On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

20th Annual Children’s Law Institute

Released on: Aug. 4, 2017
Running Time: 06:22:49

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 issues and the environment in which advocates operate are increasingly complex.  PLI’s Children’s Law Institute will focus on a variety of social and legal issues affecting child welfare and juvenile justice practice.

You will learn:

  • Legal issues relevant to child welfare and juvenile justice law
  • Children in court
  • College-bound youth
  • Social media and its uses in family court and delinquency proceedings
  • Ethical issues that arise when representing a client with diminished capacity

This program will benefit child, parent and family advocates working in the private or public sector in New York State, in law, social work or public policy.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:22:49]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Opening Remarks and Introduction* [00:01:44]
    Anastasia Rivera-Bonilla, Kelley Burns, Carolyn Silvers
  • Legal Updates in Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Law [01:35:01]
    Randy A. Hertz, Gary Solomon
  • Focusing on Social Media and its Uses in Family Court and Delinquency Proceedings [01:15:26]
    Wendell Cruz, Melinda Skinner Cifuentes
  • Children in Court [00:59:28]
    Peninna Oren, Tamara Schwartz, Hal Silverman Esq., Ariane Nolfo, LCSW
  • Planning for College for Youth in Care [01:16:39]
    Kathleen Hoskins, Laura Daly
  • Ethical Issues That Arise When Representing a Client with Diminished Capacity [01:14:31]
    Brian Zimmerman, Carolyn Silvers, Tehra Coles

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


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Using Crawford v. Washington: A Sequence of Steps for Defenders in Responding to a Prosecutor’s Attempt to Introduce an Individual’s Out-of-Court Statement (May 1, 2017)
    Randy A. Hertz
  • Developments in Juvenile Delinquency Law and Procedure, January 2016 to April 2017 (May 1, 2017)
    Randy A. Hertz
  • Suppression Motion Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases (May 1, 2017)
    Randy A. Hertz
  • Noteworthy Child Welfare Case Law 2016–2017, and Recent Attorney-for-the-Child Case Law Under Rule 7.2 (May 5, 2017)
    Gary Solomon
  • Social Media & the Law
    Wendell Cruz
  • Evidentiary Issues: Electronic Media (May 13, 2016)
    Melissa Skinner-Cifuentes, Jennifer M. Gilroy Ruiz
  • Children in Court (Outline)
    Hal Silverman
  • New York State Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children, Tools for Engaging Children in Their Court Proceedings: A Guide for Judges, Advocates and Child Welfare Professionals (2008), http://www.nycourts.gov/ip/justiceforchildren/PDF/PJCJC%20Handbook%20-%20Encouraging%20Child%20in%20Court.pdf
    Tamara Schwartz, Peninna H. Oren, Hal Silverman
  • Children in Court: Resources
    Hal Silverman, Tamara Schwartz, Peninna H. Oren
  • NYC Administration for Children’s Services, ACS and CUNY Announce Pioneer College Support Initiative for Foster Care Youth (November 2, 2016)
    Kathleen Hoskins
  • The City University of New York, CUNY Start to ASAP (Accelerated Study in Associate Programs) Foster Care Initiative
    Kathleen Hoskins
  • The City University of New York, Youth Matter, Success Track
    Kathleen Hoskins
  • The City University of New York, Youth Matter
    Kathleen Hoskins
  • New York State Higher Education Services Corporation (HESC), 2015–2016 Annual Report, Investing in the Future of New York State Students (select pages)
    Kathleen Hoskins
  • Financial Aid Options for Youth in Foster Care in New York State (PowerPoint slides)
    Kathleen Hoskins
  • Department of Social Services,18 NYCRR 628.3, Classifications of child care reimbursement claiming
    Laura Daly
  • Center for Family Representation, Memorandum, Appointment of a Guardian in a Proceeding Affecting Parental Rights (May 5, 2017)
    Tehra Coles
  • New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion #746, Representing incapacitated client; petitioning for appointment of guardian; attorney-in-fact under durable power of attorney; representation of oneself as attorney-in-fact/petitioner (July 18, 2001)
    Tehra Coles
  • The Legal Aid Society, Consenting to Continued Foster Care for Incapacitated Clients over Age 18
    Carolyn Silvers
  • Judiciary, 22 NYCRR 7.2, Function of the attorney for the child
    Carolyn Silvers
  • New York CPLR § 1201. Representation of infant, incompetent person, or conservatee
    Carolyn Silvers
  • New York Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information, available at http://www.nysba.org/professionalstandards/
    Carolyn Silvers
  • New York Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.14: Client with Diminished Capacity, available at http://www.nysba.org/professionalstandards/
    Carolyn Silvers

Presentation Material


  • Electronic & Social Media Evidence in Family Court Proceedings
    Wendell Cruz, Melinda Skinner Cifuentes
  • Select Case Law Citations
    Wendell Cruz, Melinda Skinner Cifuentes
  • Post-Secondary Planning for Youth in Foster Care
    Laura Daly, Kathleen Hoskins
  • Ethical Issues That Arise When Representing a Client with Diminished Capacity
    Tehra Coles, Carolyn Silvers, Brian Zimmerman
Co-Chair(s)
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
Carolyn Silvers ~ Attorney-in-Charge, Queens Office, Juvenile Rights Practice,, The Legal Aid Society
Speaker(s)
Tehra Coles ~ Litigation Supervisor, Center for Family Representation, Inc.
Wendell Cruz ~ Criminal Litigation Supervisor, Center for Family Representation
Laura Daly ~ Legal Director, Education Advocacy Project , Lawyers For Children
Randy A. Hertz ~ Professor of Clinical Law and Vice Dean, Director, Clinical and Advocacy Programs, New York University School of Law
Kathleen Hoskins ~ Assistant Commissioner, Office of Education Support and Policy Planning, Child Welfare Programs Support Services, NYC Administration for Children's Services
Ariane Nolfo, LCSW ~ Social Worker, Juvenile Rights Practice, The Legal Aid Society
Peninna Oren ~ Supervising Attorney, Family Court Legal Services, NYC Administration for Children Svcs
Tamara Schwartz ~ Court Attorney Referee, New York City Family Court
Hal Silverman Esq. ~ Director of Litigation, Lawyers for Children
Melinda Skinner Cifuentes ~ Deputy Director of Training, Family Court Division – J.D. Unit, New York City Law Department
Gary Solomon ~ Director of Legal Support, Juvenile Rights Practice, The Legal Aid Society
Brian Zimmerman ~ Attorney at Law
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.

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

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

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand 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:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

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.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. 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.

 

Related Items

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

21st Annual Children’s Law Institute  
Annual Children's Law Institute (20th Annual) Anastasia Rivera-Bonilla, Center for Family Representation
Carolyn Silvers, The Legal Aid Society
Kelley Burns, NYC Administration for Children's Services
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.