Regent Law Family Restoration

The Change Sparked in California Conservatorship Law by the #FreeBritney Movement

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Thu, 14 May 2026 17:26:01 +0000

This guest post is courtesy of Gretchen Collins, Regent Law 3L, and Fall 2025 Wills, Trusts & Estates student. This post serves as an update to The Conservatorship of Britney Spears (Continues…)Links to an external site. post from 2020:

Since this blog’s 2020 post on Britney Spears’ conservatorship, California has reformed its conservatorship system. The #FreeBritney movement was a public outcry that exposed systemic failures in how courts protect the most vulnerable individuals’ autonomy and dignity.

A conservatorship is a legal arrangement in which a court appoints a person (conservator) to manage another person's (conservatee) personal care and/or estate, when that person is deemed unable to manage these matters independently.

The Conservatorship Reform ActLinks to an external site., signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in September 2021, transformed California conservatorship law in three critical ways. First, conservatees now have the right to hire independent legal counsel to represent their interests rather than relying on court-appointed counsel. Second, it allows interested persons to petition the court and mandates that all prima facie cases of abuse are thoroughly investigated (Cal. Prob. Code § 1851.6)Links to an external site.. Third, conservators found guilty of abuse of a conservatee now face civil penalties, including a fine of up to $10,000 in addition to other remedies (Cal. Prob. Code § 2112)Links to an external site..

Britney Spears’ case sparked these reforms. After petitioning in 2020 to remove her father as conservator, Spears delivered an emotional testimony in June 2021, describing her father’s conservatorship as abusive. That September, exercising rights granted by the Conservatorship Reform Act, she hired her own attorney. In November 2021, after 13 years, Judge Brenda Penny terminated her conservatorship (Britney Spears Conservatorship Explained by a Probate Lawyer, Keystone Law Group, Oct. 2024).Links to an external site. Her case brought conservatorships publicity, fueled a public outcry, and encouraged legislators to take action to prevent situations like hers in the future.

Building on this momentum, California introduced Assembly Bill 1663Links to an external site. in 2022, adding two key protections. Courts are required to use the least restrictive means when determining whether a conservatorship is appropriate. A court must evaluate the allegations regarding the prospective conservatee’s capacity and any alternatives available to provide the necessary support before restricting an individual’s autonomy. Courts must also tailor conservatorships for persons with developmental disabilities to that individual’s specific needs. This expressly limits the scope of a conservatorship and requires courts to evaluate the unique circumstances surrounding requests.

Despite these changes, significant gaps remain. Although interested persons may now report abuse, conservatees possess only limited authority to challenge their own conservatorship status. Advocates continue to push for stronger protections, including enhanced oversight, increased funding for investigations, and greater awareness of alternatives. Numerous alternatives exist, including supported decision-making, powers of attorney, and advance directives, all of which provide necessary support without stripping away autonomy. Conservatorships are meant to be a last resort when all other less restrictive means have been examined or exhausted.

The #FreeBritney movement awakened a hunger for justice. The public outcry forced legislators and legal professionals to evaluate their own roles in perpetuating systemic failures. When Spears delivered her emotional testimony, it sparked reform. Media attention brought change to California’s conservatorship law, but its lasting legacy may be in challenging legal professionals to question whether the means accomplish the goal of protecting, rather than controlling, vulnerable individuals.

Happy Mother's Day Mom!

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Sat, 09 May 2026 15:23:00 +0000

Celebrating motherhood takes on all new meaning for every single person on Mother’s Day weekend. Having, knowing, being loved by a mother provides a child with a biological parent who is entrusted with an altruistic investment in their offspring's success unlike any other person on the planet.

Though renowned economist Dr. Gary Becker views this entrustment from an economic lens (Gary S. Becker, A Treatise on the Family (Harvard U. Press 1993), additional research suggests that being raised by one’s biological parent creates stronger parental investment and more effective parenting behaviors. (See Martin Daly & Margo Wilson, The Truth About Cinderella: A Darwinian View of Parental Love 63-93 (1998). That biological relationship may be "both necessary and sufficient" to explain the superior outcomes for children raised in married families with their mom.

Having that female role model within a committed relationship framework changes everything. From communication patterns, to security, to behavioral modeling that contributes to well-rounded development, there are thousands of definitive studies showing mothers are one of the most significant and important contributors of children’s physical, psychological, emotional and intellectual development. (See Lynne Marie Kohm, Rethinking Mom and Dad, 42 Capital U. L. Rev. 441 (2014).

Gratitude to mom today is now understood even by social scientists. Happy Mother's Day mom!

Eugenics Rebranded

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Fri, 01 May 2026 11:38:38 +0000

This guest post is courtesy of Mary Truitt, Regent Law 2L:

“That which has been is what will be. That which is done is what will be done. And there is nothing new under the sun.” Ecclesiastes 1:9.

In the twenty-first century, we are living through our own version of the industrial revolution, but with rapid technological developments. Among the array of incredible developments has been the ability to create life outside of the womb. This has greatly expanded families, but it has also resulted in millions of lives frozen indefinitely. It has created an ethical dilemma that continues to foster problems.

Nucleus Embryo recently launched a new technology that allows parents to screen their embryos for the potential for genetic diseases and traits. It’s been marketed under the pretense of “preventative medicine.” The idea is that parents can choose the healthiest embryo to implant. Yet doing so necessarily discards the embryos that have genetic diseases or may be prone to developing a disease or health issue later in life. This process ranks embryos against one another, thereby devaluing embryos not considered perfect. This technology perpetuates the notion that children are a commodity and the weak do not deserve to live.

Our culture often struggles to call out the evil as we see it because it is not identical to historical examples. The fear is that by drawing modern comparisons, we’ll downplay the evil of our past. Yet in so doing, we are failing to understand the depth of evil right in front of us. Nucleus Embryo is eugenics. It allows parents to discard their weaker children by destroying rejected embryos because they have imperfections. It is not the disease that is being prevented from existing, but rather the child from being born.

Let us never forget that “…the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” Therefore, Scripture calls us to “be sober, be vigilant.”1 Peter 5:8. Satan uses new tactics to employ the same evil. There is nothing new under the sun. Christians should be watchful that we may fulfill the command to “learn to do good; seek justice, rebuke the oppressor; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.” Isaiah 1:17.

Young Adults and Life Insurance

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Mon, 27 Apr 2026 17:19:54 +0000

Why Young adults should prioritize life insurance and why Term is the better option.

This guest post is courtesy of Hannah Holmes, Regent Law 3L:

Many young adults avoid thinking about end-of-life planning because it feels distant or uncomfortable. However, funeral costs average $7,000 to 12,000, and most young adults do not have enough savings to cover those expenses. Life insurance is an easy way to ensure that family members are not left with a financial burden during an already difficult time.

Although life insurance matters at every age, it is especially important for young adults who are still developing financial stability. A policy can cover funeral costs, outstanding bills, or other obligations so that loved ones are protected.

The two most common types of life insurance are term life and whole life, and they differ significantly. Term life insurance provides affordable coverage for a set period, usually 10, 20, or 30 years, and has no cash value. It is designed to cover individuals during the years when financial responsibilities are highest.

Whole life insurance, on the other hand, lasts a lifetime and includes a cash value component. While this feature sounds appealing, it is often misunderstood. While cash value technically grows within a whole life policy, it does so very slowly, sometimes taking more than a decade to break even. Additionally, borrowing against cash value reduces the death benefit unless repaid. A crucial point often overlooked is this: upon the insured’s death, beneficiaries receive only the policy’s death benefit—not the cash value—unless the policy has been specifically structured to include it. This nuance is frequently omitted in sales presentations, leading consumers to believe they are leaving both cash value and a death benefit to their loved ones.

For these reasons, term life insurance is usually the better option for young adults. It offers substantial coverage at a fraction of the cost, and the money saved by choosing term can be invested in retirement accounts or mutual funds—often yielding better long-term growth than the cash value in a whole life policy.

Life insurance is a crucial part of responsible planning, and term life provides young adults with the most practical and cost-effective protection.

A.I. and Your Estate Plan

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 17:41:00 +0000

This guest post is courtesy of Cameron Wall, Regent Law 3L:

In this modern day and age, individuals have been given a powerful tool with the use of the internet, even more so with the recent advent of A.I. (artificial intelligence). This has become a hot topic in the area of law as well, as many documents lawyers draft are often crafted with the use of helpful A.I. technology, whether it be for proofreading, templating, or for improved research efficiency. However, in a world filled with growing A.I. uses, there are also many drawbacks lurking in the shadows: A.I. providing incomplete or incorrect query searches and information (that have gotten lawyers in big trouble recently who solely rely on A.I. to formulate legal arguments), the advent of “deepfake images”, or the verification imperfections of valid online purchases. These issues also pose a significant quandary for the execution of wills in states that have yet to codify electronic signatures for authenticating valid will executions.

For example, in order for a will to be properly executed in Virginia, it must meet some fundamental requirements: the will MUST be in writing; MUST be signed by the testator (or someone else in the testator’s presence at his direction); MUST be acknowledged in the presence of 2 competent witnesses (witnesses must be of sound mind and over 18 years old) who subscribe to the authenticity of the transaction; and the testator MUST both possess (at the time of signing) testamentary intent and testamentary capacity to execute the testator’s will.

Of course, this raises the question, what about wills that are written down at the last second? Perhaps on a person’s deathbed? Virginia, as well as many other states, allow for two narrow types of “deathbed will exceptions”:

1) A “holographic will”: this type of will without 2 competent witnesses present is only valid if it meets the following requirements: MUST be written purely in the testator’s handwriting, MUST have the testator’s handwritten signature, and the testator’s handwriting MUST be proven by two disinterested witnesses to the transaction in court

2) A “nuncupative will”: an oral will that MUST be made/given during an active duty member’s last sickness or where they resided for the ten days preceding their death; MUST be proved by 2 witnesses that testator called on someone present to bear testimony that the oral statement was their intended will; and MUST only apply to personal property, not real property (i.e. real estate).

Virginia, along with many other states’ legislatures, implement these type of wet signature requirements (handwritten signatures in ink) to prevent the occurrence of fraud or illegality in executing wills, as these states place high value on protecting testator’s “freedom of disposition” (the constitutionally protected right that allows individuals to determine how their property will be distributed after their death).

With the advent of the internet and online verification processes, there is a noticeable (and somewhat concerning) trend among states (such as Oklahoma, Indiana, Maryland, Arizona, and Illinois, to name a few) which have enacted statutes allowing for the creation and execution of electronic wills, which include provisions for electronic signatures and remote witnessing. While these states offer (perhaps) a more flexible and accessible means to altering a will, by allowing online/remote verification and signature processes, these states appear willing to remain vulnerable attacks on the authenticity of their wills, especially in the event a motivated party is willing to “bend the rules” and alter a person’s will at the last moment to their benefit without having several of the critical safeguards in place to stop them- safeguards that states like Virginia have to prevent crime and fraud (handwritten requirement, physical presence of two witnesses, etc.).

This raises some ultimate questions for a prudent person to consider when drafting a will: when you draft your will one day, will you opt to have it drafted with an e-signature and an e-verification, or will you choose to have it handwritten in person? Will you choose to create your will far in advance of your deathbed? With or without the advice of a lawyer? And finally, at the end of the day, how much do you really care about securing your “freedom of disposition” and determining where your possessions should go after you leave this earth? Good stewardship requires answers.

12 Year Olds Now Serving in Iran War

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Fri, 27 Mar 2026 19:05:00 +0000

Children can now fight for Iran. Not teenagers, or those almost eighteen – children aged 12. “Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (the IRGC) has lowered the minimum age for participation in war-support roles to 12, a senior official acknowledged on state television, in remarks cited by the Iranian news channel Iran International.” How desperate is the nation that puts its children to war. These 12 year olds will join the IRGC forces manning checkpoints and patrols repressing Iranian citizens. What heartbreaking calamity.

The move comes despite Iran's commitments under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which expressly and outright prohibits the use of children in military activities.

Child soldiering is a problem around the world, particularly with CRC signatory nations in conflict, because desperate regimes recruit children for their easy obedience, attracting them with ideology and perception of community strength they might gain from soldiering. Children in poverty who lack opportunity and education are easy targets. (See my research on this at Suffer the Children: How the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Has Not Supported Children, 22 N.Y. Int’l. L. Rev. 57 (2009); and A Brief Assessment of the 25-Year Effect of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 23 Cardozo J. Int’l. & Compar. L. 323 (2015).

Furthermore, such a move to have children age 12 joining the IRGC defies United Nations treaty authority enforcement. In truth, enforcement has always been a weakness of the CRC, as the plight of children all over the world by CRC signatory states is not improving. It is as if the CRC is a triumph of international law that has enjoyed little success of the rule of law for the lives of children. This new decision by the IRGC is clear evidence of that.

Working on my sabbatical project casebook Children and the Law, my mind immediately rushed to the focus of our book – trauma informed lawyering on behalf of children. When children experience adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), they endure some level of trauma. ACEs are traumatic events that happen as a child grows up. Offering a new and pragmatic perspective, this casebook covers not only essential theory and practice, but accommodates expected law student demands for various expertise in child advocacy, particularly dealing with children who have experienced trauma. Having contact with the law in nearly any form can create a traumatic experience for a child. This casebook is designed to prepare and train lawyers, both experienced and new, in the rising interest toward the involvement of children in the law. Recognizing that a new approach is needed to this area of law and child advocacy, our goal is to provide a tool that will teach in an interesting and engaging manner by offering a fresh perspective on the subject matter with a balance of practical training and tools. It is scheduled for publication in Fall 2026.

So as abhorrent the notions of children serving in a war in any capacity are, the trauma they experience in that service will affect them vividly and dramatically for their entire lives, if they survive their wartime service. The IRGC is showing its true colors on the value they place on children. And the CRC is not protecting these children from child soldiering despite express prohibitions that Iran has agreed to.

193 nations have signed the CRC treaty, leaving the United States as the only UN non-signer. While often debated in legal halls, the reasons for U.S. refusal to sign the treaty are held in our Judeo Christian infused values for children, as those deserving of the protection of their best interests, with their parents holding the right and the serious duty to do so. “United States family law jurisprudence requires the protection of children by the legally enforceable standard of the best interests of the child. This is not a rights framework, but rather it is a protective framework that requires adult obligations and duties to act in the best interests of children based on their parental rights. However imperfect the best interests of the child may be applied, it has been immeasurably more successful at the protection, provision, and participation of the child than the CRC could ever be.” (Suffer the Children, at p. 11).

The IRGC is now another tragic example of the failure of the CRC. While numerous Middle Eastern news outlets are reporting these steps taken by Iran to enlarge its army, western media are seemingly and shamefully silent on this latest use of child soldiers. Understanding rights and obligations and communicating them accurately will always be a heavy task, but ignoring facts is never good – and it is tragic for children.

Rooted in Jewish tradition as a gift from God (Psalm 127, 128), the value of children passed on into Christianity by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. (Matt. 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16) Christianity brought a new and unfamiliar respect for children, in turn bringing a new view of children to the law which has manifested in the United States in the best interests of the child as a legal and statutory standard. This worth of children has become part of the fabric of our nation, setting us apart from many others around the world, especially the IRGC. 12 year olds should never serve in war in any capacity.

What Encompasses Death with Diginity?

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 14:08:00 +0000

This guest post is courtesy of Mildred Culbreath, Regent Law 3L:

In my Bioethics class this semester, we were assigned to consider the proposed Oregon Death with Dignity Statute. I can assure you that when I saw this assignment, I felt dread. It didn't help that the assignment was due in the month that housed the anniversary of my father's death, and I was already battling all the emotions surrounding that event. I persevered and attacked the post with vigor and passion, maybe letting some of the feelings from my personal life bleed through when I clicked the submit button. I was relieved to have gotten through it, only to have my professor send me a note saying, "Maybe you should consider expanding this into a blog post." My immediate response in my head was, "How about no on that?" I told her in polite terms a few days later that I was a little too sensitive to the topic, but here we are.

Not to trauma dump or anything like that, but I fear that I may owe a little explanation. My father was initially diagnosed with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) when I was a senior in college. His diagnosis was confirmed by a second neurologist the summer I graduated, and a few months later, I found myself being the primary caregiver of both my father and my mother, who had suffered a traumatic brain injury due to a car accident when I was 14 years old. My mother was still able to assist in some capacity with my father. It became evident early on that my father, who was rapidly growing weaker, who was 6'3 and solid, needed more help than my mother or I could do alone (we did receive help from other family members and paid caregivers) not to mention the fact that my father, an intelligent, strong-willed, and proud individual, was facing a terminal diagnosis and fading fast. He was taking Riluzole, a drug that extends an individual's life by two to three months, but his prognosis was poor, and he had a bout with pneumonia and a bowel obstruction. After another episode of respiratory failure landed him in the hospital, he was given the option to undergo a tracheostomy and have a feeding tube inserted. My father wrestled with the decision but finally concluded he didn't want either. He was sent home on hospice care, and less than two months later, he was gone. I wrestled with the decision he made; one could say I was even angry, but at the end of the day, he made it.

As I stated earlier, the assignment called for us to assume that we were an attorney in Oregon, where the “Death with Dignity Act” was in force. We were tasked with determining whether we would accept and assist an elderly client who was suffering from a terminal disease with a prognosis of three to four months to live and thinks that he might want to take a lethal dose of medication that would allow him to “die with dignity.” We needed to explain why we would or would not accept the client, and, if we did, how we would explain it to our pastor.

You may be wondering if I decided to represent the hypothetical client, and the answer is a resounding yes. As an attorney, it is my duty to offer ethical, unbiased legal advice to my clients. As a Christian attorney, my duty is, as always, to spread love and the good news of our lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. To serve as a steward of His Kingdom. Relatively simple.

Not really.

Let's start with Oregon's Death with Dignity Act.

Superficially, the act appears to advocate for an individual's right to end their life with dignity and with just cause. Sounds great, but I took a specific issue with some of the language of this statute, specifically with 127.825 § 3.03, which speaks of the patient's potentially being psychologically cleared from depression or any other psychological or psychiatric disorder. The question I pose is this: how can a medical professional clear someone as thinking objectively of their impending death? I further propose that the knowledge of impending death can be catastrophic to someone's mental health. Once someone is confronted with the knowledge that they are actively dying, their mental health is forever and irrevocably changed.

The Concept of Dying with Dignity

Having witnessed the death of my parents and the death of my grandmother, I can understand why some may view a death with dignity as a palatable alternative to a drawn-out and painful death. It may offer a way out, allowing someone to exit on their own terms with most of their faculties intact. To allow them the dignity of choosing not to suffer, and for others to witness their suffering. Perhaps to avoid being a burden. Honestly, I do not know if we have the right to end this life earlier.

Are we even capable of ending our lives early?

Are we as humans capable of ending our lives early? As believers, it is not our decision to make, regardless of our perception of autonomy over our own lives. I would encourage all individuals to look to scripture, such as 2 Corinthians 2:12, which states that God's sovereign power is made perfect in our weakness. Ecclesiastes 8: 7-8 emphasizes that no one can control the future or the time of their death.

Life is precious. I've watched my father fight and force his diseased, weakened muscles to push air into his lungs. I've watched my mother fight for her life as blood poured from a

gaping wound in her head. I watched so many family members fight and claw themselves back from the brink of death, often in agonizing pain, because they had a will to live. Because in many instances, they had faith in something greater than themselves.

It is that faith. A faith that there is something greater than us all that would empower me wholeheartedly to say yes to a client who wants to seek aid from the Death with Dignity Act. That faith would empower me to counsel them to the best of my ability with all the compassion and empathy that I can muster for the situation. One of my classmates astutely observed that, per the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.2(a), lawyers must abide by their clients' objectives, even when they disagree with those objectives morally. Model Rule 2.1 states that lawyers may discuss moral, ethical, and religious considerations but must not impose their personal beliefs. I believe it is possible to be an unbiased and neutral advocate while still serving as a steward of God's kingdom. Because with all things that we do on this earth for the kingdom, we should do it out of love, 1 Corinthians 16:14.

Sources

Model Rules r. 1.2(a). Model Rules r. 2.1.

Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 127.800–127.897 (2024)

Assisted Reproductive Technology: The Legal Nightmare of Cloning and Genetic Perfection

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Fri, 06 Mar 2026 17:28:00 +0000

This guest post is courtesy of Nicholas Hasenbalg, Regent Law 2L:

When replicating something, such as a cookie recipe, one would want to create it without defects. You want to make it as it is intended before trying to replicate the procedure. For example, try a batch with brown sugar instead of natural cane sugar to see what tastes the best. Alternatively, you could employ a method of creating a copy with minor differences to arrive at an ideal conclusion, switching recipes after trying a batch. Then, once you have the perfect cookie, you repeat the process and call it your famous personal recipe, innocently baked in a college student's dorm room oven.

That type of layman's level scientific method of calculation sounds great when thinking about flowers, sugar, chocolate, and other ingredients. However, when your ingredients are gametes of a sperm, egg, and uterus, and the basic building blocks of DNA that make up a human being, that calculation seems far colder and more horrific. It suddenly matters who the chief is in the case of parentage, or who is the proverbial oven in the case of surrogacy, and most importantly, what happens to the unbaked embryo. Wouldn't we give more weight to having cloned embryos than we would to freezing a perfect cookie recipe to share with others, only to then bake it in their ovens?

The clearest risk here is that you can, instead of having multiple unique children born by the mother impregnated through natural means, implant an egg with the father's sperm, clone the resulting embryo, freeze it, then implant that cloned "perfect child" into someone more physically capable of having the child. Alternatively, worse, selling the cloned embryo to a surrogate mother who has the child so she (who may not have healthy eggs but can carry and give birth to the child) can have a genetically perfect child when born.

In the Hitchhiker's Guide to ART, it is made clear to me that mix-ups are not uncommon in these medical facilities that engage in assisted reproductive technology, well, when you significantly increase the amount of embryos via cloning, this statistical risk of transplanting instead of a unique child, you get a child that is not only not the one you intended to have, but one who has an identical genetic clone of itself both in labs and probably born and walking around somewhere else. A clear example is the New York case, Perry Rogers v. Fasano, where the child born was not of the same race as the intended parents. To prevent this in cloning, states should have a clear consent-based contract or restrict cloning of their ART embryos to prevent further embryo discarding or scientific experimentation on embryos. An argument can be made for the potential scientific advancement, but I have a moral objection to such experimentation.

The article also highlights that these issues have a profound ripple effect on families, as they impact not only the child but also their siblings, friends, future spouses, and future children. For each of these groups, there are personal, emotional, social, financial, and physical concerns. Personally, being part of a family with two sets of twins on my mom's side, I have a very wholesome and complex relationship with people who are so similar genetically, even if it is not by natural means. If you include someone who is not genetically unsuitable in the same family, it can create massive emotional ripple effects for the entire family. Cloning consent forms should not be signed by the genetic donors alone. Still, they should be expanded to include related family members or any children born, and should be made aware of the potential consequences of having another one of themselves created.

Exploitation and degradation of women in the Surrogacy industry to make infants objects and children commodities is made more apparent when you include the embryo being implanted being genetically identical to another embryo. It increases the commodification from the simple concept of a surrogate birthing a unique child to a world where an identical child was requested because another clone was asked, and that surrogate birthed them just fine.

All of these issues arise due to a lack of legal guidelines that cannot keep pace with the profound and rapidly advancing scientific developments. Certain states, such as Louisiana, have defined what an embryo is and its rights, which could be expanded to include the rights of a cloned embryo in comparison to a non-cloned embryo. However, states like Oregon have contract law control, which, when thinking about the scientific use of clones, would create a fearfully palatable world where adoptive parents of the US government decide they want to patent a genetic super soldier, preventing adoptive parents from suing for their now adoptive kids' likeness being everywhere, causing violence on behalf of our government.

In conclusion, regardless of the state, the lack of guidelines in a rapidly developing scientific field should be a concern for legislators, who should improve and implement laws based on those established by other states that have addressed the issue. The legal system should begin to address this issue, regardless of who currently has the most well-developed regulations surrounding ART issues, when addressing cloning, to prevent major morally grey lawsuits from reaching court first, and to help restore and strengthen families.

Legal Concerns when the Past Generation is Raising the Next Generation

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Sat, 28 Feb 2026 19:24:00 +0000

This guest post is from Rachael Seida, Regent Law 2L:

A mother grabs her work bag and waves goodbye to her children and their caregiver, their grandmother. A dad leaves the house on Sunday night to drive to another city for work, comfortable in the knowledge that his parents will take care of his son while he is gone for the week. Elsewhere, two preschoolers are playing on a playground during the week and the little girl is being pushed on the swings by her grandfather because her parents are not around anymore.

A common picture in modern America is that of grandparents raising their grandchildren. The reasons for this setup vary drastically from simple daycare needs while mom and dad are at work, to the grandparents having primary custody because the parents are not fit. Currently, over 2.4 million children live in "grandfamilies" or kinship care arrangements (Annie E. Casey Foundation, September 2024).

However, another common aspect of this picture is a lack of legal protection for all the parties involved. It is normal that a need for a quick reaction to a bad situation or access to limited resources necessitates that the parties simply do the best they can initially to handle the situation. However, as the situation stabilizes, it is key that everyone consider and take the right legal steps to protect the legal rights of parties involved in the case of emergencies or even if relationships deteriorate.

Medical Care

Even if parents are simply utilizing the grandparents for daily care, it is important to consider how medical care (both routine and emergency) will be handled. Parents and grandparents should come to an understanding of what to do in the various situations that might arise when taking care of children. Additionally, the parents should consider executing a medical consent form that gives the grandparents the right to make medical decisions an emergency.

Daily Life Decisions

Caregivers for children make a million decisions ever single day. What should we serve for breakfast, lunch, dinner? Should we go on a walk to the playground? Should we sign up for swimming or ballet lessons? Is that skirt too short? It’s amazing that parents and grandparents don’t end up with decision paralysis more often!

A parental designation form or grandparent power of attorney are helpful forms to make it clear to authorities that the grandparents have the rights to make daily decision for their grandchildren. Another benefit of these forms is that (correctly executed) they can also provide protections for the grandparents in a situation where relationships sour. If the parents decide that they don’t like some of the decisions that the grandparents made for the children, then the grandparents can defend themselves against such accusations with these forms.

Temporary Guardianship

No one plans on relationships deteriorating or even complete estrangement, but it does happen. If a parent is planning to leave for a short time to work in another city or perhaps to recover from illness, it is a good idea to consider executing a Caregiver's Authorization Affidavit or another type of temporary guardianship form. This form will protect the parents’ rights to recover their child in the sad case of a breakdown in relationship with the caregiver.

Additionally, if/when the parents return and regain custody of the children, grandparents should be aware that if they allow the child to return to the parents' care without formally terminating or modifying the custody order, the grandparents could potentially be held liable for anything that happens with the child’s well-being.

TLDR-Summary:

As the past generation is stepping up to help care for the next generation, it is important to keep in mind that the legal system may not always recognize situations outside of what has been the “cultural norm.” Parents and Grandparents should seek legal counsel and sign paperwork to both protect the legal rights of all parties and smooth the way for the grandparents to be able to effectively and efficiently take care of the children.

Protecting Caregivers Against Protective Statutes

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Thu, 19 Feb 2026 13:59:00 +0000

This guest post is from Amy Krueger, Regent Law 2L:

Because caregiving often involves pouring years into someone who may no longer be productive or attractive or even good company, caregiving can be one of the most beautiful expressions of love as well as one of the most difficult tasks a person can undertake. California and Illinois apply a presumption of undue influence that, if not rebutted, will void certain testamentary gifts to certain caregivers. Although surely warranted in many cases to protect the elderly, does this disincentivize an already thankless task?

In 2010, California’s Lake County News reported, “The presumption has often raised major concern with respect to even legitimate gifts made to genuine friends (who stepped in when their dependent friend needed help) due to uncertainty over the definition of ‘care custodian.’”

We first look at when the presumption actually applies:

California: California Probate Code Section 21380(a) applies the presumption of fraud or undue influence to “donative transfers” (i.e., testamentary gifts and other gifts) to a dependent adult’s “care custodian” if the transfer instrument was executed during provision of services or shortly before or after that time. Under Section 21382, gifts of $5,000 or less are often allowed, and gifts to a variety of family members are also fine. Section 21362 defines “care custodian,” excluding unpaid caregivers with a pre-existing “personal relationship with the dependent adult” from the presumption.

Illinois: The Probate Act of 1975, 755 ILCS 5/4a, applies the presumption of a void transfer due to fraud, duress, or undue influence to transfers (i.e., gifts and non-gifts) made to a person’s “caregiver” on or after the dependent’s death. Transfers up to $20,000 are not subject to this presumption. A “caregiver” may be paid or unpaid, but a family member is not considered to be a “caregiver.”

Neither statute applies the presumption of undue influence to family members, thus alleviating what could be a major concern for some of the most common caregivers.

California’s statute also excludes those who have had a “personal relationship” with the dependent at least ninety days before provision of services. California caregivers who do not meet the exclusions may wish to ensure that their remuneration is not characterized as a gift, even if they are willing to wait to receive fair payment for services rendered until the death of the dependent.

The Illinois statute is a bit trickier because more people fall under the “caregiver” definition and because non-donative transfers are included in the potentially void transactions. In an insightful post, Attorney Jeffrey R. Gottlieb observes, “[T]here is no requirement that the person giving the assistance ever consider or label themselves as a caregiver — a helpful friend could very well be deemed a caregiver.” Illinois non-family caregivers may wish to ensure payments for services are contracted and payable over the term of service, thus obligating the estate to make payment in the event the dependent does not have enough liquid assets while living.

Although it may be uncomfortable to talk money at a vulnerable time in someone’s life, caregivers who do not take proactive steps to ensure compensation may find that they are the ones in a vulnerable position after years of service. A conversation about compensation can be undertaken with a third party who understands the situation and who can help provide solutions so that caregiving can continue and caregivers can be cared for.

This post provides a high-level overview. It is advisable to discuss potentially problematic transfers with an attorney licensed in the applicable state.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Is AI is Getting Too Risqué for Your Family?

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Fri, 13 Feb 2026 14:09:00 +0000

This guest post is from Hannah Brown, Regent Law 3L & current Bioethics student:

AI chatbots are going to start acting like adults. One of the newest outputs from Grok, Elon Musk’s chatbot, and possibly soon from ChatGPT is sexually explicit content. Grok allows its users to create an image with its “Spicy Mode.” As of now, Grok does require that a user input his birth year, but there is no identity verification process, so anyone, including minors, can easily use this function. To use Grok generally, a user must be thirteen years old, and the platform requires that for any minors they must have their legal guardian’s permission to use the platform. However, it is on the guardians and parents to check that their teenagers are using the platform appropriately.

According to Sam Altman, OpenAI and ChatGPT had been restricting their platforms to be careful with mental health issues, but now they plan to “treat adult users like adults” and will allow erotica for verified adults beginning in December 2025. ChatGPT uses an age prediction model. The model predicts how old a user is, and if it believes the user is under eighteen, then it will include extra content protections to reduce sexually explicit material. If this happens and the user is over eighteen, he can verify his age with a government ID and selfie to reduce the restrictions.

With Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, where the Supreme Court upheld a state age verification requirement, ChatGPT, Grok, and other chatbots may soon need to require stricter age verifications to protect minor children. If the platforms want to treat adults like adults, they need to also treat children like children and not allow them to so easily stumble across sexually explicit material.

https://grokimagine.ai/grok-spicy

You Are What You Eat: Raising Healthy Children

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Mon, 09 Feb 2026 14:30:00 +0000

This guest post is courtesy of Regent Law 3L Andrew Mintz:

While oftentimes expressed lightheartedly, the old saying “you are what you eat” holds a lot of truth, especially in the development of growing children. According to the Mayo Clinic, a proper balanced diet is important for children and adults of all ages, but is especially important in the early development years of a child. A diet focused on nutrient-dense foods including proteins, fruits, vegetables, grains, and dairy will be the best source of vitamins, minerals, and carbohydrates that promote physical and mental development; it is also recommended for parents to limit foods high in added sugars, artificial dyes, saturated fats, and sodium.

In recent years, one artificial dye in particular has caught the attention of the public more than others; this dye is red 40. Approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for food use in 1971, red 40 has become a commonly used artificial coloring by food manufacturers and fast food chains alike. According to MD Anderson Cancer Center, while research is still being conducted, concerns have been raised about red 40 specifically being linked to hyperactivity and neurobehavioral issues, as well as higher risks of cancer in children. Specifically towards the support for risks to cancer, MD Anderson cites an FDA press release from January 2025 announcing a ban on red 3 from being used for food use after two studies concluded that high exposure to red 3 led to male lab rats developing tumors.

One priority of the current U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has been to address the issue of unnecessary artificial dyes in foods. In April 2025, HHS alongside the FDA announced measures being taken to encourage a shift away from all petroleum-based synthetic dyes to natural alternatives. Red 40 and the five other main synthetic dyes are the target of these measures; many food manufacturing companies have already agreed to phase out these dyes from food products by the end of 2026 or 2027. Internationally, the European Union has implemented guidelines that require food products that contain red 40 to place a warning label that states the dye “may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.” Additionally, countries like Norway and Iceland have taken even more extreme measures to protect children from the effects of artificial dyes by banning the use of red 40 in food products altogether. To follow in these footsteps, the Ban Harmful Food Dyes Act was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in August 2025, which would ban artificial dyes, including red 40, from food products. Since its introduction, the bill has since been referred to committee and is awaiting approval before being brought to the House Floor for a vote.

It is encouraging that progress has been made on this issue this year, but there is still much progress to be made. With the introduction of legislation such as the Ban Harmful Food Dyes Act and through the work of Secretary Kennedy, children will have healthier alternatives that leave a long-term positive impact on their development.

Sources:

1. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/childrens-health/in-depth/nutrition-for-kids/art-20049335

2. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/red-dye-40

3. https://www.mdanderson.org/cancerwise/are-food-dyes-unhealthy.h00-159775656.html

4. https://www.fda.gov/food/hfp-constituent-updates/fda-revoke-authorization-use-red-no-3-food-and-ingested-drugs

5. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/hhs-fda-phase-out-petroleum-based-synthetic-dyes-nations-food-supply

6. https://www.fda.gov/food/color-additives-information-consumers/tracking-food-industry-pledges-remove-petroleum-based-food-dyes

7. https://imbarex.com/where-is-red-40-banned-all-the-countries-and-why/

8. https://meng.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/meng-introduces-legislation-banning-harmful-food-dyes#

A Crisis of the West

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Mon, 26 Jan 2026 14:08:00 +0000

This guest post is from Mark Schultz, Regent Law 2L:

In the 1990’s, the State of Michigan was ground zero in a nationwide debate over physician assisted suicide. Dr. Jack Kevorkian was a Michigan physician who seemed to have a lifetime infatuation with death. He assisted in the deaths of 130 people between 1990 and 199.[1]

The legal landscape at the time was uncertain. Michigan enacted a temporary ban on assisted suicide,[2] mostly to buy time for legislators to mull things over before crafting more permanent legislation.

Kevorkian challenged the temporary ban on assisted suicide and lost at the Michigan Supreme Court,[3] but the law soon expired. Kevorkian escalated his practice of sending elderly patients to their deaths and promoting assisted suicide. Kevorkian and his attorney, Geoffrey Fieger, who used his newfound defense lawyer publicity to run for Michigan Governor, pushed for legal physician assisted suicide across the country.

Kevorkian’s assisted suicide advocacy efforts had opposite effect he intended. His position proved to be far outside the Overton Window of Michiganders. In 1998, Michigan enacted a ban on physician assisted suicide.[4] Dr. Kevorkian didn’t care; he continued to kill old people and was soon convicted of second-degree murder under that statute.[5] Two and a half decades later, the debate over physician assisted suicide continues, even when it lacks high-profile doctors and patients to bring it to light.

Debates about assisted suicide tend to focus on theoretical concepts like the sanctity of life, personal liberty, care for the elderly, and informed consent. Both sides often fail to see real-world pitfalls of physician assisted suicide.

Older people who are nearing death think about things in a different light. They want to be on good terms with God and with as many people as possible. While this is a great intention, it can leave them vulnerable. One fear of the elderly is being a burden. They care so much for others as they prepare to leave this world that they don’t want to inconvenience others on their way out. This is when a theoretical right to die public policy measure becomes a duty to die in many people’s minds.

Many people today in nursing homes have very early childhood memories of the Great Depression. They worked and saved their entire lives so their kids wouldn’t have to wait in breadlines or hope a world war lifts them out of poverty. Their concern for others combined with financial costs associated with keeping them alive can coerce them to choose death when physician assisted suicide is a legal option.

Many people require specialized care for many years at the end of their lives. Their specific medical situation may prevent them from living with a son or daughter, even if both parties strongly desire it. While assisted living is very expensive, living in a skilled care facility magnifies that expense many times over. A Roth IRA or employer retirement account that took discipline and decades to build can quickly disappear when used to pay for a nursing home. Many people protect assets in a trust as part of a good estate plan and attempt to qualify for entitlements such as Medicaid, but many estate assets may still be subject to recovery by the government. Questions can begin to linger in people’s minds: “Is it worth it for me to spend all my money to live like this for just a few more years? I really want my kids and grandkids to have my mutual fund portfolio. Everyone says it’s ok and legal now to have my doctor help me die a little faster. Maybe I should just do that.” Beneficiaries can think things like “Would I rather visit Grandpa in the nursing home for the next 3 years, or would I rather be thankful for the good times we had together and instead have a share of his stock account that is quickly depleting?” Public policy in American must not reach the point of making physician assisted death look more appealing and valuable than human life.

Suicide is a crisis in the West, despite our status as the most prosperous and free people in all human history. We cannot simultaneously prevent suicide and promote suicide in different contexts to different people just because of various pitfalls of the human condition.

[1]Law Library - American Law and Legal Information, https://law.jrank.org/pages/7987/Kevorkian-Jack.html

[2] MICH. COMP. LAWS § 752.1027 (1992).

[3] People v. Kevorkian, 527 N.W.2d 714 (Mich. 1994).

[4] MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.329a (1998).

[5] People v. Kevorkian, 639 N.W.2d 291 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).

Trauma Informed Lawyering Makes a Difference

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 19:00:00 +0000

This guest post is from Elie El-Habr, Regent Law 3L:

"What on Earth is wrong with this person?" This is likely the most commonly asked question after just one day of observing courtroom proceedings in Virginia's Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. But sometimes, the question ought to be asked differently. As lawyers, we must ask it differently. "What on Earth happened to this person?" is probably a good place to start.

Our past trauma, whether experienced in adulthood or childhood, influences almost everything we do. It affects how we deal with happiness or grief, success or failure, love or hate, and calm or stress. Almost every human emotion is flavored by trauma. We can somehow take this precept as a truism, but still struggle with conducting ourselves in accordance with it. Am I really to consider opposing counsel's childhood trauma when I am on the verge of seeking Rule 11 sanctions against him? Do I really need to worry about my client's trauma when deciding how to advise her in a divorce lawsuit? The answer depends on another question: Who am I, as a lawyer?

If I view myself as a hired gun, then considering my client's trauma could not matter less. But I strive to be more than just that. "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you," Matthew 7:12. As lawyers, we are gifted. We have the gift of stepping into the role of trusted stewards, bold advocates, and wise counselors. Our clients will most likely seek our assistance during their life's lowest moments. Being a trauma-informed advocate is thus paramount. I firmly believe that to live my life with Christ as a model, to achieve the highest possible level of self-actualization, to maximize fulfillment, and to promote the kingdom of God and His glory, I must seize every opportunity to contribute to my client's personal well-being---not just his legal well-being. It starts with knowing my client. And you do not really know people until you know what happened to them.

Personally, my childhood trauma affects nearly everything I do. It was not until recently that I discovered that, but growing up in an abusive household never leaves you (with every meaning the word carries). It's a double-edged sword. Wield it properly and it can propel you to prosper. Falter with it and you'll be on your way to failure. Through my relationship with Christ, I am learning how to wield it properly. But I also want to learn how to help others deal with their trauma and how to better serve others with an understanding of how their trauma affects them.

Children Lost from Families in Immigration

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Mon, 12 Jan 2026 17:47:00 +0000

This guest post is courtesy of Sally Glanzer, Regent Law 2L:

One of the pressing issues in navigating immigration policies is how children are impacted by the detention and deportation process. Both when families are processed at the border or during deportation proceedings, families are tragically often separated. Red tape, conflicting court orders, or immigration policies have resulted in families being separated from each other. As a result, there have been reports of “lost” children with some estimated numbers of 300,000 children missing from the system. These reports have been seen in each administration, so keeping track and ensuring safety for children when they are separated from their parents has been a consistent issue.

In 2018, an immigration regulation entitled the “Zero Policy” act greatly increased the separation of parents and children. Under this strict immigration policy, parents were prosecuted under the “improper entry” while simultaneously treating children as unaccompanied minors. The parents and children were transferred to different departments, and as a result, children and parents were navigating the immigration system separated from each other. Although this process was eventually halted because of the harm it was causing to the children, it still had a lasting impact on those families.

Under the next administration, there were reports of an estimated number of 300,000 children that were “lost” in the system. It is important to note that these numbers primarily reflect children whose address is unknown, who missed court dates, or possibly never received notice. But these children that are lost both on paper and physically is evidence of a clear lack of organization and the increased risk of trafficking and danger that these children face in a system that overwhelms them.

Regardless of the administration in power at any time, immigration reform has become a pressing concern at the hearts of many Americans. At its core, we must ensure that our policies are protecting the most vulnerable. Families need to be reunited and kept together as they navigate the immigration system. These “lost” children are significantly at risk for trafficking in a confusing system full of adults. Whether Congress enacts laws or Homeland Security operations change, immigration reform should prioritize the best interests of the child and family reunification. That advances family restoration.

When Faith Demands Foresight: A New Year of Blessings

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Thu, 01 Jan 2026 22:07:00 +0000

This guest post is from Kainat Chaudhary, Regent Law 3L:

This past weekend, my dad became extremely sick, and our family was immediately thrown into chaos. Fear has a way of collapsing time, and suddenly, nothing mattered except getting to the hospital. On the drive to the hospital, my dad began telling me about his assets, how they must be distributed, and other important numbers. He spoke calmly, but with the awareness of someone who believed he may not survive. I was overwhelmed by the fear of uncertainty. In that moment, inheritance stopped being an abstract concept and became painfully real.

Thankfully, after spending two days in the hospital, my dad was released from the hospital. I was relieved and felt compelled to reflect on this incident.

As Christians, we confess that life is fragile. Scripture reminds us that “you do not know what will happen tomorrow” (James 4:14). We repeat this truth often, but rarely do we feel its weight until we are forced to. When mortality is no longer theoretical, clarity matters. And clarity is a gift we either prepare in advance or leave our loved ones to piece together in grief.

The life-giving words of John 3:16 must be at the foundation: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Inheritance is more than money. Spiritually, parents pass down faith, values, and example. Proverbs tells us that “a good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children’’ (Proverbs 13:22). That inheritance includes wisdom, order, and peace—not just assets. Yet physical inheritance matters too, because when someone passes away, the law must step in and distribute what remains.

Legally, if no will or estate plan exists, the state applies intestacy rules, default formulas that decide who receives property and in what share. These rules do not account for spiritual priorities, family complexities, or international assets. When property spans more than one country, the absence of planning can leave families navigating multiple legal systems while grieving, multiplying confusion at the worst possible moment.

Scripture consistently teaches stewardship. Everything we own belongs to God, and we are accountable for how we manage it. This responsibility does not end with our last breath. Creating a will or estate plan is not a lack of faith; it is an act of love and obedience to wisdom. It is a way of caring for others when we can no longer.

What struck me most was not just the fear of loss, but the burden my dad carried in trying to communicate everything at once. No one should have to compress a lifetime of work, sacrifice, and intention into a conversation overshadowed by sirens and uncertainty.

Christian faith calls us to trust God and also to act wisely. Planning what we leave behind is part of loving our families well.

Blessings to you and your family this new year.

The Birth of Christ & the Marital Presumption

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Wed, 24 Dec 2025 15:44:00 +0000

Celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ is a special time of year for so many reasons, but most of us never think about the family law rule that protected the Holy Family.

The marital presumption is the legal assumption that a child born to a married woman is presumed to be the child of her husband. This presumption helps to establish paternity and supports the stability of the family structure in a legal context of marriage. It provides a beautiful context for the child's safety and stability.

That presumption is at work in Matthew chapter 1 when the birth of Jesus Christ is told:

"This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

But after he considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.'

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel' - which means, 'God with us.' [citing Isaiah 7:14]

When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." Matthew 1:18-25

Even at the birth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ God Almighty was at work protecting him with the law, and with parents married to each other for his benefit, stability, and continuity.

Rejoice this Christmas for His holy birth, and God's legal protection in the midst.

An Inheritance of Faith over 250 Years

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Wed, 10 Dec 2025 17:53:00 +0000

This guest post is from Dillon Stafford, Regent Law Wills, Trusts, & Estates Student:

Recently, I embarked on a journey to trace my Stafford lineage to the first Stafford to immigrate to the “New World” from England. In this search, I found that, before my family arrived in Kentucky (my home state), the first of my line landed in Virginia in the early 1600s. While poring over documents that survived over the years, I discovered the Last Will & Testament of William Stafford III. What struck me about this relatively common document was not the earthly possessions that William left to his children, but rather the language of his opening paragraph, which showed the most valuable thing William passed on to his heirs, a knowledge that faith in Christ is the ONLY thing of true value we have in our earthly lives. The language in that opening paragraph is below (typos and all):

“In the name of God amen the seventeenth day of February 1727, I, William Stafford of the precinct of Currituck in the county of Albemarle in the province of North Carolina whreof being very sick and weak of body but of perfect mind and memory, thanks be unto the almighty God for it, calling unto mind the mortality of my life and knowing it is appointed all men are to die, do make and -- this my last will and testament, that is to say principally and finally first of all I give and recommend my soul into the hands of God that gave it and my body I recommend to the earth to be buried in decent manner as a Christian ought to be at the discretion of my Exector, nothing doubtiing but at the general resurrection I shall receive the same again by the mighty power of God and as touching such worldlyestate wherewith it hath pleased God to bless me in this life, I give, deem and dispose of the same in the following manner and form:” After this paragraph, William outlines in detail how the earthly possessions are to be distributed amongst his wife and children.

What was so beautiful to me was William’s emphasis that his earthly possessions meant very little without the eternity that follows death by one’s acceptance of Christ. This inheritance of faith in God carried through my family for 250 years to my birth and was a gift that passed down to me by my parents as it had been by their parents, and so on. I wonder if William Stafford III knew that his powerful belief in God and his documentation of that faith would live on so long and be inherited by so many generations. I intend to renew William’s language as I begin to draft my own will soon and hope to pass this remarkable gift of knowing Jesus Christ to my children.

Legal Risks for International Couples & their Families

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Wed, 19 Nov 2025 18:38:00 +0000

This post is from Laura Allen Kawasaki 2L at Regent University School of Law:

International relationships are great—but they come with legal complexities. Here are a few important questions to think through for anyone in an international relationship:

1. Can you legally live in the same country?

It sounds simple, but immigration can be one of the biggest hurdles for international couples. For instance, immigrating to the United States can take anywhere from several months to several years depending on the visa type. If living together in the U.S. (or any other country) is part of your plan, it’s best to start preparing well in advance—gathering documentation, understanding timelines, and planning for possible delays.

2. Does your country allow dual citizenship?

Not every country allows dual citizenship. Some countries automatically revoke your citizenship if you become a citizen of another country. Before applying for a second passport—or for your child’s dual citizenship—it is ideal to confirm your country’s rules to avoid unintended consequences, such as the loss of your original nationality.

3. Will your children qualify for citizenship in both countries?

Children born abroad do not always entitled to citizenship. Many countries require registration within a certain time frame, and missing the deadline can mean your child loses the right to claim citizenship later. Understanding these timelines early can save a lot of paperwork down the road.

4. How do inheritance laws apply to your family?

Inheritance laws vary across borders. In the U.S., individuals can decide who inherits their property. In contrast, some countries enforce “forced succession,” which means certain relatives must receive a portion of the estate by law. Renouncing citizenship or failing to maintain your child’s citizenship could unintentionally affect their rights to inherit from relatives abroad.

5. Is your prospective spouse single?

This one may seem obvious, but it is worth checking. Not all countries have marriage records, and in some, polygamy is legal. Before getting married, confirm that your partner is legally and actually single in every country where they may have been married. Otherwise, your marriage could face serious legal complications down the line.

The bottom line: International couples face unique legal risks that non international couples will not encounter. A bit of research—and early legal guidance—can prevent years of stress and costly mistakes later on, and help keep families together.

Natalism and Family Formation: A Christian Perspective

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Wed, 12 Nov 2025 13:49:00 +0000

This guest post is from Parker Brown, Regent Law 3L:

Questions regarding population trends, birth rates, and intergenerational care affect estate planning, social policy, and family law in consequential ways. Yet the contemporary movement known as "natalism" approaches these questions from a perspective that merits careful scrutiny.

Natalism. Noun: “an attitude or policy favoring or encouraging population growth.” This ideology is distinct from those of groups like the pro-life movement (which seeks an end or heavy restriction to the practice of abortion) or the consistent life ethic (which opposes war, euthanasia, the death penalty, and abortion from an anti-death perspective).

While natalism shares concerns about demographic trends with pro-life advocates, it approaches these questions primarily through the lens of birth rates and population growth. The interest with birthrates arises from a number of considerations, be they spiritual, social, political, or economic. The natalist lens sees the existence of children as an anodyne for familial, community, and national tensions/strife/dissolution. Right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation view lower rates of child having as a spiritual malaise impugning trouble for “the state of our souls.” And a variety of voices, from investment banks to advocates at the National Natal conference, view lowered levels of child-bearing as an existential crisis. Yet this position assumes inherent benefits (beyond a rational preference calculus) that having a child is a first order benefit for all persons as a first order consideration. Moreover, regardless of the severity and scope of natalists’ identified harms, their solutions present a metaphorical cure perhaps far worse than the disease.

Beginning with the first issue, we should recognize that universal parenthood as a policy goal presents significant challenges. Many potential parents would be poorly suited to the task, through either a lack of material resources, an absence of training, or a poor temperament mismatch. While the first two concerns could be alleviated with government intervention and aid, it does not follow that parenthood for all should be pushed before such considerations are weighed. The latter concern, however, is the simple truth that many people are ill-suited to be parents: through selfishness, propensity to violence, routine narcotic abuse, habitual indigence, and more. Given that more than 340,000 children remained in the US foster care system in 2023 and the rates of adoption from foster care have declined by 19 percent since 2019, it merits further consideration of why more children should be born before finding suitable and loving homes for all children already here. These realities suggest that our focus should include not only encouraging new births but also strengthening support systems for existing families and children that provide stable, loving homes (such as blended, multigenerational, multifamily, and adoptive arrangements). Additionally, though having children is tied to numerous prosocial benefits, there are numerous costs (pecuniary and personal) in having a child. Two studies in 2004 and 2012, respectively, found that recent parents report lowered levels of life satisfaction, marital satisfaction, and day-to-day levels of happiness (lasting for several years, including and up to the point at which children move out). These arise from factors such as less sleep, stress over a child’s wellness, and quarrels over the direction of child rearing. SoFi also estimates the cost of raising a child, in 2024, at $23,000 per year (totaling $414,000 over 18 years). These costs demonstrate that the decision to have a child should not be entered into lightly.

Natalists counter that parenthood is a duty, even if you do not want or enjoy it. Their reasons arise from the aforementioned economic concerns (“we need a supply of workers; we need more young people to pay into entitlement programs to ensure longevity”), societal dogma (“without children, humanity will die out!”), and religious postulations (“God commands us to have kids”). I will discuss these points next.

Economic

At the first national Natal Conference in 2024, speaker Kevin Dolan succinctly remarked on the natalist economic perspective: “The entire global financial system, the value of your money. . .depends on growth.” This is factually true—our present economic system (oriented toward macro measurement of GDP [gross domestic product]) is principally concerned with growth in the short and long term. As a descriptive statement, however, we must be careful not to conflate it with a normative one: mistaking what is from what ought to be. The mere existence of a system does not presuppose its preeminence or positive benefits. Indeed, the distinction of concepts like the “GDP” move focuses away from other measures of economic success and prosperity for individual citizens, such as real wages, unemployment, domestic investment, housing affordability, et cetera. Each focuses on prioritizing an economy that exists for the people, and not a people existing for the economy. (This also ignores models showing that a reduction of birth rates, in some contexts, actually raises GDP growth). We will not dwell at length on these counterfactuals, though; they could not be adequately discussed in a few hundred words.

Societal

This concern relates to a topic called the “fertility rate,” a metric that measures the number of children each woman capable of having children is expected to have. Natalists speak about this subject extensively.This framing continues the above mindset of perpetual growth as inherently good. The question, here, revolves around something called the “replacement rate,” equal to a fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman of childbearing age.¹ If the fertility rate is exactly 2.1, then the population size will be unchanged over two generations (~40 years). If the fertility rate is higher, e.g. 2.6, then the population will grow. Assuming an initial population size of 100 million, a consistent fertility rate of 2.6 will result in a population of ~156 million in two generations (~40 years).² By contrast, a fertility rate below the replacement rate, e.g., 1.6, will cause the population to shrink. Assuming an initial population size of 100 million, a consistent fertility rate of 1.6 will result in a population of ~56 million in two generations (~40 years).

In 2025, the fertility rate in the U.S. is 1.79. This amount is below the replacement rate (and below the apogee of the U.S. fertility rate of 3.65 in 1960). But this paints an incomplete picture: the U.S. fertility rate has risen from an all-time low of 1.62 in 2023 (an increase of 17 basis points and 10.49 percent). Furthermore, despite the U.S. fertility rate being below 2.1 since 2008, the U.S. population is not decreasing but increasing. The total U.S. population was 308.745 million in 2010; in 2020, the U.S. population was 331.449 million (a 7.4 percent increase). The U.S. population continues to rise as of 2025, too, currently estimated at 342.660 million. Given that the American population is not decreasing, why the concern from natalists?

The reason for their concerns and the reason for the population increase each point to a common thread, immigration,³ and the relationship between fertility concerns and immigration policy deserves careful scrutiny. Since they are interested in boosting the birth rates of their own citizens while the overall fertility rate around the world remains quite high, it is reasonable to view natalism as a subset of nativism. Given that the ostensibly first-order problem of overall population decline is not occurring (on the national or global level), the natalists’ viewpoint is thus ultimately concerned with fewer numbers of children from particular persons. Intended or unintended, the natalist movement at present has, unfortunately, attracted speakers whose views on race and immigration raise serious concerns.

The 2025 national Natal Conference found itself in precisely this quagmire. Though officially positioning itself as apolitical and ideologically unaligned (and the abstract idea of promoting child rearing could find support across the political spectrum), it has tethered itself to thought leaders on the radical right. Assembled at its last gathering was a consortium of eugenics supporters, white nationalists, and anti-immigration hardliners. Alas, they appeared not in the audience but as the keynote speakers. These included alt-right YouTuber Carl Benjamin (who publishes content online under the moniker “Sargon of Akkad”), Jonathan Anomaly (an academic and senior staffer at Heliospect Genomics, a startup that screens human embryos for high IQ points and other “superior” characteristics), Jordan Lasker (who, under the moniker “Cremieux,” publishes treatises on debunked pseudoscientific “race science”), and Jack Posobiec (an inveterate promoter of baseless conspiracies such as the Springfield, Ohio, pet-eating hoax, PizzaGate, and the white genocide conspiracy, and who has repeatedly posted antisemitic symbols and comments on social media). The connection between natalist advocacy and racialized population concerns was made plain by keynote speaker Posobiec, who stated at the conference, “Western civilization isn’t just worth preserving. It’s worth fighting for. . . . This is a war, and natalism is our sword and shield, and we will not abandon the front line.” His framing of reproduction as civilizational warfare against demographic change echoes longstanding far-right rhetoric about ethnic preservation. These troubling associations significantly detract from and undermine the movement’s stated goal of a bipartisan consensus to promote families.

In addition to speakers from Heliospect, the through line of eugenics was further bolstered by adverts for the company Orchid (another prenatal screening company that analyzes embryos for their risk of having any of thousands of genetically linked diseases) and Bootstrap Bio (that goes beyond the mere filtering of embryos to the genetic modification of embryos via CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology (selecting, again, for the most “superior” of genetic traits). Each calls to mind the dystopian film Gattaca, which imagined a world bifurcated between the genetically engineered first class and the genetically “inferior” invalid class. Altogether, this shows a concerning revival of eugenics discourse (the belief that society ought to have more of the genetically “fit” and less of the “unfit.”)

To be clear, not every attendee or supporter of natalist policies endorses these extreme positions. However, when a movement’s marquee national event features multiple speakers with documented histories of promoting racial pseudoscience and white nationalist talking points (and when this has occurred at successive conferences), a reasonable observer must question whether these associations are incidental or integral to the movement’s animating concerns. Given that prominent natalists advocate for raising rates of children not just with tax credits but also with political maneuvers (such as restricting contraception access, banning no-fault divorce, and giving parents of minor children extra votes in elections), one can reasonably be skeptical of a movement that is neither pro-life nor pro-family but merely pro-birth.

Religious

Given the above fiscal and sociological points, what should a Christian response be to the topic? Children are counted as a blessing from God (Psa. 127:3-5;⁴ Deut. 7:13-14⁵), yet there is no Biblical command that all must wed and have children of their own. Indeed, marriage is labeled as good but not mandatory practice for Christians (1 Cor. 7:1-2).⁶ Far from extolling a universal view of married parentage for all, both Jesus (Matt. 19:12)⁷ and Paul are clear that singleness is a calling for some (1 Cor 7:7-8;⁸ 1 Cor. 7:38).⁹Life is a sacred gift that is a monumental responsibility to steward (1 Tim. 5:8)¹⁰ and at times a heavy yoke to bear (Ecc. 6:3-5).¹¹ When children are understood as a blessing yet not a duty, and when pretensions to ethnic supremacy are thoroughly refuted and disgraced (Deut. 10:17-19;¹² Acts 10:34-35;¹³ Gal. 3:28¹⁴), the Christian response should be one of freedom and support, not coercion. Prospective parents should prayerfully consider and discern their calling, resources, and circumstances when deciding whether to have a child (biological, adopted, or otherwise). Our hope rests in God's sovereignty, not cultural power. A natalism that privileges certain populations over others (whether explicitly or implicitly) risks subordinating the gospel to nationalist ideology. This is not merely a political error but a theological one, as it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of God’s kingdom (which is built through spiritual regeneration rather than biological reproduction).

A Christian approach to family flourishing must extend beyond increasing birth rates to restoring and strengthening families in all their forms. Scripture’s call to care for the widow, the orphan, and the sojourner (James 1:27)¹⁵ directs us toward supporting struggling families, facilitating adoption and foster care, and creating communities where children already born can thrive. Rather than viewing low birth rates primarily as a crisis to be solved through political pressure, Christians might better address the root causes: Why do young adults feel unable to afford family formation? What barriers prevent willing parents from providing stable homes? How can churches create a culture that genuinely supports parents through the demanding seasons of child-rearing? I thus encourage the Church to champion healthy and happy families via promulgating policies that remove barriers to having children: affordable health insurance, paid parental leave, childcare support, and more. This push should be coupled with honor for those without children, whether or not by choice. The kingdom comes through disciples made, not babies born.

Endnotes

¹ The 0.1 is the mathematical representation of the tragedy of early deaths in childhood.

² Formula for population change in one generation: (initial population ÷ 2)*(fertility rate - 0.1)

³ Net migration to the U.S. has exceeded 1 million persons per year since 1990, with the exceptions of 2020 and 2021. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/net-migration

⁴ "Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate." [ESV]

⁵ "He will love you, bless you, and multiply you. He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your wine and your oil, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock, in the land that he swore to your fathers to give you. You shall be blessed above all peoples. There shall not be male or female barren among you or among your livestock." [ESV]

⁶ "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: 'It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.' But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." [ESV]

⁷ "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it." [ESV]

⁸ "I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am." [ESV]

⁹ "So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better." [ESV]

¹⁰ "But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." [ESV]

¹¹ "If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but his soul is not satisfied with life's good things, and he also has no burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he. For it comes in vanity and goes in darkness, and in darkness its name is covered. Moreover, it has not seen the sun or known anything, yet it finds rest rather than he." [ESV]

¹² "For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt." [ESV]

¹³ "So Peter opened his mouth and said: 'Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.'" [ESV]

¹⁴ "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." [ESV]

¹⁵ "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." [ESV]

Let Parents Parent

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Wed, 05 Nov 2025 14:23:00 +0000

Is it child abuse to help your child transition to the other gender? Or is it child abuse to prohibit your child’s transition to the other gender? Two states have passed legislation to clear up this dilemma towards the protection of children. But other states may be keeping parents out of the decision-making to allow for a child to follow further experimentation in this area. This type of experimentation on children is troubling at best, and potentially abusive and life-altering. Parents need to be allowed to parent their own children.

Two states have passed a version of the model Defining Abuse Child Protection Act. They are Indiana (Senate Bill 143) and North Carolina (Senate Bill 442). These are links to the announcements about these new laws from Family Policy Alliance’s (FPA) state allies in those states, or what are known as state Family Policy Councils (FPCs). Both the Indiana Family Institute and the North Carolina Family Policy Council worked tirelessly to connect with and consult with legislators on passing these laws.

FPA publicly endorses the model Defining Abuse Child Protection Act and will be working to see many more states enact it in the coming years as a critical safeguard every state needs in order to protect their parents from increasing encroachment upon their rights by various lobbyists and the state agencies that have been captured by sexualizing children experiencing gender dysphoria. Even family courts and child protective services have very few if any legal anchors regarding these concerns. In fact the tragic case of an Indiana family of M.C. and J.C. v. IDCS led to the bill’s passage. Parents need to be able to parent their own children.

If you are interested in policy work and its broader impact on parental rights visit Let Parents Parent.

Your Duty as a Man

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Tue, 04 Nov 2025 16:04:00 +0000

This guest post is from Regent Law 3L Jarod Russo:

“The mark of a real man is a man who chooses to do the harder thing for the greater good.” -Matt Walsh.

Growing up, I frequently pondered what it means to be a real man. Does it mean being surrounded by beautiful women who cling to your every word? Does it mean having power? Does it mean being financially independent so you can pursue your every desire? Hardly.

Sacrifice. That is what makes a man a real man. Men who spend their lives pursuing illicit sex, fame, money, and power for their own sakes are not real men. They are overgrown children. The easy path is to be promiscuous. The easy path is to pursue wealth for its own sake. The easy path is not having a wife and children depending on you and only concerning yourself with yourself. If you still disagree with me, ask yourself this question. How does pursuing the things mentioned in this paragraph better those around you? Does it help your country? Does it help your community? Does it help your family?

The call to action is this: build yourself up into a person who has the capacity to serve a cause greater than yourself. Take care of your health. If you have unresolved trauma, see a therapist and a spiritual leader. Develop a skill that will support yourself financially. Develop the confidence in yourself to talk to women so you can find a wife. Confidence is not based on your perception of yourself. It is based upon stacks of wins in your life that prove to yourself you are capable of doing what you say you are going to do. You have the ability and the potential; now get to work!

Religion, Gender Based Violence, and Human Trafficking: A Dangerous Intersection

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Mon, 27 Oct 2025 16:57:00 +0000

This guest post is from Jade Q. Heider, Juris Doctorate Candidate 2027, and current Bioethics student:

This summer I interned at a religious freedom nonprofit in Fairfax, Virginia, and attended multiple congressional briefings that exemplified an intersection of religion, gender based violence, and human trafficking. Through the briefings, I learned that in the most extreme cases religion can be forced upon women, or withheld from women, to violate their rights. And this can destroy families.

The first congressional briefing was titled, “Gendered Persecution: Targets of Forced Conversion.” According to the accounts of panelists, girls in Egypt and Pakistan are similarly abused through cycles of child marriage and forced faith conversions. Panelists for this event explained the process of young girls being abducted, raped, and then forced to convert and marry their abusers. This is a clear pattern, and oftentimes, officials and judges do nothing about this because they approve of the spread of their religion through forced conversion. This is a tragic fate for young girls, and even if rescued, survivors face stigma from their communities who value sexual purity. One speaker emphasized that in Egypt the authorities deny justice for the families of the stolen girls and keep a front internationally to cover the sexual crimes. A Coptic woman testified how she was assaulted by her coach and forced to convert to Islam. Even after escaping from her abuser, she was persistently harassed and her abuser claimed she was “his wife.” Another panelist spoke on the condition of women in Pakistan. Like in Egypt, Christian girls, have been forcefully abducted, converted, and married off to men far older than themselves. The panelist emphasized how religious principles were used to create laws allowing underage girls to be married off after their first menstrual cycle. This briefing made the argument that gender based persecution should be recognized as a form of genocide, and that religion used to legally do wrong should be given specific attention. In addition to the trauma inflicted through abduction and forced conversion, child marriage has correlated deleterious effects on girls. Girls who are forced into child marriage miss educational, economic, and social growth opportunities and are often subject to physical and sexual abuse. Additionally, if they fall pregnant, they face higher health complications and risk of death associated with adolescent pregnancy.

Another congressional briefing I attended was called, “North Korea’s Future Hope.” The speakers from this event were all North Korean defectors, and a surprising issue discussed was how women defectors are trafficked in China. This form of gender based violence, occurs when women escape from North Korea through China. Though the women flee in hopes of freedom, many are forced into marriages or tricked into sex work when they flee to China. Since the One Child Policy left the Chinese population unbalanced, there is a large market of desperate men searching for wives. Trafficked women have no rights as undocumented immigrants, and cannot report any abuse to the police. A survivor testified that after defecting she was sex trafficked in China and became pregnant. She explained that her story was not unique, and thousands of children are in China with no birth certificates because their mothers are undocumented themselves. Without birth certificates, these children are unable to receive an education and are legally unprotected. Defectors shared how the North Korean government exerts extreme control and deals harsh punishment over religious expression. However, speakers emphasized how sneaking in the Bible to encourage religious thought, or even other materials such as K-dramas and music from the west, inspired them to defect, and could influence others. In North Korea, religion is restricted as a means of controlling the way citizens think, and severe government control is what drives citizens to defect. Religion being taken away as a means of control, is radically different from Egypt and Pakistan where religion is used as a form of control. Gender-based violence and human trafficking are often interconnected and intersect with religion as a tool that may be utilized or taken away from women to further perpetuate harmful cycles.

Religious freedom, both the freedom to profess a religion as well as the freedom from a religion are fundamental human rights – and they work together to help restore families.

Abortion v. Adoption: The Adoption Paradox

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Tue, 14 Oct 2025 19:36:00 +0000

A new article in the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy entitled, "Informing Choice: The Role of Adoption in Women's Pregnancy Decision-Making," describes the "adoption paradox," i.e., the reality that adoption is a widely admired but rarely chosen institution. By a ratio of 50:1, women choose to terminate a pregnancy over placing a child for adoption. Accordingly, many scholars (and the dissenting justices in Dobbs) question adoption's relevance in abortion policy specifically and in family policy more generally.

To investigate this tension, the authors examine never before-published survey data and analysis from the largest study on birth mothers’ decision-making and coercion experiences and aggregate and analyze existing social science studies of pregnancy decision-making regarding adoption. They found a prevalent stigma against the choice of adoption in women's pregnancy decision-making explained by many factors, such as feared emotional distress, social pressures to parent, and concern for the child’s safety. Adoption’s disfavor is amplified when legalized abortion is readily available, and decision-making often takes place in a situation of insufficient information or misunderstanding, for example, prevalent confusion between private domestic adoption and the foster care system. They also found that women who experience the highest satisfaction with adoption placement are those who were able to make a voluntary, fully informed decision.

Based on this data, the researchers recommend law and policy reforms to promote informed decision-making and education about adoption. The article includes the most comprehensive fifty-state survey of abortion-specific informed consent laws and, in light of these findings about the factors that most influence women’s decision-making, the researchers argue that major reform is needed.

This practical article can be useful to any individual in their decision-making process, or any state legislator seeking to promote adoption, or to anyone seeking to strengthen or defend state informed consent laws. Adoption is truly a better choice than abortion.

Must a Counselor Affirm Unwanted Therapy Because the State Says So?

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Lynne Marie Kohm) — Wed, 08 Oct 2025 12:14:00 +0000

Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in the case of Chiles v. Salazar, challenging Colorado’s counseling censorship law as a violation of the rights of patients and counselors to choose the type of therapy and treatment they wish to receive.

Licensed counselor Kaley Chiles’ freedom of speech and that of her clients are prohibited by censoring and prohibiting certain private client-counselor conversations regarding sexual orientation and gender identity that the government disfavors while allowing—even encouraging—conversations the government favors.

Read the full summary at Chiles v. Salazar. A counselor should not have to affirm unwanted therapy for any patient. A government that requires such protocol is not a state of free people. That government is also not working to restore individuals and families, but to remake and reform them according to the state's totalitarian values.

This excellent summary of the case reminds us why this issue is so important to individuals who want counseling, their families, the counselors, and the integrity of any public health system.

https://x.com/ADFLegal/status/1975598928255930461