Legal Research Tool: Google Scholar

Google Scholar

I know this blog is  geared to Children’s law issues, but I wanted to pass this along because I understand that most lawyers in this field do not have the funds for expensive legal research services (Lexis and Westlaw).  I have been playing around with Google’s legal research function on Google Scholar and I have found it to be very helpful.  Google scholar (http://scholar.google.com) looks very much like the traditional Google search engine page.  It allows you to search scholarly literature, just like Google Images allows you to search picture s on the web.  You can search across many disciplines and sources: articles, theses, books, abstracts and court opinions, from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories, universities and other web sites. Google Scholar helps you find relevant work across the world of scholarly research.

Now, Google Scholar has added legal research to the mix.  Under the search bar, you can click on “Legal opinions and journals.”  Then, using traditional Google search terms you can search for case law.   An advanced Scholar search will allow you to narrow your search to federal or state courts.   I have done a number of searches today and found it fairly easy to use.  This may be in large part because I am used to performing Google searches for other subjects.

The cases show the pagination for the Northwest reporter series.  One interesting feature is the “How Cited” tab, where you can see how individual cases have been quoted or discussed in other opinions and in articles from law journals.

Overall, it is a very nice free legal research tool.  I have added a link to Google Scholar on my links page under legal research.

Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com

Study: African-Americans Steered Toward Foster Care at a Disproportionate Rate

At the request of the Michigan DHS, the Center for the Study of Social Policy, designed and implemented a qualitative Race Equity Review to examine the research question: “How does it come about that, after substantiation of child abuse or neglect, African American children are more likely to be removed from their homes?” NPR summarized the study’s findings this way:

Roughly half a million children throughout the U.S. are in foster care. But a recent findings by the Center for the Study of Social Policy shows that African-American youngsters are more likely to be steered into foster care at disproportionate rates than whites, and are often “negatively characterized and labeled” by child welfare workers.

Kristen Weber, co-author of the recent study; Bernadette Blount, of the Child Welfare Organizing Project in New York, and psychologist Toni Heinemen, creator and executive director of A Home Within, discuss how a child’s race can influence his or her chance at finding a loving home.

National data show that African American children and families are disproportionately represented in almost all child protective systems in the United States. Once involved with these systems, African American children are more likely to be removed from their homes, spend longer periods of time in out-of-home care, and often times their families have less access to relevant and helpful social services.  According to the report, Michigan fares pretty poorly.  For the Michigan study, reviewers spent spent spring and fall of 2007  in Saginaw and Wayne Counties observing.  The findings of the report are not surprising for anyone who has practiced in this area and the recommendations are pretty weak.  Basically, the report finds that DHS is in need of some racial sensitivity training.  There is nothing remarkable about this report, but I figured it is worth reporting.

You can download or view a copy of the report here: A Home Within

In re McBride – Supreme Court Denies Application for Leave

The Supreme Court by a 5-2 order denied appeal in the McBride case after canceling the application argument. The two issues in this case were 1) a violation of respondent-father’s right to counsel and 2) the violation of respondent-father’s right to participate by telephone pursuant to MCR 2.004 in the termination of parental rights proceedings.  The trial court violated the incarcerated father’s right to counsel and right to participate by telephone.  The AG and the Solicitor General confessed error for DHS by recommending reversal in their amicus brief,  but the Bay County Prosecutor did not agree.  The trial court also disregarded attempts by the father’s family to participate and get placement.  Justice Corrigan wrote a well-reasoned decent that was joined by Justice Kelly.

Respondent is the father of three sons who were 8, 10, and 13 years old when child protection proceedings began against their mother in September 2006.  The allegations related to mother’s abuse of one of the children.  She pled guilty to the allegations. Respondent has been incarcerated with the Department of Corrections (DOC) since 2004 on charges of CSC 1st Degree and CSC 2nd Degree (both of which involved a minor).

Although respondent-father had a right to communicate with the court by telephone in order to participate in the child protective proceedings, he was not informed of this right.  He received notices concerning the hearings, but the DHS and the court failed to comply with MCR 2.004 (B) and (C), which require the DHS to move the court to arrange for telephonic communication with a respondent parent through the DOC.

Respondent-father’s sister was at the hearings and offered to care for the children.  While the trial court found her to be appropriate, it denied her request on the basis that she lived over an hour away and the DHS foster placement would allow the children to remain in their school district.  The trial court also denied a request for visitation with the father in prison, despite his sister’s offer to provide transportation for those visits.

After a year in care, respondent-mother had not rectified the conditions that led to the children coming into care and petitioners filed to terminate respondent-mother and respondent-father’s parental rights.  At the termination hearing, for the first time the DHS and the court arranged for respondent-father to participate by telephone.  He immediately invoked his right to counsel, but the court denied his request.

On November 7, 2007, the court issued an opinion and order terminating both parents’ rights to their sons.  Respondent-mother and respondent separately appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in a split, unpublished opinion.   Dissenting Judge Gleicher would have reversed the order terminating respondent’s parental rights.  She opined that the DHS’s and the court’s failures to comply with MCR 2.004 and the complete denial of counsel required reversal because respondent’s procedural and substantive due process rights were violated and, therefore, the court’s resulting order “lack[ed] any inherent integrity . . . .”

Justice Corrigan wrote that the trial court’s refusal to allow respondent-father to appear by telephone was a violation of MCR 2.004 and reversal was mandated by MCR 2.004(F).  She did not reach the due process issue because reversal was mandated by MCR 2.004(F).  She wrote that the failure to follow MCR 2.004 was not harmless error as he could have been appointed an attorney and argued throughout the proceedings.

She also opined that termination was not inevitable under MCL 712A.19b(3)(h).  That statute does not automatically authorize termination merely because a parent will be imprisoned for more than two years. Rather, the statute permits termination if the

parent is imprisoned for such a period that the child will be deprived of a normal home for a period exceeding 2 years, and the parent has not provided for the child’s proper care and custody, and there is no reasonable expectation that the parent will be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the child’s age. [MCL 712A.19b(3)(h) (emphasis added).]

She wrote that the statute’s use of the word “and” clearly permits a parent to provide for the child’s proper care and custody although he is in prison; he need not personally care for the children.  In this case, respondent-father could have argued and arranged for placement with his sister.

You can read and download the order here: In re McBride

Oakland County Prosecutor Backs out of the Drug Treatment Court

In a letter to judges this week, newly elected Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper announced her office will stop participating in the county’s sobriety courts by September 30, 2009.  Treatment courts, also called drug courts or sobriety courts, provide an alternative to jail for nonviolent offenders who have committed alcohol- or drug-related crimes such as drunken driving or minor in possession.

State law requires the participation of a prosecutor, and some funding sources also require prosecutor participation. It is unclear whether the programs will be able to continue without the prosecutor’s office.

Oakland County Circuit Court’s Family-Focused Juvenile Drug Court and Adult Treatment Court started in 2001.  Cooper cites budget concerns as a basis for backing out of the program.  The courts cost more than $730,000 annually.

The Oakland Press wrote a pretty scathing article about Cooper’s decision.  You can read it here.  I think the Oakland Press is going a bit hard on Ms. Cooper (full disclosure:  I did serve on an Inns of Court team with Jessica Cooper when she was a Judge in the Court of Appeals), but I think it would be a shame to lose the drug treatment court.

There may still be hope for the program.  This could just be budget posturing by the prosecutor for an increase in her budget.  It is budget season after all.  Having been in the middle of it during the last budget, I know how brutal it can be.

Michigan radio’s article can be found here.