Summary of Argument

The unanimous three-judge Court of Appeals panel correctly decided that due process requires appointment of counsel for children in truancy proceedings. Amici TeamChild, Committee for Indigent Representation and Civil Legal Equality (CIRCLE), and the Children and Family Justice Center (CFJC) agree with E.S., and other amici that the Court of Appeals decision should be affirmed. In this brief, TeamChild, CIRCLE, and CFJC write to emphasize the ways in which a child's right to education is at stake in truancy proceedings, and to argue that children without counsel in truancy proceedings are denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Although this brief focuses on a child's educational interests in a truancy proceeding, Amici agree that the liberty and privacy interests at stake in truancy proceedings provide additional bases for appointing counsel in state-initiated adversarial proceedings against a child. When considered together, these three interests compound to make the basis for a right to appointed counsel even stronger.

Summary of Argument

The Court of Appeals panel determined that due process requires legal representation for children in truancy proceedings. This conclusion is supported by a coalition of amici curiae, including TeamChild, Committee for Indigent Representation and Civil Legal Equality (CIRCLE), and the Children and Family Justice Center (CFJC). These organizations agree with the plaintiff, E.S., and other amici that the appellate court's decision should be upheld.

This brief emphasizes the critical role education plays in truancy proceedings and argues that children without legal representation are deprived of a meaningful opportunity to present their case. While the focus here is on a child's educational interests, the amici recognize that liberty and privacy rights also warrant legal representation in adversarial state proceedings against a child. The confluence of these three interests strengthens the case for a right to appointed counsel.

Summary of Argument

A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that due process requires the appointment of legal counsel for children facing truancy proceedings. This brief supports the Court's decision, emphasizing the crucial role of legal representation in protecting a child's right to education.

Amicus briefs filed by TeamChild, the Committee for Indigent Representation and Civil Legal Equality (CIRCLE), and the Children and Family Justice Center (CFJC) argue that children without legal representation in truancy proceedings are denied a fair opportunity to present their case. The brief highlights the potential for educational consequences and the significant liberty and privacy interests that are at stake in truancy proceedings, all of which support the need for legal counsel to ensure due process.

These combined factors strongly support the right to appointed legal counsel for children facing truancy proceedings.

Summary of Argument

The Court of Appeals ruled that children in truancy proceedings need to have a lawyer appointed to represent them. Several organizations, including TeamChild, CIRCLE, and CFJC, support this decision. They argue that children are denied a fair chance to be heard in truancy proceedings if they don't have a lawyer. They emphasize that a child's right to education is at risk in these proceedings. While the brief focuses on education, it also recognizes the importance of liberty and privacy in truancy proceedings. These factors all support the need for a lawyer to represent children in these cases.

Summary of Argument

The court decided that kids and teens in truancy court should have a lawyer. Some groups that work with kids in the justice system agree with the court decision. These groups say that kids' education is important and that they should be able to tell their side of the story. They also say that kids need lawyers because being in truancy court can affect their freedom and privacy. All these things show that kids should have lawyers when they are in truancy court.