IU McKinney launching Child Advocacy Law Clinic

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Students at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law will have the opportunity to work with Marion County’s Child Advocates starting this fall when the new Child Advocacy Law Clinic opens.

Second- and third-year students will be trained as court appointed special advocates and will learn how to best advocate for children in the child welfare system. The idea for the clinic came from Cindy Booth, executive director of Child Advocates, Carey Haley Wong, chief counsel at the organization, and Nicole Goodson with Disability Legal Services, who met with IU McKinney last year staff to discuss the possibility of a clinic.

Classroom sessions will focus heavily on legal issues faced by children in the child welfare system, including family law, immigration, juvenile delinquency, educational law, and other issues.

“Child Advocates and their Court Appointed Special Advocate training has long been a great (and heavily used) opportunity for students to work for pro bono, so when they approached us about creating a clinic based off of that model I was really excited to be able to work with them to create their vision,” professor Carrie Hagan said in a statement released by the law school. “I’m really excited about this additional clinic opportunity, I know that our students will have a great experience, and that the need for their services is there.”

Wong and Goodson will teach in the clinic as adjunct professors. The hope of those involved in the creation of the clinic is that the students who become involved with Child Advocates during school will continue their involvement after graduation.



Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....