On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

21st Annual Children’s Law Institute

Released on: Jul. 20, 2018
Running Time: 06:17:50
Newly admitted NY attorneys can earn a total of 6.5 credits.  Experienced NY attorneys can earn a total of 7.5 credits, which will include 1 Diversity, Inclusion and Elimination of Bias credit.

***Scholarships are available to attend this program. For more information and to apply, please use the following link: https://www.pli.edu/emktg/Scholarship_Application.pdf.

Whether representing children, parents or a child welfare or foster care agency, in private practice, government, public interest practice or as a policy advocate, the environment in which advocates operate is increasingly complex. This year, PLI’s 21st Annual Children’s Law Institute will focus on a variety of legal and social issues affecting child welfare and juvenile justice practice.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:17:50]
Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.
  • Opening Remarks* [00:03:21]
    Zoë Allen, Kelley Burns, Anastasia Rivera-Bonilla
  • Legal Updates in Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Law [01:31:20]
    Randy A. Hertz, Gary Solomon
  • The Role of Social Workers in Family Court and Delinquency Proceedings [01:29:50]
    Ari Chiarella, LMSW, Maria Kaidas, LMSW, Nick Bonham, Cynthia L. Rivera
  • The Recent Expansion of KinGAP [01:15:03]
    Raymond Toomer, Daniella E. Rohr, Melissa Friedman, Kerry B. Mulvihill
  • Ethical Issues for Children’s Law Practitioners [00:58:52]
    Zoë Allen, Keith Brown
  • Unpacking Power and Privilege in Family Court Practice: Race, Gender, Sexuality, and Intersectionality [00:59:08]
    Dominique Day

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Developments in Juvenile Delinquency Law and Procedure (January 2017 to mid-April 2018)
    Randy A. Hertz
  • Significant Child Welfare Legislation, and Caselaw with Practice Commentary, 2017–2018 (April 20, 2018)
    Gary Solomon
  • Case Study Advocacy Letter
    Nick Bonham, Ari Chiarella
  • Case Study Criminal Complaint
    Ari Chiarella, Nick Bonham
  • Case Study Family Court Petition
    Nick Bonham, Ari Chiarella
  • Susan Jacobs and Michele Cortese, Center for Family Representation, Inc., Integrating New York State Regulations into Child Protective and Permanency Practice (April 2010)
    Ari Chiarella, Nick Bonham
  • Timeline of Family and Criminal Cases
    Nick Bonham, Ari Chiarella
  • Robin Lyde, Rick Barinbaum and Michele Cortese, Best Practices for an Interdisciplinary Practice: Team Ownership and Team Authorship
    Nick Bonham, Ari Chiarella
  • Building a ‘Best Practices’ Interdisciplinary Practice: Shared Ownership, Shared Authorship
    Nick Bonham, Ari Chiarella
  • Jillian Cohen and Michele Cortese, Cornerstone Advocacy in the First 60 Days: Achieving Safe and Lasting Reunification for Families, Child Law Practice, Vol. 28, No. 3 (May 2009)
    Ari Chiarella, Nick Bonham
  • The Juvenile Services Unit: An Overview
    Maria Kaidas, Cynthia L. Rivera
  • New York State Office of Children and Family Services, Know Your Permanency Options: The Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program (KinGAP), available at https://ocfs.ny.gov/main/publications/pub5108.pdf
    Raymond C. Toomer
  • New York State Office of Children and Family Services, Administrative Directive 18-OCFS-ADM-03, Expansion of the Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program (KinGAP), available at https://ocfs.ny.gov/main/policies/external/ocfs_2018/ADM/18-OCFS-ADM-03.pdf
    Raymond C. Toomer
  • New York State Office of Children and Family Services, Administrative Directive 18-OCFS-ADM-06, Eligibility Forms for the Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program (KinGAP), available at https://ocfs.ny.gov/main/policies/external/ocfs_2018/ADM/18-OCFS-ADM-06.pdf
    Raymond C. Toomer
  • New York Family Court Act § 1089-a, Custody or Guardianship with a Parent or Parents, a Relative or Relatives or a Suitable Person or Persons Pursuant to Article Six of This Act or Guardianship of a Relative or Relatives or a Suitable Person or Persons Pursuant to Article Seventeen of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act
    Raymond C. Toomer
  • New York Social Services Law §§ 458-a–f, Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program
    Raymond C. Toomer
  • New York State Bar Association Committee on Children & the Law Standards for Attorneys Representing Children in New York Child Protective, Foster Care, Destitute Child, and Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings, A-4 The Use of Substituted Judgment (Excerpt) (January 2015)
    Zoë G. Allen
  • Excerpt from: “Giving the Children a Meaningful Voice: The Role of the Child’s Lawyer in Child Protective, Permanency and Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings”
    Zoë G. Allen
  • Gary Solomon, Attorney for the Child Practice under Rule 7.2: Some Relevant Case Law (April 2018)
    Zoë G. Allen
  • Representing a Child in a Juvenile Delinquency and/or Person in Need of Supervision (PINS) Proceeding
    Keith Brown
  • Sarah Valentine, Traditional Advocacy for Nontraditional Youth: Rethinking Best Interest for the Queer Child, 2008 MICH. ST. L. REV. 1053 (2008), CUNY Academic Works, available at http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cl_pubs/196
    Dominique Day
  • Gabriel Arkles, Pooja Gehi, and Elana Redfield, The Role of Lawyers in Trans Liberation: Building a Transformative Movement for Social Change, 8 Seattle J. for Social Justice 32, 2010
    Dominique Day
  • Jennifer Sumi Kim, A Father’s Race to Custody: An Argument for Multidimensional Masculinities for Black Men, 16 Berkeley J. Afr.-Am. L. & Pol’y 32 (2014), available at http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/bjalp/vol16/iss1/10
    Dominique Day
  • Additional Materials
    Dominique Day

Presentation Material

  • Client-Centered Representation, the Interdisciplinary Team Model and Cornerstone Advocacy
    Nick Bonham, Ari Chiarella, LMSW
  • INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM PRACTICE AT JRP (excerpts for PLI)
    Maria Kaidas, LMSW, Cynthia L. Rivera
  • Expansion of the Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program (KinGAP)
    Raymond Toomer
  • Ethics for Attorneys for Children Substituting Judgment
    Zoë Allen
  • Being Intentional in Our Practice
    Dominique Day
Co-Chair(s)
Zoë Allen ~ Director of Child Welfare Training, Juvenile Rights Practice, The Legal Aid Society
Kelley Burns ~ Director of Training, Family Court Legal Services, Legal Support and Training Unit, NYC Administration for Children's Services
Anastasia Rivera-Bonilla ~ Litigation Supervisor, Center for Family Representation
Speaker(s)
Nick Bonham ~ Staff Attorney, Center for Family Representation
Keith Brown ~ Assistant Supervising Attorney, Child Advocacy Center Central Manager/Coordinator, NYC Administration for Children's Services
Ari Chiarella, LMSW ~ Social Work Supervisor, Queens Practice, Center for Family Representation
Dominique Day ~ Executive Director, DAYLIGHT: Rule of Law. Access to Justice. Advocacy
Melissa Friedman ~ Staff Attorney, The Legal Aid Society
Randy A. Hertz ~ Professor of Clinical Law and Vice Dean, Director, Clinical and Advocacy Programs, New York University School of Law
Maria Kaidas, LMSW ~ Forensic Social Worker, Juvenile Rights Practice, The Legal Aid Society
Kerry B. Mulvihill ~ Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, PLLC
Cynthia L. Rivera ~ Staff Attorney, Juvenile Rights Practice, The Legal Aid Society
Daniella E. Rohr ~ Staff Attorney, The Legal Aid Society
Gary Solomon ~ Director of Legal Support, Juvenile Rights Practice, The Legal Aid Society
Raymond Toomer ~ Associate Commissioner, Family Permanency Services , NYC Administration for Children's Services
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

21st Annual Children’s Law Institute  
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.