneficial to judges around the country.

After its release in August 2009, Mr. Gergits' brief quickly became exhibit number one for child molesters across the country who were seeking to avoid paying criminal restitution to child pornography victims. The brief was reportedly distributed to the chief probation officer in every federal judicial district in the country.

By actively taking such a position, the United States federal court system itself injected bias and prejudice against child crime victims into the "independent, national judiciary providing fair and impartial justice."

New York University law Professor Amy Adler explained that since the legal war against child sex abuse images has already been lost, there is “the possibility that certain sexual prohibitions invite their own violation by increasing the sexual allure of what they forbid.” Adler argues that “the dramatic expansion of child pornography law may have unwittingly heightened pedophilic desire.”

In the Berman-Gergits-Adler justice system, the very existence of laws against child sex abuse images and the wide availability of those images creates unwitting offenders who are then prosecuted in a justice system which is biased against the “alleged victims” depicted in the images and who are ultimately given little or no criminal sentence.

Add to this mix yellow journalists like the New York Times' Erica Goode—whose recent article on an absurdly rare “life sentence” for child pornography gave carte blance acceptance to a defense attorney's proclamation that “a growing body of scientific research shows that that someone who looks at child pornography is not a child molester or will become a child molester”—and Debbie Nathan—whose so-called National Center for Reason and Justice is a wholly owned subsidiary of the pedophile defense bar and whose work for the movie Capturing the Friedmans vigorously advocated for the absolution of convicted child molesters Jesse and Arnold Friedman—and it's not a stretch to believe that Sandusky was just behaving like one of the boys.

Everything can be explained away. Things are not what they seem. A little fun in the shower never hurt anyone.

Sadly, the effort to silence, marginalize and de-legitimize victims of child sex crimes is alive and well in 2011.

To quote the Pope, again, approvingly:

In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children. This, however, was part of a fundamental perversion of the concept of ethos. It was maintained—even within the realm of Catholic theology—that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a “better than” and a “worse than.” Nothing is good or bad in itself. Everything depends on the circumstances and on the end in view. Anything can be good or also bad, depending upon purposes and circumstances. Morality is replaced by a calculus of consequences, and in the process it ceases to exist. The effects of such theories are evident today.

The rationalization and justification of child sex abuse in all its forms not only discredits the victims, it corrupts justice and society. Morality ceases to exist. Evil becomes a construct. Punishment disappears.

Understanding the sexual exploitation of children means accepting that evildoers actively exploit the naivete of youth by grooming victims, establishing trust, normalizing deviant behavior and enforcing loyalty. When caught perpetrators sow doubt and confusion.

No wonder Sandusky's victims feel sadness, shame and even complicity. As one of the Penn State victim's attorney, Ben Andreozzi, revealed yesterday on the Today show:

The eight victims currently involved in charges against Sandusky all became part of the Penn State football team’s inner circle and developed deep attachment to the program.

“I think it’s fair to say the victims could be thinking to themselves right now that as a result of (my) coming forward, look what’s happened to this football program,” Andreozzi said.

“These folks were involved in the Penn State football community—they were on the sidelines at football games, they were spending significant amounts of time travelling with the team and/or in the locker room with the team and getting to know members of that football team.”

Andreozzi added that his client, who is now in his 20s, is grieving. “To say that he’s torn apart, I think would be an emotion that would really explain where he’s at right now.”

As I wrote on this blog in July, “The Secret" is the key to understanding child sex abuse.

In my post Pedophiles Lobby for Acceptance I explain how politically motivated child molesters and pedophiles actively discredit social science research which indicates a substantial rate of recidivism by convicted child sex offenders.

Sandusky and his defenders fit into a well-established dialectic which minimalizes the crime and co-opts the victims. Let's hope that this time around, voices of reason and justice prevail.

As anyone who has read this blog for any length of time knows, there's something rotten in the state of Pennsylvania when it comes to protecting children. From Masha Allen (who was adopted from Russia by a pedophile with the help of one of Pittsburgh's premier adoption agencies), to the Luzerne county kids for cash scandal, to high school students being spied on at home by school administrators; the list of woe goes on and on.

Now Hank Grezlak, the editor-in-chief of The Legal Intelligencer—Pennsylvania's influential legal daily—has articulated what many of us have known for years: It's Open Season on Children in Pennsylvania.

In this hard-hitting commentary, Grezlak writes:

In light of the Penn State sex abuse scandal, Pennsylvania really needs to change its nickname from the Keystone State to the Child Abuser State.

The shameful moniker fits. After a decade that has already included the Archdiocese of Philadelphia priest sex abuse scandal and the Luzerne County judicial scandal featuring "kids-for-cash," how can anyone argue that it isn't a fitting label?

In all three instances, powerful people and powerful institutions failed to protect the most vulnerable and innocent in society: children.

In all three instances, authorities were made aware of harm or wrongdoing being committed, and did nothing.

In all three instances, people have made excuses for those in power who failed to act, either by failing to report or investigate, allegations of misconduct.

As with the previous two scandals, in the wake of the Penn State disgrace, there will be much hand-wringing and demonizing of a few, along with committees and panels appointed. Inevitably, recommendations will be made that will largely be ignored.

There will be a push to put more laws on the books and stiffen penalties, but those largely will be punitive and after the worst has already been done. We're not hurting for prosecutors bringing high-profile cases and getting convictions. But again, that's about seeking justice after the worst has happened, not about protecting kids in advance.

We, as a society in Pennsylvania, have failed to protect our kids.

It's an excellent sobering commentary. A big shiny gold star to Mr. Grezlak for boldly stating what needs to be said and DONE and which should have been said and DONE years ago. Changing the culture will take time and vigilance. Grezlak takes a bold first step in the right direction.

Read his entire well-deserved invective here.

According to this post in the AmLawDaily blog, numerous lawyers—including a mysteriously disappeared district attorney—are at the center of the widening Penn State child molestation scandal:

Curley and Schultz stepped down from their respective posts Monday, not long after news of the charges levied against them and Sandusky broke over the weekend. Sandusky himself retired in 1999, but remained active with The Second Mile children's charity, which he founded in Penn State's hometown of State College, Pennsylvania, in 1977. Prosecutors, led by Pennsylvania attorney general Linda Kelly, claim that Sandusky met the eight boys he is accused of sexually assaulting over a 15-year period via his association with the Second Mile charity.

In an added wrinkle, the 23-page grand jury report laying out the state's charges against the Penn State trio notes that the university's former outside general counsel, Wendell Courtney of State College-based McQuaide Blasko, served as an attorney for Second Mile. According to the grand jury report, Courtney reviewed a 1998 report prepared by Penn State police that detailed inappropriate interactions between Sandusky and an underage boy. The incident never led to any formal charges, and efforts to understand why are complicated by the fact the former local district attorney, Ray Gricar, went missing under mysterious circumstances in 2005, according to The New York Times.

McQuaide Blasko's Web site identifies Courtney as pro bono counsel to Second Mile. He did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday about his work for either the charity or Penn State. The university replaced Courtney and McQuaide Blasko as general counsel last year.

Title IX is a 1972 federal law which requires gender equity for boys and girls in every educational program that receives federal funding. This includes the vast majority of public school systems in our country.

Title IX prohibits both teacher-student harassment and student-student harassment. It also prohibits a hostile environment based on gender. The goal is to eliminate sex-based discrimination in federally assisted education programs. Every public school has an affirmative obligation to prevent sex-based harassment and to lessen the harm to students if, despite their best efforts, harassment occurs.

Almost forty years after the enactment of Title IX, a recently released study by the American Association of University Women reveal that sex-based harassment is pervasive in the public school system.

According to the report, Crossing the Line: Sexual Harassment at School, nearly half of 7th to 12th graders experienced sexual harassment in the last school year with 87% of those who were harassed reporting negative effects such as absenteeism, poor sleep and stomachaches.

For the purposes of the study, harassment was defined as “unwelcome sexual behavior that takes place in person or electronically.” Over all, girls reported being harassed more than boys—56% compared with 40%—though it was evenly divided during middle school. Boys were more likely to be the harassers, according to the study, and children from lower-income families reported more severe effects.

Over all, 48% of students surveyed said they were harassed during the 2010-11 school year. Forty-four percent of students said they were harassed “in person”—being subjected to unwelcome comments or jokes, inappropriate touching or sexual intimidation—and 30% reported online harassment, like receiving unwelcome comments, jokes or pictures through texts, e-mail, Facebook and other tools, or having sexual rumors, information or pictures spread about them.

Whatever the medium, more girls were victims: 52% of girls said they had been harassed in person and 36% online, compared with 35% of boys who were harassed in person and 24% online.

Harassers come in all shapes and sizes, but the AAUW survey revealed overarching patterns. Nearly all the behavior documented in the survey was peer-to-peer sexual harassment. Boys were more likely than girls to say they sexually harassed other students (18% vs. 14%). Most students who admitted to sexually harassing another student were also the target of sexual harassment themselves (92% of girls and 80% of boys). Almost one-third (29%) of students who experienced sexual harassment of any type also identified themselves as harassers. Only 5% of students who had never experienced sexual harassment identified themselves as harassers.

It is clear from this study that Title IX's promise of a learning environment free from sex harassment has failed miserably. Students revealed that the ability to anonymously report problems was a top recommendation (57%) as was enforcing sexual harassment policies and punishing harassers (51%). Schools which fail to address the behavior outlined in this report are inviting not only costly litigation, but a student-body which is rife with discord and distress.

Sadly, behavior which is not tolerated in the workplace has become a routine part of student life in our nation's public schools. At a time when workplace sex harassment has taken center stage in the Republican presidential race (40% of Republicans and Independents consider the employment based sex harassment claims against candidate Herman Cain a "serious matter"), the even bigger problem of sex harassment in school has gone all but unnoticed.

It's time for the public school system to return Title IX to it's rightful place as guarantor of a educational environment free from sex based harassment in every form and format. Schools need to continuously publicize and promote sex harassment policies and procedures. They need to institute anonymous reporting and vigorous enforcement. Schools need to institute a zero tolerance policy for both bullying and sex harassment. If we can have drug free school zones, why not harassment free school zones too?

Last week, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the attorney-client privilege does not apply to conversations between guardians ad litem and the children they represent in child abuse, child welfare and custody cases. In Colorado, a guardian ad litem is an attorney appointed to represent a child who has been abused or neglected or is in foster care. They are also appointed for children are accused of crimes or involved in a custody fight.

In a very controversial 5-2 decision, the Court held that “because a child who is the subject of a dependency and neglect proceeding is not the client of a court-appointed guardian ad litem, neither the statutory attorney-client privilege nor ethical rules governing an attorney’s obligations of confidentiality to a client strictly apply to communications by the child.”

Justice Nathan Coats, writing for the majority, found that a guardian ad litem does not represent litigants on opposite sides of a case “or even the demands or wishes of the child. … The guardian ad litem is statutorily tasked with assessing and making recommendations to the court concerning the best interests of the child.”

The underlying case, People v. Gabriesheski, involved a man criminally charged with abusing his step-daughter. While that case was pending, the department of human services filed a case in juvenile court and an attorney was appointed as guardian ad litem to represent the child victim. During the criminal case, the prosecutors attempted to call the GAL to testify about her private conversations with the victim. Both lower courts held that the conversations between the victim and her GAL were protected by attorney-client privilege.

The Supreme Court reversed, basing its decision on the duty of a child's attorney to protect his or her client from abuse; a lawyer acting as a guardian ad litem is supposed to help the court act in the child's best interest even if the child doesn't want the lawyer to reveal information.

The dissent wrote that “the majority's decision deprives children of the right to legal representation. … the impact of this decision will have devastating effects on the ability of guardians ad litem to fully represent the best interests of children in dependency and neglect proceedings. Because children will no longer have the protection of the attorney-client privilege, guardians ad litem will be required to disclose information about their wards even when it is not in the child's best interests to do so. This outcome, which appears to be based on a generalization that a child is incapable of being involved in the legal process, is at odds with a child's fundamental right to be represented in court, and fails to protect the legal rights of children.”

The Rocky Mountain Children’s Law Center, a nonprofit organization that provides legal advocacy for abused and neglected children in Colorado, stated that “this decision denies children in the Colorado child protection system effective legal representation by depriving them of the opportunity to have confidential conversations with the attorneys appointed to protect their best interests. The Colorado Supreme Court has decided that abused children are not entitled to one of the most basic benefits of legal representation, which is having a trusting, confidential relationship with an attorney.”

Jeff Koy, the director of litigation of the Children’s Law Center, who has served as a court-appointed GAL for more than 12 years, argued in this case that conversations between GALs and children should be protected. “Children have a right to be in a safe home and receive the treatment services they need. GALs are charged with ensuring that children are provided these protections. To do this effectively, children must be able to trust us,” said Koy. “They have to be able to confide in us about where they feel safe and what happened to them without fear of having their confidences betrayed. Otherwise, the very people who abused them may learn what the child said.”

“The children we represent have often been through horrific abuse before landing in state care,” Koy said. “They need someone to confide in. Until today, that person was their GAL.”

The old adage “hard cases make bad law” rings especially true in this case. As a longtime victim's advocate and even longer-time children's advocate, the tension between what's best for your client and what should be done to keep your client healthy and safe thankfully does not often conflict. When it does, however, the implications can be far-reaching.

Many years ago I represented an eleven year old child in exactly the same situation. After an immigrant girl was removed from her home for alleged physical abuse, I was appointed as her “law guardian.” At that time the GAL role was ill-defined and unclear. My client denied the abuse and wanted desperately to return to her family.

When the judge asked me for my recommendation, I stated emphatically that my client wanted to return home. When pressed further, I informed that court that I was not personally or professionally taking a position on whether or not she should return home, but instead informing the court of my client's expressed wishes. I explained that I had interviewed my client, her teachers and family friends; that my client was mature enough to have a position; that she understood the consequences of her decision; that she expressed her wishes to me clearly and repeatedly; that I was my client's only voice in the court system and felt compelled to advocate for her expressed wishes and not her “best interests.”

Reluctantly, the court turned to the child welfare agency which was unable to substantiate any of the abuse charges and the case was dismissed allowing my client to return home.

I'm not sure how I would have handled the case if my client told me she was being abused. Understanding what I now know about victims, I can appreciate the fact that children rarely disclose physical and sexual abuse and when they do they should be believed.

When children do disclose such things to their attorney-GAL, there are legitimate and ethical ways to address any real or perceived conflict. The child's attorney can ask that a GAL be appointed to represent the child's best interest. The child's attorney can ask the court to permit withdrawal based on “irreconcilable differences” which make the attorney-client relationship is unsustainable. The child's attorney can counsel the client to an end result which keeps the client safe and preserves confidences.

What makes this case so unsettling is that the Colorado Supreme Court is directly requesting that an attorney reveal client confidences. This case is not about a “recommendation” or a request for “the child's best interest.” It is a direct invasion into the relationship between the child and her attorney. It goes far beyond defining the role of an attorney-GAL to assaulting the very foundation of the now non-existent attorney-client relationship.

The Colorado Supreme Court's decision strips a child from ANY advocate in the court system. It applies not only to sexual abuses cases, but to all cases involving a child including custody, child welfare and even criminal cases. Imagine a juvenile delinquency case in which the prosecutor can force the child's attorney to testify against his or her client. Imagine a child custody case in which a parent can force a child's GAL to testify about which parent the child prefers.

The Court's decision here has far-reaching implications. It was ill-advised, ill-conceived and vastly over-broad. In solving one perceived problem (after all, we don't know that the child client in this case told her attorney anything about the sexual abuse), it creates an untold number of complications with the end-result that children in the Colorado court system no longer have reliable advocates or an unconstrained voice.

Last week, the Solicitor General filed this brief with the United States Supreme Court which effectively denies child victims the ability to obtain criminal restitution from the thousands of child molesters and pedophiles who collect and share child pornography.

The defendant in the case currently pending before the Supreme Court, Amy v. Monzel, admitted to law enforcement that he sexually abused his granddaughter and traded images of girls being sexually abused. A search of his home uncovered more than 800 child sex abuse images including pictures of Amy, the victim in this case. The defendant pleaded guilty to distributing child pornography and was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

The District court ordered the defendant to pay just $5000 in criminal restitution to Amy, a girl whose rape and sexual abuse images were found in his collection. That award was overturned on appeal. Amy then appealed to the Supreme Court where three amici joined her in asking the Court to take the case.

Despite supporting the victims in the lower courts, the government abandoned victims of child pornography at the Supreme Court by asking the Court not to review the Court of Appeals’ denial of restitution. The Solicitor General's position on this issue effectively strips victims of child pornography the ability to obtain criminal restitution from any of the thousands of child molesters and pedophiles who collect and share their child sex abuse images.

The Solicitor General is essentially asking the Supreme Court to uphold a standard of proof that government cannot meet. During the past two years, the government has failed in hundreds of cases throughout the country to convince federal judges that the standard they are now defending in the Supreme Court will result in any restitution for victims of child pornography. In July, the government lost this case in the Ninth Circuit on just this issue and decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Victims of child pornography deserve their day in court. Three amicus filed briefs in the Supreme Court supporting this basic right, highlighting the importance of this issue for children who are sexually abused and exploited through child pornography.

As a candidate in 2008, President Obama supported the death penalty for defendants convicted of raping a child. Now the Solicitor General is promoting a standard which will save some of these same defendants from paying restitution to their victims. While millionaire child molesters are housed in government prisons at taxpayer expense, child sex abuse victims like Amy must rely on public assistance and charity to take care of their most basic needs.

When Congress—led by then Senator and now Vice President Biden—passed the child pornography restitution statute in 1994, it made restitution mandatory for victims. In fact, Congress felt so strongly that every child pornography victim receive the “full amount” of their losses that it used the word mandatory twice in the statute. Despite this clear requirement, federal courts throughout the country are confused and their often arbitrary approaches have led to widely differing outcomes for victims. A deepening split among the Courts of Appeals and the district courts require a decisive decision and direction that only the Supreme Court can provide.

Only the Supreme Court can conclusively guarantee a child pornography victim's right to restitution. Justice delayed is justice denied. Victims of child pornography have waited and suffered long enough.

Clients of Children's Law Center talk about why they needed help from our lawyers and what they were able to achieve together. This video premiered at the annual Helping Children Soar Benefit on September 21, 2011 and focuses on CLC's adoption and guardianship work creating forever families. Visit www.childrenslawcenter.org for more information.

Two years ago, the Marsh Law Firm filed the first-ever request for federal criminal restitution against a convicted child pornography collector. Since then, we have filed over 700 requests for restitution in every federal district court in the country.

Despite a few decisive victories, a child pornography victim's right to restitution is being curtailed in circuit after circuit. Recent federal Circuit Court decisions have effectively barred restitution in the Second and Ninth Circuit and the District of Columbia Circuit. Only in the Fifth Circuit—encompassing the states of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi—is restitution still mandatory.

When Congress passed the child pornography restitution statute in 1994, it made restitution mandatory for victims. In fact, Congress felt so strongly that every child pornography victim receive the “full amount” of their losses that it used the word mandatory twice in the statute. Despite this clear requirement, many federal courts have sought to limit the amount that convicted child pornography collectors pay their victims by forcing victims to prove precisely how much each individual defendant injured them.

The federal district courts are also severely divided on how to interpret the child pornography restitution statute. Some district courts have held that victims seeking restitution need not establish proximate cause. Other district courts have read a general proximate cause requirement into the statute and then concluded that proximate cause was not established.

Still other district courts read a general proximate cause requirement (or in some courts simply “causation”) into the statute and then find that the victim provided sufficient proof to obtain at least some restitution. The approaches are often arbitrary and have led to widely differing outcomes. For example, a few district courts have awarded “nominal” restitution in an arbitrary amount, sometimes as low as $100.

The Fifth Circuit got it right in March when it found that “[c]ourts are required to award victims of child sex abuse ‘the full amount of the victim’s losses.’” It held that “Congress abandoned the proximate causation language that would have reached all categories of harm … This change is consistent with the reasons for enacting a second generation of restitution statutes. The evolution in victims’ rights statutes demonstrates Congress’s choice to abandon a global requirement of proximate causation.”

Last month, in an effort to restore a child pornography victim's rapidly eroding right to restitution, the Marsh Law Firm filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Only the Supreme Court can conclusively resolve this issue and guarantee a victim's right to restitution under the child pornography restitution statute. A deepening split amongst the federal circuits and the district courts require a decisive decision and direction that only the Supreme Court can provide.

A coalition of child advocates recently filed three separate amicus briefs supporting our request for Supreme Court review. This rare occurrence will hopefully put the issue of child victim restitution squarely before the Court which is now considering whether or not to accept our case.

Thank you to all the amici who spent a significant amount of time and effort to get these uncommon amicus briefs filed during the summer months. Child victims are grateful for your tireless work on their behalf now and in the future.

Click on the links to read the briefs by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the National Crime Victim Law Institute and the National Association to Protect Children.

The Marsh Law Firm's Petition for Cert is here.