The care and protection of children in Australia has now become a topic of concern for all governments in Australia today. The past year has seen a frenzy of activity with the intervention of the Federal Government into the Northern Territory to provide care and protection to aboriginal children and the proposed extension of this intervention into aboriginal communities in Queensland, the current Wood Inquiry in New South Wales into the significant failures of the child protection system, the findings by the South Australian Mullighan Inquiry into the sexual abuse of children in state care and its implications for all other state and territory jurisdictions, the National Youth Commission’s Report into the horrendous level of Youth Homelessness, and numerous other instances of serious concern regarding the inadequate standards of care and protection being provided to children and young people throughout Australia. What has become very clear is that Australia does not have a coherent national child protection policy and law to address many of these very serious issues. This absence of policy stems largely from Australia’s failure to incorporate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into law.

The truly innovative part of the Carrell and Hoekstra study begins with their search for potentially disruptive kids: they looked for those coming from particularly difficult family situations. In particular, they combed through court records and linked every domestic violence charge in Alachua County, Florida to the county schooling records of kids living in those households.

It’s a sad story: nearly 5 percent of the kids in their sample could be linked to a household with a reported domestic violence incident. (And given under-reporting, the true number may be much larger.)

The costs of this dysfunction are even more profound. Kids exposed to domestic violence definitely do have lower reading and math scores and greater disciplinary problems. But the effects of this dysfunction are not limited to the direct victims of this violence: kids exposed to kids exposed to domestic violence also have lower test scores and more disciplinary infractions.

Around 70 percent of the classes in their sample have at least one kid exposed to domestic violence. The authors compare the outcomes of that kid’s classmates with their counterparts in the same school and the same grade in a previous or subsequent year — when there were no kids exposed to family violence — finding large negative effects.

In a statement released from Gov. Perry’s office on Sept 12, 2008 it was stated that the TYC had begun to evacuate all youth from Al Price State Juvenile Correctional Facility in Beaumont – the youth were to be housed in other inland facilities.  The specific action in question here was the decision to notify the youths’ family members after they reached their inland destinations.

With the severe power outages and lack of phone service that is still being addressed, when did these families find out where the children were?  Did they have to wait days?  Weeks?  If the families evacuated as well, did the TYC know how or where to contact them?  It seems that these families deserved to know where their children were going before they got there, before the families evacuated, and before everyone lost power and phone service.

While security is surely an issue here, in the path of a major storm, families should know where their children are…no matter if they are juvenile offenders.

Pennsylvania has 444 people serving life-without-parole sentences for crimes they committed as juveniles, according to Human Rights Watch. Nationally, 2,484 lifers are behind bars for crimes they committed as juveniles. No youth outside the United States are serving such sentences, said Alison Parker, deputy director of the group’s U.S. program.

Pennsylvania isn’t the only state taking a second look at these sentences.

Lawmakers in California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan and Nebraska have considered providing parole relief for juvenile lifers, Parker said. Colorado in 2006 became the only state to pass legislation eliminating life-without-parole sentences for juveniles, she said.

Could this be the beginning of a national trend?

That could be an important question given the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Roper v. Simmons (2005) and Kennedy v. Louisianna (2008). Roper held that the death penalty for crimes committed by a person under 18 is unconstitutional, and Kennedy held that the death penalty for child rapists is unconstitutional. In both cases, the Court looked at what the states were doing:

In these cases the Court has been guided by “objective indicia of society’s standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice with respect to executions.” Kennedy quoting Roper at 2650.

Though our review of national consensus is not confined to tallying the number of States with applicable death penalty legislation, it is of significance that, in 45 jurisdictions, petitioner could not be executed for child rape of any kind. That number surpasses the 30 States in Atkins and Roper and the 42 States in Enmund that prohibited the death penalty under the circumstances those cases considered. Kennedy at 2653.

If states like Pennsylvania actually start changing these laws, it could help arguments in future cases challenging the constitutionality of these sentences. For now, the 2,484 individuals currently serving life-without-parole sentences for crimes committed as juveniles will need to wait and see if states like Pennsylvania follow Colorado’s lead.

It was reported by both the Winnipeg Free Press and the Volokh Conspiracy that Child and Family Services removed two kids from their father’s home due to “concerns their father — an alleged neo-Nazi — was filling their heads and marking their bodies with messages of hate.” The parents claim “their right to freedom of speech shouldn’t be interfered with and [deny] they are polluting the children’s minds.” However, there are clearly other indications the couple might be unfit parents since “the little girl had missed 39 days of school this year. She told authorities that’s because her parents sleep in and don’t want to get her ready or take her. There were also expressed concerns about alcohol and drug use in the home.”

Eugene Volokh and others have expressed concern over the potential repercussions of these actions of removing children from parents with unpopular beliefs.

Nonetheless, the article — and other press coverage I’d seen — does suggest that a big part of this matter turns on what the parents are teaching the children. (According to the CFS, “Religious (and) political practices that would be harmful to children and cause them to be at risk would be one of the considerations when assessing risk to a child,” and CFS’s definition of harm seems to go beyond imminent danger of physical harm, such as when a religious practice leads parents to refuse to treat their children’s illnesses.) And while I agree that children can indeed be harmed by their parents’ teaching them bad ideas, it strikes me as very dangerous for the government to be able to take children away from parents on these grounds. Imagine whom the government might decide to turn against next.

Sources and Additional Reading on this Case:

McIntyre, Mike. Alleged Neo-Nazi’s Kids Taken. Winnipeg Free Press, June 9, 2008.

McIntyre, Mike. Mother Calls Self ‘White Nationalist’. Winnipeg Free Press, June 11, 2008.

McIntyre, Mike. Alleged Neo-Nazi’s May Get Kids. Winnipeg Free Press, June 11, 2008.

McIntyre, Mike. Raising Baby Bigots: Should Child Welfare Intervene?. Winnipeg Free Press, June 14, 2008.

Unfortunately child slavery, isn’t isolated to a few countries like Haiti and Camboida, but is instead a problem worldwide (UNICEF). There are numerous organizations trying to improve the lives of these children and to help prevent human trafficking in general. This global tragedy will take a global effort to try and prevent it. Below is information about current U.S. laws and policy regarding this issue:

“The Office of the Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs, headed by Dr. Paula J. Dobriansky, coordinates U.S. foreign relations on a variety of global issues.” One of the offices she coordinates is the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (G/TIP), headed by Amb. Mark Lagon. That office “provides the tools to combat trafficking in persons and assists in the coordination of anti-trafficking efforts both worldwide and domestically.”

There’s a lot of information on G/TIP’s website about United States policies and efforts in this area. Here are a few excerpts.

In 2003, the United States strengthened its ability to fight child sex tourism by passing the Prosecutorial Remedies and other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act and the Trafficking Victim’s Protection Reauthorization Act. These laws increase penalties to a maximum of 30 years in prison for engaging in CST. Since the passage of the PROTECT Act, there have been over 20 indictments and over a dozen convictions of child sex tourists. The Department of Homeland Security has also developed the “Operation Predator” initiative to combat child exploitation, child pornography, and child sex tourism. The United States is also funding the NGO World Vision to conduct major public awareness and deterrence campaigns overseas that include public service announcements, internet messaging, brochures, posters, and billboards.

Facts About Child Sex Tourism

In addition to enforcing these laws, the United States also issues a report each year in which it ranks countries into 3 tiers. The tiers represent how well the country is combating human trafficking.

The Tiers

TIER 1 Countries whose governments fully comply with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act’s (TVPA) minimum standards TIER 2 Countries whose governments do not fully comply with the TVPA’s minimum standards, but are making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance with those standards TIER 2 WATCH LIST Countries whose governments do not fully comply with the TVPA’s minimum standards, but are making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance with those standards AND: a) The absolute number of victims of severe forms of trafficking is very significant or is significantly increasing; or b) There is a failure to provide evidence of increasing efforts to combat severe forms of trafficking in persons from the previous year; or c) The determination that a country is making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance with minimum standards was based on commitments by the country to take additional future steps over the next year TIER 3 Countries whose governments do not fully comply with the minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so

Countries in Tier 3 can be subject to certain sanctions by the US.

The annual Trafficking in Persons Report serves as the primary diplomatic tool through which the U.S. Government encourages partnership and increased determination in the fight against forced labor, sexual exploitation, and modern-day slavery.

This problem is global and children in the United States are at risk as well.

Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005, Title III. Sect. 2(5)

5) No known studies exist that quantify the problem of trafficking in children for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation in the United States. According to a report issued by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania in 2001, as many as 300,000 children in the United States are at risk for commercial sexual exploitation, including trafficking, at any given time.

Global Law Enforcement Data

The Trafficking Victims Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2003 added to the original law a new requirement that foreign governments provide the Department of State with data on trafficking investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and sentences in order to be considered in full compliance with the TVPA’s minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking (Tier 1). The 2004 TIP Report collected this data for the first time. The 2007 TIP Report data shows for the first time, a breakout of the number of total prosecutions and convictions that related to labor trafficking, placed in parentheses.

Year	Prosecutions	Convictions	New or Amended Legislation
2003	7,992	2,815	24
2004	6,885	3,025	39
2005	6,178	4,379	40
2006	5,808	3,160	21
2007	5,682 (490)	3,427 (326)	28

The numbers in parentheses are those of labor trafficking prosecutions and convictions.

An excerpt from an “Interview of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell” by Chris Hansen of Dateline, Dec. 11, 2003, Washington, D.C.

MR. HANSEN: Why should Americans be concerned about the sex trade in Cambodia?

SECRETARY POWELL: How can we turn away? If we want to have friends in the world, if we want to have better relations with the countries of the world, we have to help them with this kind of problem.

You know, can you imagine the spread of disease that is taking place with this kind of activity? Can you imagine what will happen to these girls when they’re 15 or 20?  What will become of them?  They’ll have no education. They will be — they will have been used and tossed away and ruined.

And that affects not just these girls, it affects that country.  It affects the family life in that country, it affects society development, it affects income, and, therefore, it affects foreign policy.

So, as the Secretary of State, why is the Secretary of State worried about trafficking in persons?  Because it deals with foreign policy.  It deals with economic and social development within a country.  And a country that does not treasure its youth and protect its youth is not going to be moving in the right direction in the 21st century.

And a nation such as ours, which says we are a moral nation, and that we have a value system, that we would allow our citizens to go over and fuel that trade, by their presence and by their money and by their rotten exploitation of these children, we wouldn’t be living up to our values if we didn’t do something about it.

MR. HANSEN:  What can you do to crack down on the countries involved?  What kind of sanctions would you levy?

SECRETARY POWELL:  Well, there’s a lot of things we can do.  We can withhold foreign assistance money, we can make them not eligible for certain programs that we have, and the law requires us to look at these kinds of remedies.  And what we have found with this Tier 1, 2, 3 system, as time comes every year for the report to be written, a lot of countries want to know, what Tier are we in?  We’re not going to be in Tier 3, are we?  It’s a heck of a stigma to suddenly show up in Tier 3.

Now, we also recognize that there’s trafficking in the United States.  There is exploitation taking place in our own country.  So we’re not totally clean on this and we make that clear.  And the kind of exploitation that you’re talking about in this piece that deals with the sexual exploitation of children, there’s lots of other exploitation that we’re worried about, a lot of other tracking in persons:  for sweatshops, to go in the mines, young people who are not getting an education but are being exploited for their manual capacity as young people, and they’re being ruined just as well as these young people in the sex trade in Cambodia or elsewhere in the world.

The newest Trafficking in Persons Report released in June 2008 has detailed descriptions of what countries around the world are doing to help stop human trafficking. Here is an excerpt from Cambodia’s section of the report:

The Royal Government of Cambodia does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking; however, it is making significant efforts to do so. Cambodia is placed on Tier 2 for the first time since 2004 due to the government’s increased engagement in combating trafficking in persons over the previous year. The government created a national anti-trafficking task force to improve the interagency response to trafficking and coordination with civil society, increased law enforcement action against traffickers and complicit officials, and undertook prevention activities. In February 2008, Cambodia’s new Law on the Suppression of Human Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation was promulgated and went into effect immediately. This legislation provides law enforcement authorities the power to investigate all forms of trafficking and is a powerful tool in efforts to prosecute and convict traffickers and have them face stringent punishments. High-level government officials have spoken publicly about a “zero-tolerance” policy for officials profiting from or colluding in trafficking in persons.

This is a major global problem. How would you rate the actions of the U.S. so far in addressing it? The State Department website leaves me with the impression that the U.S. is taking significant action to help these children, however, the Nightline, Dateline, and other (here, here, and here) reports make me wonder if U.S. and other nations’ policies have had much effect at all. How effective do you think these policies are and what more should American and other countries be doing to help put an end to this tragedy?

Major efforts have been made to reform TYC. Below is a timeline of TYC events and an update on where TYC is today:
A Timeline

February 2005 – Texas Ranger sergeant began investigating allegations of sexual abuse at Pyote Facility involving Ray Brookins, former assistant superintendent, and John Paul Hernandez, former principal. (DMN 2/18/07)

February 2005 - Ray Brookins and John Paul Hernandez both resigned (DMN)

February 18, 2007 – News Media Reports about the sexual and physical abuses occurring at TYC (DMN)

March 2, 2007 – Allegations of sexual abuse at the Ron Jackson State Juvenile Correctional Facility in Brownwood are reported in the media indicating that this was not an isolated incident (DMN)

March 2007 – State Auditor’s Office report identifies several issues (state auditor report)(PDF)

March 15, 2007 – DOJ reports findings from an investigation of the Evins facility. Finds the conditions unconstitutional because of the harm the inmates are experiencing. (DOJ report)(PDF)

March 15, 2007 – Between January 2000 and March 15, 2007 there were 16,310 allegations of incidents involving juveniles at TYC. 4,454 of those allegations were confirmed by TYC. (DMN)

March 29, 2007 – Texas Senate confirmed Governor Rick Perry’s appointment of Jay Kimbrough as Conservator of TYC. (press release)

April 9, 2007 – Brookins and Hernandez are indicted and arrested for “charges that they “sexually abused teenage inmates at the state juvenile prison in Pyote.” (DMN)

June 8, 2007 – SB 103 and companion bill HB 2807 were signed into law. The bills provide for reform efforts at the agency. (SB 103)

June 8, 2007 – Governor Perry appoints Ed Owens to replace Jay Kimbrough as TYC conservator. (Governor’s Website)

June 2007 – Dimitria Pope appointed as acting executive Director after spending most of her career working at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (DMN)

August 2007 – TYC announces new Pepper Spray policy. The new policy permits guards to use pepper spray more often than in the past. (DMN)

October 2007 – TYC ends contract with GEO Inc. for the Coke County facility. The 197 male inmates are immediately moved to the TYC facility in Mart, TX. (DMN)

November 2007 – TYC reverses its pepper spray policy (Texas Appleseed/Chronicle) (PDF)

December 19, 2007 – Governor Perry appoints Richard Nedelkoff to replace Ed Owens as conservator. (Governor’s Website)

February 12, 2008 – Dimitria Pope, the TYC acting executive director, announces her resignation (DMN)

May 6, 2008 – 70 inmates at TYC’s facility in Giddings broke out of their cells and started running around the campus and climbing into trees and onto the rooftops of the facility. (DMN)

June 12, 2008 - ACLU sues TYC for mistreatment of girls at the Brownwood facility (Statesman)

An Update on Reform

The Texas Observer Blog has had several posts recently describing how those involved with TYC reforms are feeling about the progress the agency has made.

Rehabilitating TYC

Perhaps the agency has been so hard to rehabilitate because its problems extend beyond a handful of troubled facilities or a flawed approach to juvenile justice. Mental health advocates blame public officials’ failure to recognize the importance of early intervention programs within the mental health system statewide as a key culprit.

Mission Redefinition for TYC

There was much talk of transitioning from large, rural TYC detention centers to smaller, urban facilities, which would keep youth offenders closer to their families, increase community involvement and allow for specialized treatment.

Trickle Down Reform

Despite the ACLU’s TYC lawsuit, many juvenile justice advocates assert that, while it’s slow-moving, there is progress at TYC — trickling down from the top.

What are you’re thought? Is TYC headed in the right direction? What should be done next?

Acknowledging that the rape of a child is a most heinous crime, Justice Kennedy notes early that punishment is primarily about retribution and what this application of the death penalty says about our culture. (Please note that all quotes are pulled from the court decision.)

“When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint… We cannot dismiss the years of long anguish that must be endured by the victim of child rape… It does not follow, though, that capital punishment is a proportionate penalty for the crime.“ 

The decision also addresses claims by the law’s proponents that the death penalty somehow helps the victim’s healing process whereas NASW insists the process could increase the psychological distress experienced by victims. 

“It is not at all evident that the child rape victim’s hurt is lessened when the law permits the death of the perpetrator. Capital cases require a long-term commitment by those who testify for the prosecution… Society’s desire to inflict the death penalty for child rape by enlisting the child victim to assist it over the course of years in asking for capital punishment forces a moral choice on the child, who is not of mature age to make that choice. “

The NASW statement also references the well-established fact that the majority of childhood sexual assault is perpetrated by relatives or close family friends, making it far less likely that a child or her guardian will report the assault.  Hence, the abuse continues if not with the original victim, with other children.  Longterm abuse is documented as traumatizing to children and the adults they become; increasing the likelihood of teen pregnancy, drug abuse, mental health problems and other malidies.  The court agreed with the social workers, stating…

“With respect to deterrence, if the death penalty adds to the risk of non-reporting, that, too, diminishes the penalty’s objectives. Underreporting is a common problem with respect to child sexual abuse….one of the most commonly cited reasons for nondisclosure is fear of negative consequences for the perpetrator, a concern that has special force where the abuser is a family member.”

Last but certainly not the least concern of advocates for children, is the fear that laws such as the one in Louisiana — and Texas — will remove a major deterrant against killing young victims of sexual assault.  To this Justice Kennedy states,

“Assuming the offender behaves in a rational way, as one must to justify the penalty on grounds of deterrence, the penalty in some respects gives less protection, not more, to the victim, who is often the sole witness to the crime.”

 In closing, Kennedy adds…

“Each of these propositions, standing alone, might not establish the unconstitutionality of the death penalty for the crime of child rape. Taken in sum, however, they demonstrate the serious negative consequences of making child rape a capital offense.”

Two additional considerations are mentioned by the social workers but not the justices.  How the victim personally receives the message sent by capital punishment and the lost opportunity for resolution can both significantly hinder recovery.

The negative psychological impact of a law that tells a survivor that her experience is equal to that of a murder victim can in itself be disabling.  The underlying message that the child survivor receives is that she – as if murdered – is irreperable and might as well be dead. 

NASW also references the healing potential of future discussions between assailant and survivor.  A potential that might be lost if the assailant is put to death. 

I know the pain of realizing that the man who molested a naive teenager promising to never do it again, in fact did.  I also know the power, years later, in telling him of the anger and anguish; and hearing the reply “I’m so sorry.”   I thank the court for preserving this healing opportunity for other survivors and for seeing beyond conservative rhetoric toward a decision that is truly in the best interest of children.  

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) ACLU of Louisiana and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund also submitted an amicus brief regarding the disproportionate number of African American men who receive a death penalty sentence under existing laws. Worth reading and a mention here, the court however made no reference to these concerns in its decision. What impact the Kennedy v Louisiana decision might have on the Texas law — which has some restrictions not in the Louisiana version — is yet to be seen.

In traditional extended families in which adults are at least amicable, the relationship between children and their grandparents develops with parental support. Where disputes arise over access and visitation rights, the benefits to a child of grandparents in her life must be balanced against the financial and emotional costs of a potentially lengthy court battle.

The demographics of grandparenthood are changing. The percentage of the population who are grandparents is growing. People are becoming grandparents at younger ages and living longer. As a result, more children are growing up with at least two living grandparents and those relationships last longer.

A growing number of grandparents find themselves completely responsible for their grandchildren often because a court determined it was in the children’s best interest to be removed from parental custody. Data from the 2000 census indicate that 4.5 million American children live in homes with grandparents as head-of-household. Almost 10% of those grandparent-dependent children reside in Texas and 244,000 of those have no parent living with them. Of the approximately 250,000 Texas grandparents who report being primary caregivers, 21% do so in poverty.

The potential also exists for grandparents to have a negative impact on the parent/child relationship or the wellbeing of the child. Abuse is one obvious situation. Another might arise when there is such contempt between parent and grandparent that an ongoing relationship would be in conflict with the child’s general welfare and relationship with her parent.

State courts have been examining the question of grandparent visitation for decades. In the early part of the 20th century there were no statutes permitting grandparents to petition for visitation. Courts took four different approaches when deciding questions of grandparent visitation over parental objections.

1. If there was a pending action involving the child, the court may have allowed the grandparents standing to pursue visitation, and in the course of evaluating the particular facts, ordered such visitation.
2. In limited circumstances, courts granted standing and visitation to grandparents even when there was no other matter before the court.
3. Some courts granted standing to grandparents to seek visitation with their grandchildren and then conducted a best interest analysis.
4. Lastly, some courts denied grandparents standing to request visitation outright and never addressed whether or not the visitation was in the child’s best interests.

As state legislatures developed laws to govern these custody decisions, Washington created the most liberal and far-reaching legislation allowing virtually anyone to sue for visitation if they could present evidence of a meaningful relationship with the child. This is the statute under which the Troxels sued to increase visitation with their grandchildren.

When the Troxels’ son divorced, he usually brought the children to the grandparents’ home during his visitations.  Therefore, the children had a preexisting relationship with their paternal grandparents.  When the son died, the grandparent/child relationship continued as before. 

However when the children’s mother remarried, she reduced the visits hoping to encourage blending of the new family.  Although their daughter-in-law never denied them visitation, they feared that this reduction would eventually lead to elimination of visits altogether.

So the Troxels sued and won, Mrs. Granville appealed, and the appeals continued to the Supreme Court which decided for Mrs. Granville. 

The 2007-2008 Texas family code (FAM 153.433-434) allows that the court should order possession or access of a grandparent to a biological or adopted grandchild if at least one of the parents still have legal parenting rights, if the grandparent can prove by a preponderance of evidence that denial would “significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional well-being.”

Further that the grandparent(s) requesting access is parent of an adult child who is either deceased, declared incompetent, incarcerated within the previous three months, or doesn’t have legal access to the child.

If both parents are deceased or have had their parental rights terminated and the child is subsequently being adopted by someone other than the child’s step-parent, grandparents aren’t granted the right to sue for access.

At least one other state has addressed the issue of grandchild visitation rights since Troxel v Granville. California law provides that a court may grant visitation if it finds that the bond between grandparent and child is such that visitation is in the child’s best interest.

Grandparents have standing to petition for visitation in California if the child’s parents are separated, one parent’s whereabouts are unknown for more than a month, or the child isn’t living with either parent. The refutable presumption is that if the parents (whether natural or adopted) or single parent oppose visitation then it probably isn’t in the child’s best interest.

A big difference between the California and Texas statutes is the extension of mandatory mediation to visitation disputes involving grandparents. Only if mediation is unsuccessful, does the mediator inform the court and a hearing is scheduled.

The first cultural system a child learns to function within is the family – first immediate then extended. They learn that each member plays a role in the family system and certain rules must be followed. The often unspoken rules of families vary greatly depending on ethnicity and culture, size and parenting style, income, class and education status, even geographic location.

The family is a basic building block of society yet also quite complicated and not easily defined by laws or courts. The generational bonds that connect a child to place and culture should not be severed easily.

Grandparents are vital to their grandchildren and the state when stepping in as substitute parents. They are just as important when simply playing the role of grandparents.

Constitutionality of more inclusive legislation will be preserved if resources such as family counseling and mediation are mandated in disputes prior to and hopefully instead of going to court. Doing so should save money for petitioners, parents, and the state.

In cases where mediation fails, parental rights will usually prevail. However, the need for visitation hearings will be reduced if the grownups try to work out among themselves what is in the child’s best interest before filing suit.

References

American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Texas State Fact Sheet for Grandparents and Other Relatives Raising Children.

Ellen Marrus, Over the Hills and Through the Woods to Grandparents’ House We Go: Or do we, Post-Troxel?, 43 Ariz. L. Rev. 751 (2001). (.pdf)

Senate Jurisprudence Committee Testimony on Current Charges involving Grandparent Visitation Rights, May 23, 2008, (Interim, Charges, Audio of Testimony [requires RealPlayer])

Casper, Lynne M. (2002) Continuity and Continuity in the American Family. Sage Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA

Family Law Code, Selected States and Ali Principles with Commentary (2008) Wolters Kluwer, Austin, TX

O’Connor’s Family Code Plus (2007-08). Jones McClure Publishing, Houston, Texas

Found At: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2008 Kids Count Data Book Online. http://www.kidscount.org/datacenter/db_pdf_08.jsp