Competing Liabilities: Responding to Evidence of Child Abuse that Surface During the Attorney-Client Relationship

Kevin Adams, a practicing attorney in Maine, represents John Brown in a dispute with Brown\u27s landlord. Brown is facing eviction as a result of his inability to pay the rent. Over the course of the representation, Adams has come to believe that Brown is abusing his son. Brown--who is working two jobs but still cannot pay his rent--has told Adams of the incredible pressure he is facing. Brown has admitted that the pressure is getting to him and that he feels bad that he has been “taking it out on the kid.” Brown also told Adams that he had been attending anger management meetings, but that he no longer had time to participate. Adams has met Brown\u27s son on two occasions. At the first meeting, Brown\u27s son had a black eye and at the second meeting, Adams could see that Brown\u27s son had bruises all over his arm. The last time Adams met with Brown, Brown mentioned that he had spent the previous evening in the emergency room of the hospital because his son had broken his arm. What should Adams do in this situation? And, is that different from what Adams can do? Could a failure to report suspected abuse expose Adams to future civil liability for the child\u27s injuries under the theory of “failure to warn?” On the other hand, is Adams\u27s ability to report this suspected abuse constrained by professional ethical rules that protect information gained in the course of representation? Could disclosure of such information actually subject Adams to disciplinary action from the Board of Bar Overseers? To answer these questions, an attorney must consider and evaluate his or her obligations under tort law, ethical rules, and legislative enactments. This Article will consider these competing “liabilities” and will argue that an attorney in Maine has the discretion to report child abuse without violating her ethical or legal obligations. Although this Article calls for a policy of “permissive reporting,” it concludes that any attempt to mandate reporting would be a misguided attempt to protect children. A discussion of an attorney\u27s legal and ethical relationship to the reporting of child abuse is impossible without first considering the nature of the crime of chil

A Voice For Low-Income Children: Evaluating Guardians ad litem in Divorce and Parental Rights and Responsibilities Cases

The Muskie Guardian ad Litem Project evaluated the use of Guardians ad Litem (GALS) in divorce and parental rights and responsibilities cases in Maine. The research suggests that there are significant benefits of GAL appointment for children in contested court proceedings. GALS effectively represent the best interests of children in family proceedings. They assist the Court in issuing custodial decisions, assist in settlement of highly contested cases and otherwise expedite the legal process. In addition to their investigative function, GALS report working with parents and children in an effort to reduce conflict between family members and to connect families with needed social services. Despite these benefits, the research reveals two shortcomings of the current system. First, there are 500 to 850 low-income cases a year in which Judges and Case Management Officers cannot appoint a GAL because the family is without funds to pay the GAL, fee. This results in a two-tier system within the Family Court whereby the benefits of a GAL are denied to the overwhelming majority of low-income children. Second, the research suggests that there are a number of factors affecting the quality of GAL representation. These factors include GAL training and education, the experience of the GAL, and the availability and accessibility of social services for low-income families. The quality of GAL representation could be enhanced by increased training opportunities for GALS, mentoring programs, efforts to compile resource databases, allocation of judicial staff, and collaboration with parent education programs and mental health professionals. These efforts, however, will not address the basic fact that low income children do not have access to GALS because of the lack of income in their households. Unless the Legislature, the Judicial Branch and concerned members of the Maine community decide to allocate financial resources to provide GAL representation to low-income children, these children will continue to be underserved