of family autonomy.”137 NACC objected that this level of intrusion “includes financial, time, and
privacy sacrifices by the affected family.”138
The largest focus of NACC’s amici work on matters directly related to child welfare has
been on the right of children to be represented in child welfare termination of parental rights
proceedings139 and related inquiries involving the representation of children, such as whether
statements children make to guardians ad litem are confidential.140 In addition, NACC has weighed
in on various problems foster parents and foster children experienced, including foster children’s
right to sex reassignment surgery,141 foster parents’ entitlement to insurance for their wards,142 and
other foster parents’ interests.143
As the leadership of NACC began to change in the early 2000s, NACC’s amicus work
began to take a decidedly pro-parent turn, especially when compared to NACC’s focus before that
time. Since then, NACC has filed a series of briefs supporting parental rights in ways it never did
in earlier years. Beginning around 2008, NACC has weighed in on a variety of matters involving
children that stray from its earlier roots as a pro-prosecution supporter. In Camreta v. Greene,144
NACC took a strong position that a two-hour interrogation of a nine-year-old girl at her school in
the presence of an armed, uniformed police officer, constituted an impermissible seizure in
violation of the child’s rights under the Fourth Amendment. NACC explained that children deserve
protection both from abuse inflicted on them by adults and also from
137 Troxel Brief, supra note 133, at 3.
139 See e.g., In re Adoption of L.B.M., 161 A.3d 172 (Pa. 2017) (arguing that the appointment of guardian ad litem
for a child in termination case does not satisfy legislature’s requirement for the appointment of counsel). In re
Dependency of K.P. T. (Wash. App. 2015) (arguing that due process requires the appointment of counsel for children
in dependency proceedings in the state of Washington.); In re Felicity S., 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 487 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014), as
modified (May 23, 2014), ordered not to be officially published (Aug. 20, 2014) (seeking admonition of counsel for
child for failing to provide adequate representation); In re Christina M., 908 A.2d 1073 (Conn. 2006) (arguing that
children have right to counsel in termination cases); E. T. v. Cantil-Sakauye, 682 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (excessive
caseloads for children’s lawyers); Dependency of MSR and TSR, 271 P.3d 234 (Wash. 2012) (child’s right to
independent counsel in termination proceeding); In re Josiah Z., 115 P.3d 1133 (Cal. 2005) (elaborate interpretation
of role of appellate counsel for children in dependency proceedings and the related role of CAPTA guardian). NACC
also weighed in on the rights of children to representation in a divorce proceeding. See Grissom v. Grissom, 886
S.W.2d 47 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994) (representing children in divorce cases).
140 See, e.g., People v. Gabriesheski, 205 P.3d 441, 443 (Colo. App. 2008), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 262 P.3d 653
(Colo. 2011) (arguing that conversations between a child and her guardian ad litem in a dependency and neglect case
are confidential communications protected by attorney-client privilege); R.L.R. v. State, 116 So.3d 570 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 2013) (attorney-client privilege applies to child in child protective proceeding to the extent that the child’s lawyer
may not disclose the child’s confidential information informing the lawyer of the child’s whereabouts).
141 See In re Brian L., 859 N.Y.S.2d 8 (N. Y. App. Div. 2008). See also In re Churchill/Belinski, Mich. App. N.W 2d
(2018); In re Mays, 807 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. 2012) (child’s opinion in termination of parental rights decision).
142 See, e.g., In re Corrine W., 198 P.3d 1102 (Cal. 2009) (supporting foster parents’ claim of entitlement to insurance
coverage for foster child); County of Los Angeles v. Smith, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 159 (Cal. App. 1999) (child support for
foster children). NACC also wrote an amicus brief in a case involving mandated reporters. See B.H. v. County of San
Bernardino, 361 P.3d 319 (Cal. 2015) (duty of mandated reporter to report).
143 See In re Custody of H.S.H.-K., 533 N.W.2d 419 (Wis. 1995) (supporting granting standing to seek visitation to
persons who served as a de facto parent); Baby Girl v. Adoptive Couple, 570 U.S. 637 (2013) (supporting adoptive
couple’s right to keep child placed with them at birth over the objection of the birth father); In re D.I.S., 249 P.3d 775
(Colo. 2011) (arguing for limiting parents’ power to terminate a guardianship arrangement to which they once