Columns

Guardian ad Litems (GALs) are increasingly being used in family law cases to assist the parties, attorneys, and courts in crafting a custody and parenting time plan that works for the minor children, who are profoundly affected by the dissolution of the family as they have always known it.

By Jennifer Sullivan

Guardian ad Litems (GALs) are increasingly being used in family law cases to assist the parties, attorneys, and courts in crafting a custody and parenting time plan that works for the minor children, who are profoundly affected by the dissolution of the family as they have always known it.

Below are bullet points to assist family practitioners in deciding when it’s appropriate to ask the court to appoint a GAL, how to work most effectively with the GAL, and how to work most efficiently with the GAL.

What kinds of family cases generally require a GAL

• High-conflict custody or parenting-time disputes where parental positions are entrenched.

• Cases involving allegations of abuse, neglect, domestic violence, substance use, cognitive or mental-health concerns, or parental alienation.

• Complex family dynamics (multiple households, third-party caregivers, unusual schedules) or contested relocation.

• Cases where neutral investigation and a single, court-credible narrative can facilitate settlement.

The Role of the GAL

• Before engaging a GAL, clarify to your client what the role of the GAL is (and isn’t).

• The GAL’s primary role is to investigate and recommend what they believe is in the child’s best interests.

• Emphasize that the GAL’s mission is the child’s best interests – it’s not to “side” with either parent. The GAL will interview the child, parents, others; review records; and submit a written recommendation.

Explain the benefits to clients of a GAL

• Independent investigation: a GAL can collect school, medical, mental-health, and collateral information the court might otherwise lack.

• Credible, neutral voice: courts often view a GAL’s findings as a balanced third-party assessment.

• Child-focused framing: a GAL centers decisions on the child’s needs rather than parental positions.

How to prepare your client for a GAL’s process

• Interview conduct: coach the client to be calm, truthful, and concise. Discourage coaching the child, volunteering unasked-for gossip, or making inflammatory statements about the other parent. 
Remind clients that what they say may be summarized in a report.

• Records and permission: tell clients to gather relevant records (school, medical, mental-health, police, CPS, work schedules) and be prepared to sign releases. Discuss whether to withhold any records and the likely consequences.

• Child interviews: set expectations about the GAL interviewing the child (where, for how long, whether parent present). If the child is to be interviewed, prepare the parent to avoid discussing the interview with the child or trying to influence answers.

• Confidentiality: make clear which communications may be privileged (e.g., communications with the child’s attorney) and which likely are not (GAL interviews). Advise clients to treat GAL interviews as not privileged unless you confirm otherwise.

Cost allocation, retainers, and fee disputes

• Set expectations early: explain likely ranges of GAL fees and the potential for additional evaluations (psych, substance-testing, school assessments).

• Stipulate to cost-splitting if reasonable: where both parties will benefit from the services of a GAL, propose a pro rata sharing of the GAL’s fee, with any disputed allocations decided by the court.

• Retainer language (suggested elements for a client retainer or stipulation with opposing party):

o Scope of work to be performed (investigation, interview(s), records review, written report, possible testimony).

o Estimated fee and hourly rate, billing increments, and what services are included/excluded (e.g., travel, copies, expert tests).

o Payment schedule and consequences of nonpayment (suspension of work, court notice).

o Timetable for completion and process for reasonable extensions.

o Confidentiality and filing expectations: that the GAL’s report will be filed with the court and served on counsel.

How lawyers can facilitate a good experience with a GAL – The court may appoint a GAL without the client’s permission/request

• Early cooperation: offer records, a witness list, and proposed questions or areas of inquiry that reflect legitimate concerns. This builds credibility and may steer the inquiry to relevant topics.

• Centralize records: create an indexed binder or digital folder of school, medical, and other records for the GAL.

• Define scope: negotiate a clear, written scope (e.g., parental fitness, parenting-time recommendations, need for special education evaluation) and timelines.

• Maintain professional boundaries: be courteous but protect your client’s interests. Provide information but avoid ex parte communications about contested legal issues.

• Clarify methodology: ask the GAL about their investigative steps (who they will interview, what records they will review, whether they will rely on third-party assessments) and timeline.

• Stipulations to limit expense: consider stipulating to certain records’ authenticity or to joint authorizations to avoid duplication and reduce costs.

Ethical and procedural reminders for attorneys

• No ex parte efforts about substantive issues: do not attempt to influence the GAL’s investigative conclusions by undisclosed communications about contested facts. If you must provide records or clarifications, do so on the record or copy opposing counsel.

• Preserve privilege carefully: communications with a retained expert or child’s attorney may be privileged; communications with a court-appointed GAL typically are not. Advise clients accordingly and confirm privilege status early.

• Candor to the tribunal: correct known errors in pleadings and ensure your client doesn’t make false factual submissions to the court or GAL.

• Conflicts and impartiality: check for conflicts (prior representation, financial interest, relationships with the court) and disclose/waive as appropriate.

Practical checklists and templates

• Client-prep checklist before a GAL interview:

o Gather: school records, IEPs/504 plans, medical/mental-health records, police/CPS reports, prior court orders, OS employment/scheduling documentation.

o Identify people for GAL to contact and provide contact information: teachers, pediatricians, therapists, daycare staff, grandparents, coaches, employer/supervisor, neighbors who have regular contact, and any previous caregivers.

Documentation to bring to the interview/meeting with the GAL (or to provide promptly):

o Recent report cards, attendance records, IEP/504 plans.

o Current medication lists and recent medical/mental-health summaries.

o Police/CPS reports, protection-from-abuse orders, criminal case info.

o Work schedules, childcare schedules, travel plans, and prior parenting-time calendars.

o Prior court orders, parenting-time evaluations, prior GAL or custody evaluations, and any substance-use testing results.

o A short, dated chronology of key events from your client’s perspective (dates, witnesses, documents). 

Communications guidance:

o Advise client not to coach the child, not to rehearse answers, and not to discuss the GAL interview with the child afterwards.

o Tell client to be truthful and concise; document concerns but avoid speculative or inflammatory accusations.

Listed below are some sample child interview questions (by developmental stage) to help you inform your client of what to expect. These are sample questions/ prompts for GALs. If you want to suggest questions to the GAL, ensure they’re age-appropriate, culturally sensitive, and consistent with any child-counselor input. And keep in mind the GAL is not obligated to ask any particular question and has the discretion to ask what the GAL believes is appropriate and relevant.

• Preschool (ages ~2–5)

o Where do you live? Who lives with you?

o Where do you sleep at Mom’s house? At Dad’s house?

o Who puts you to bed? Who helps you get dressed?

o Who do you feel scared of? Who makes you feel safe?

o What do you like to do with Mom? With Dad?

• Elementary (ages ~6–11)

o Tell me what a typical weekend looks like at each home.

o Who takes you to school or activities? Who helps with homework?

o Do you have a favorite place to be with Mom/Dad? Why?

o Has anyone told you anything about court or the other parent you didn’t like?

o Who do you talk to when you’re sad or worried?

• Adolescents (ages ~12+)

o Tell me how decisions about your schooling, health care, and activities are made.

o How do you get along with each parent? With step-family members?

o Do you want to live mostly with one parent? Why?

o Have you ever felt pressured to take sides? Explain.

o Has anyone tried to influence what you tell adults or professionals?

Jennifer Sullivan, Sullivan Family Law, PLLC, has extensive experience in domestic relations cases, including mediating pre- and post-judgment divorces, custody and parenting time disputes, and property division arbitration. She has been appointed as a guardian ad litem in domestic relations cases and has been court-appointed as both the guardian ad litem and the attorney in probate cases dealing with guardianships and conservatorships. She can be contacted at jensullivanesq@gmail.com.

(Reprinted with permission from the Washtenaw County Bar Association newsletter Res Ipsa Loquitur.)

The laws behind US auto dealer franchises prohibited direct sales from manufacturers to consumers for close to 100 years—up until Tesla and its CEO, Elon Musk, decided to challenge that system.

By Bob Needham
Michigan Law

The laws behind US auto dealer franchises prohibited direct sales from manufacturers to consumers for close to 100 years—up until Tesla and its CEO, Elon Musk, decided to challenge that system.

Antitrust expert Daniel Crane said he became interested in Tesla’s fight against US auto dealers because the dealers’ arguments “made zero economic sense [and were] protectionist and anti-consumer.” 

Professor Daniel Crane—widely recognized as an expert in antitrust law and related matters—became involved in the dispute early on, testifying and writing on behalf of Tesla and other electric vehicle (EV) startups. 

Now he’s telling the story in a book, Direct Hit: How Tesla Went Straight to Consumers and Smashed the Car Dealers’ Monopoly (Cambridge University Press, 2025).

“This is a story that needs to be told broadly, not only because it’s important to the American economy, it’s important to policy as well. 

Are we going to get EV market penetration or not?” Crane said. “It’s also just a great story.”

Crane, the Richard W. Pogue Professor of Law, recently answered five questions about that story:

1. What initially interested you about the dispute between Tesla and the auto dealers?

I got involved back in 2014, which was very early in Elon Musk’s battle with the car dealers over the question of whether these 1930s–1950s laws should apply to an EV startup that didn’t want to use independent franchisees at all. 

I really had no background in that issue, and I was curious: Wait, these laws say that a manufacturer cannot sell its own product to a consumer? That’s kind of odd. 

I started digging in, and I came to realize two things. One: There was this very interesting historical story as to how we got to where we are, and that’s part of the book. Two: Regarding policy questions today, it seemed to me that the arguments the dealers were making—that this is about consumer protection—were completely unfounded. They made zero economic sense. These laws are protectionist and anti-consumer. 

2. What led Musk and Tesla to take on this fight?

If you think about how dealers make their money selling you an internal combustion vehicle, they make very low profit margins on new car sales—about 5 or 6 percent at most. They make much larger margins, around 30 percent, on servicing the vehicle. What they really rely on is getting you in the door, selling you a car, and then you coming back for service.

With an electric vehicle, the service profile is entirely different. There are no oil changes, fewer moving parts. That profit center just isn’t there.

In addition—and every EV startup has made the same decision—the traditional dealer structure just is not well situated to sell these new products. If they had to go through franchise dealers, they would be at a significant competitive disadvantage. 

3. Given the entrenched infrastructure of the dealers and their lobbying network, how was Tesla able to pull off its win?

There’s a saying: There’s a car dealer in every district. This is why, nationwide, the dealers have an incredible amount of influence. They’re very politically active, very connected. 

Yet what I really love about this story is that the usual assumptions about left/right politics don’t even map onto it. The breadth of the coalition fighting the dealers is unprecedented. There’s no public interest group that supports the dealers. 

It is the dealers and their political allies and their money against a coalition that includes all the environmental groups, all the consumer groups, all the free-market groups, pro-technology groups, the American Antitrust Institute, civil rights groups, labor unions, and car companies. And still, it has been a slog.

One of the big takeaways is how money and entrenched economic interests make it a really hard fight—even against the most amazing, broad, diverse coalition you’ve ever seen.

4. What’s another takeaway from the book?

Law that is based upon one set of assumptions can continue to have effects when those assumptions have totally changed. If you go back to the 1930s, when these laws started, the dealers were family-owned businesses. They had a very sympathetic claim about grossly unequal bargaining power, that they needed protection from the Big Three. That’s what these laws were for. 

The world, though, has changed so much since then. First of all, you don’t have just the Big Three any more; you have about 15 or 20 major car groups. So the dealers’ bargaining power has changed. 

But more importantly, the dealers—with some exceptions—are no longer “mom and pops.” The 10 largest car dealer groups in America have collective annual revenue of more than $100 billion. They’re enormous, multistate businesses. 

The takeaway is how law is very contingent upon the social, economic, and political circumstances of when the law is enacted, but it can still do lots of work in a very different context—even when all of the assumptions that originally undergirded it have long since dissipated.

5. Is the story of Tesla and the dealers the first step toward a much bigger change? Are we seeing the beginning of the end of the dealer system?

For the dealers especially, the direct-sales issue is the least of their problems. Looking forward, the future is almost certainly not going to look like the 1950s model of transportation and how cars are sold, owned, and operated. 

The future is, I think, going to be much less focused on individual vehicle ownership. The long-term future is going to be transportation as a service. We are increasingly shifting toward ride-share or models where you own a right to operate a car for a period of time, or maybe you have a subscription to an autonomous vehicle that’s going to pick you up at your door. 

In the long run, the question you have to ask is, how am I, as a dealer, going to remain relevant to the consumer, to the manufacturer, in a very different ecosystem? 

That’s not a question that the law is going to answer for.

For employers,  COBRA compliance isn’t just a back office duty anymore; it is a crucial safeguard against unexpected liability and employee fallout. When continuation coverage becomes costlier, former employers scrutinize every missed notice and delay more closely, and regulators may pay more attention, too. 

By Zana Tomich

For employers,  COBRA compliance isn’t just a back office duty anymore; it is a crucial safeguard against unexpected liability and employee fallout. When continuation coverage becomes costlier, former employers scrutinize every missed notice and delay more closely, and regulators may pay more attention, too. 

Most employers think of COBRA as one of those background compliance requirements that only matters when someone leaves the company. But when the notice goes out late or the paperwork gets missed, it can quickly become a costly problem.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, better known as COBRA, has been around since 1986, and yet it continues to challenge well-meaning employers. COBRA remains a federal safety net designed to help employees and their families continue group health insurance after certain life events, particularly when employment ends. But from an employer’s perspective, it’s also a legal minefield of deadlines, notice rules, and liability traps that can quietly turn into five-figure penalties.

What COBRA really requires

If you employ 20 or more employees and offer group health coverage, COBRA applies to you. When an employee loses coverage due to a “qualifying event” like termination, reduction in hours, divorce, or death, both the employer and the plan administrator have clear duties.

Within 30 days of that event, the employer must notify the plan administrator, who then has 14 additional days to send an election notice to the employee or qualified beneficiary. The individual then gets 60 days to decide whether to continue coverage. If an employer misses those deadlines, the Department of Labor can assess civil penalties up to $110 per day per person, plus potential medical costs and attorneys’ fees if the individual sues.

Most employees don’t realize that COBRA is not a subsidy. It’s a right to stay on the employer’s plan by paying the full premium plus up to a 2% administrative fee. For someone used to an employer covering 70% of premiums, that’s a shock. Coverage generally lasts 18 months, but certain situations, like disability, divorce, or death, can extend it to 29 or 36 months.

It is worth noting that Michigan has no separate state continuation law for private-sector employers with fewer than 20 employees, unlike other states that maintain “mini-COBRA” statutes. Employers below that threshold instead rely on the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace for continuation options. This absence of a state analogue simplifies the compliance framework but leaves employees of smaller employers without a state-level safety net.

The cost of getting it wrong

From the employer’s side, COBRA failures don’t usually come from bad intent. They come from disorganization: an HR manager leaves, a payroll system changes, or a qualifying event slips through the cracks. But once a missed notice surfaces, it’s too late to fix it quietly. The Department of Labor, IRS, or a plaintiff’s lawyer can impose fines, recovery of medical costs, or even punitive damages.

Beyond penalties, there’s a reputational cost. Employees who leave on good terms but later discover they weren’t properly notified about their benefits often feel betrayed and that frustration can spill into online reviews or wrongful termination claims.

That’s why compliance isn’t just a legal duty: it’s a business-relationship safeguard.

A real-world reminder: Venus Williams’ ‘Comeback for the Insurance’

Recently, tennis legend Venus Williams gave COBRA an unexpected moment in the spotlight. After a 16-month break from professional play, she joked that her comeback was “for the insurance.” Beneath the humor lay a truth every employer should remember: health insurance drives major life decisions.

During her hiatus, Williams relied on COBRA coverage; the same continuation option available to millions of Americans after job loss, reduced hours, or retirement. For her, health coverage wasn’t a perk; it was a necessity tied to her ongoing treatment for autoimmune conditions.

While her platform is unique, the dynamic is universal. For many employees, steady health coverage determines whether they can afford ongoing care, medication, or family stability. For employers, understanding that emotional and financial dependence is key to managing transitions with compassion and compliance.

Practical steps for employers in 2026

1. Audit your COBRA process now.

Confirm that your plan administrator, broker, or internal HR team has clear procedures and deadlines. If the process relies on one person’s memory, it’s not compliant.

2. Coordinate between HR, payroll, and benefits.

A qualifying event in one department (like reduced hours) must trigger notice in another. Systems integration is your friend.

3. Train managers to recognize qualifying events.

COBRA isn’t just about layoffs. A reduction in hours that causes loss of coverage, or an employee’s divorce, can also trigger obligations.

4. Keep meticulous records.

The best defense in a DOL audit or lawsuit is proof that you sent timely notices. Maintain copies for at least three years.

5. Communicate with empathy.

Employees facing life changes are under stress. Clear, timely information about their rights not only protects your company — it reflects your values.

Beyond compliance: The human side of benefits

Venus Williams’ story illustrates what employers sometimes forget: health benefits represent security. When an employee leaves, COBRA isn’t just paperwork; it’s a bridge between employment and the next chapter, between stability and uncertainty.

Employers who treat COBRA as part of their broader duty of care, and not just a compliance checklist, reinforce trust even in difficult transitions. That trust builds reputation, reduces litigation, and strengthens your brand as a responsible employer.

The Bottom Line

COBRA may feel like an old rule in a modern workplace, but its relevance hasn’t faded. In an era of career fluidity, layoffs, and remote work, employees expect employers to manage benefits transitions with accuracy and empathy.

For business leaders, the best COBRA policy is a proactive one: review your procedures, train your teams, and document everything.

Because when it comes to COBRA, the biggest legal headaches aren’t the ones you see coming: they’re the ones hidden in the file you thought someone else was handling.
—————
Zana Tomich is co-founder of Dalton & Tomich, a versatile Detroit-based law firm, where she works with lending institutions and privately held businesses and nonprofits, often in a general counsel capacity.

My brother-in-law, age 37, is a cryptocurrency fanatic while my father, age 87, is a Warren Buffett devotee. My brother-in-law has travelled the world attending conferences discussing the possibilities of cryptocurrencies.

By J.J. Conway

My brother-in-law, age 37, is a cryptocurrency fanatic while my father, age 87, is a Warren Buffett devotee. My brother-in-law has travelled the world attending conferences discussing the possibilities of cryptocurrencies. My father attended the Berkshire Hathaway May 2009 annual meeting to better understand the aftermath of the financial crisis. My brother-in-law has spent most of his professional life working virtually while my dad went to an office every day. During the holidays, my father dons a coat and tie while my brother-in-law wears a Bitcoin ugly sweater. They are from two different generations, and they represent two different approaches to investing and retirement planning. The Trump Administration is going with my brother-in-law on this one. 

In what are expected to be a package of executive orders and regulatory advisories issued by the President and his Secretary of Labor, the administration has announced plans to allow 401k accounts to invest in new retirement products. The administration announced that it intends to allow employees to make investments in cryptocurrencies, private equity, hedge funds, and precious metals as they save for retirement. This is a seismic shift in U.S. public policy. 

How it will turn out, no one really knows. 

For those of my father’s generation, the key to successful retirement planning was to always “pay yourself first” - putting money into blue chip stocks and government bonds. His generation believed that when it came to investing, the more boring, the better. My father’s generation used dollar-cost averaging, a disciplined and patient investing approach with the idea that steadiness will lead to financial security. Investing in low-cost index funds and government bonds is typical of this saving style. The idea is that by purchasing shares in the market and government bonds, the investments will do the work themselves – no stock-picking or reading complex financial statements. 

In the relatively new world of cryptocurrencies, the “investments” appear to yield incredible sums of tradable wealth rather quickly. Stories of overnight millionaires zooming around Miami on miniyachts abound. Although, to be fair, these stories of great wealth-making are balanced out by stories of fraud and organized crime organizations taking advantage of blockchain technologies to launder money or pull off scams. To the outsider, crypto can seem risky and scary. 

Along with crypto, another new frontier is allowing savers to invest in “alternative” investments like private equity and hedge funds. While such investment products have a longer history than cryptocurrencies, they have traditionally been legally restricted to institutional investors and wealthy individuals. 

Alternative investments have been associated with higher-than-average management fees and restrictions on withdrawals. The standard management fee charges on private market investments are a 2% sales charge and with a 20% annual charge on all profits (there may be other fees as well) along with restrictions on withdrawals. Investments of this kind can limit the ability to withdraw for as long as ten years. 

What is unclear is just how this new selection of retirement investment options will work practically. There are going to be some obvious administrative challenges. For example, how will these new private investments be sold to new investors, and how will they be priced? Most alternative investments are limited partnerships – how will that change? Alternative investments also rely on secondary markets to offload underperforming assets or to quickly extract cash. How will that work? How will cryptocurrencies be priced ten years from now?

There seems to be a looming issue over the appropriateness of the management fees charged and what type of liquidity will be available for savers and retirees.

Cryptocurrencies appear to rely upon a purely market valuation (whatever someone is willing to pay is the price) so the management fee structure of both types of investments will have to be created. 

In recent years, extensive litigation has been filed against employers for selecting investment options that were high cost. Many successful lawsuits have been brought against benefit plans arguing that the management fees charged on investment accounts were excessive. Similarly, many large institutional investors, like Yale University and the University of California, are trying to exit private markets. They have been forced to offload their private equity and hedge fund investments into the secondary market, reportedly at some discount (or in some cases pairing their most valuable investments with their underperforming ones to attract buyers).

Perhaps realizing that ERISA’s fiduciary duty owed to retirement savers in 401k plans might conflict with offering cryptocurrencies or alternative investments in employee benefit plans, the Trump administration is floating safe harbor rules that might alleviate employer plan sponsors from fiduciary liability for offering such funds. It may be a hard sell to defend the cost and suitability of these investments for the average saver under ERISA’s rules. 

Indeed, this is a Brave New World for 401k retirement plans – and it is one my dad’s generation will likely avoid, and one my brother-in-law’s generation appears ready to explore. 
————————
John Joseph (J.J.) Conway is an employee benefits and ERISA attorney and litigator and founder of J.J. Conway Law in Royal Oak.

Two students in Michigan Law’s Child Welfare Appellate Clinic won a major case in the Michigan Court of Appeals that restored the parental rights of a clinic client. 
The opinion in In re Boshell/Shelton, Minors, published July 2, stated that the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) should not have been involved in the life of the client and her children and that the termination of her parental rights was inappropriate. 

By Sharon Morioka
Michigan Law

Two students in Michigan Law’s Child Welfare Appellate Clinic won a major case in the Michigan Court of Appeals that restored the parental rights of a clinic client. 

The opinion in In re Boshell/Shelton, Minors, published July 2, stated that the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) should not have been involved in the life of the client and her children and that the termination of her parental rights was inappropriate. 

While helping secure justice for the mother, the clinic also provided a learning opportunity for 3Ls Augie DeLuna and Nadia Fassa. They worked during the 2024–2025 academic year to develop an argument on behalf of the mother, who was caught up in a case involving the tragic death of a child who was neither related to her nor under her care. 

Vivek Sankaran, ’01, clinical professor of law and director of the Child Welfare Appellate Clinic, guided DeLuna and Fassa’s work and praised them following the court’s opinion. 

“They had done such a great job on their brief that it was a very obvious decision for this court,” he said. 

Tearing a family apart

The clinic’s client, “Ms. C.,” is the mother of six. She shares three daughters with her former partner, identified as S. Shelton in the court opinion. One daughter lived with Shelton, while the two others lived with Ms. C. and sometimes visited Shelton. Ms. C. also has three sons with her current partner, identified as Z. Boshell. Her sons bore no relation to S. Shelton. 

When Shelton was charged with the torture and murder of his current partner’s son, the DHHS sought custody of all of Ms. C.’s children, even though she was only tangentially associated with Shelton’s case. DHHS alleged that she should have known about the boy’s abuse because her two daughters visited their father at his house. 

Her three daughters were placed with their grandmother while her sons were released to Boshell on the condition that their mother leave the house. Ms. C. eventually moved into a motel.

Following a trial, the trial court took jurisdiction over all six of the children, mainly due to the trial court’s finding of her “neglectfulness” because she didn’t know the circumstances surrounding the abuse of the little boy. The court also terminated her parental rights.

“They were trying to make sure that they covered all their bases,” said Fassa. “But what they ended up doing is tearing apart a family that had nothing to do with it.” 

Favorable decision

The case was one of six that the Wayne County Circuit Court assigned to the clinic in fall 2024. Sankaran then assigned the case to DeLuna and Fassa. 

While appellate lawyers have less client interaction than trial lawyers, the students met with Ms. C., who was considering dropping the appeal because of the trauma she and her children had suffered. When the students let her know she had a strong case, she decided to proceed. 

As they worked on the case, DeLuna and Fassa met weekly with fellow student-attorneys in the clinic and with Sankaran, a process that provided consistent feedback as they developed their brief. They also received feedback on their writing from Timothy Pinto, ’97, clinical professor of law. 

“Those meetings were a great way to communicate our concerns or talk through the legal issues that we were unsure about,” said DeLuna. 

They filed the brief at the end of the fall term. When the case came before the appeals court on July 1, Sankaran made the oral argument because DeLuna and Fassa were away at their summer jobs. 
“To my surprise, they didn’t even ask a question,” said Sankaran, “because they knew what they were going to do.” 

One day later, the court issued its opinion. 

“It was surreal that we won on all four of our arguments,” said DeLuna. “We would have been happy to win on just one, let alone all four.” 

Not only did the court quickly make its decision, it also issued a published opinion, which establishes a binding precedent that can help families experiencing similar situations in the future. 

Trust in her advocates

Once Fassa learned of the decision, she contacted her client, who was overjoyed to know she would regain her parental rights.

“I’ve been talking with her a bit since then, and I thanked her for putting so much trust in us,” said Fassa. “She was like, ‘No, thank you guys. I really wouldn’t have done this if it wasn’t for you; I would have dropped it.’” 

Both students took away from the experience the importance of client-centered lawyering. While it’s easy to get caught up in the process of a case, it’s necessary to remember that real people are involved. 

This fall, the clinic will receive a whole new set of cases from the court. 

While it is the only clinic in the country that represents parents on appeal in termination of parental rights cases, Sankaran would like to see similar clinics at other law schools. 

“It is another example of Michigan leading in this area,” said Sankaran. 

“I’m hoping that others will follow our lead and create more of these clinics, because in the appellate world we have a lot of work to do; a lot of mistakes are happening. These families need advocates to help them through that process.”

Question:  If you were operating a multi-million-dollar business and one of your divisions is losing an average of $40 million a year, would you close it?

By Berl Falbaum

Question:  If you were operating a multi-million-dollar business and one of your divisions is losing an average of $40 million a year, would you close it?

Exactly, that’s what I thought.

So, what is all the hoopla about the cancelation of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert”?  According to several reports, the show has been losing millions for years -- as have other late-night shows -- so Paramount, the show’s owner, is tuning it out come next May.

My, oh, my, the breast-beating, particularly among Democrats because many of Colbert’s monologues eviscerate Donald Trump.

“This is nothing but politics,” was the general refrain.  If comedians are attacked it may lead to the dismantling of our Constitution, warned Sunny Hostin, co-host of “The View.”

Absolutely!  We cannot have comedians attacked. I remember studying in History 101 that the most controversial issue among the 39 delegates at the Constitutional Convention involved including language that protected comedians. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay devoted many pages to this issue in the Federalist Papers’ 38 articles.

Actually, that would be a pretty good Colbert one-liner.

Critics point out that Paramount’s decision was made because it needs the Trump’s administration’s approval for a $9 billion recapitalization deal involving a merger with Skydance Media. (The Federal Communications Commission approved the merger as I was writing this column.)

Even if this is true, so what?

Paramount is a private company and has every right to make political decisions -- true, we may like them and I don’t -- as long as they are not illegal.

Contributions to officeholders and candidates are political actions.  Those who donate large sums, do so hoping to “buy” access and/or influence.

Some years back, a businessman, who was supporting the sitting president was testifying before Congress when he was asked, somewhat haughtily: “Isn’t it true that you gave so much money to gain access?”

His answer ran along these lines: “Senator, yes, that is true, and if I thought I could gain more access, I would give even more.”

I always thought he should have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor because it was, arguably, the only completely truthful answer ever offered in congressional testimony.

What about the law firms as well as ABC and CBC which caved into pressure from Trump?

Yes, I think the agreements were unseemly and disreputable.  “Cowardly” also comes to mind when reflecting on the decisions by the managements of these organizations. 

As a journalist, I was particularly offended that news companies did not stand their ground, hold firm and fight Trump in the courts.

But that is their right.  

Every business, along the way, makes political decisions, even small  ones. And I will speculate that everyone reading this article has been a “victim” of political decisions by bosses.

A hypothetical: I own a bakery and one of my major customers, also a neighbor, wants me to close a half-hour earlier because he does not like the traffic to my shop at dinner time. Doing so, however, would hurt other customers -- customers who are not as financially important to me. 

What do I do? I run the numbers and if rejecting the request would hurt me financially, I know what I would do. I don’t think I need to spell out my decision. That’s politics.

Does the show’s cancellation really deserve such an emotional-laden national debate? Some other “minor” issues come to mind like Gaza, Sudan, health insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, the environment, Ukraine, the deficit, and, oh yes, the threat of the use of nuclear weapons. The Atlantic Magazine just devoted its entire issue to the risks of nuclear war. Perhaps the next issue should be devoted to Colbert.

(Full disclosure: I have never -- as in “never” -- watched the Colbert Show nor other late-night comics. Even with my afternoon naps, I hardly make it through the 6 p.m. news.)

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has called for an investigation to determine if Paramount’s decision was made because of politics.

She has been a senator for some 13 years and never in those years has she ever made a political decision nor has she witnessed one in the Senate.  She and her colleagues always vote on principle.
That’s another Colbert one -- actually two -- one-liners. She could be a Colbert replacement except she was serious.

Not be outdone, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and California Congressman Adam Schiff cried “politics” as well. The shame!

Sanders also charged that Paramount may have fired Colbert because the comedian had criticized Paramount on the air. Now, even if true, that actually makes sense to me. I would fire any employee who disparages me in front of millions. After all, I pay him/her.

A guess: If Sanders’ press secretary were to distribute a release that claims the senator’s policies would destroy democracy, I would guess Sanders would not give the employee a raise.

Okay, I did not want to write the following thinking it was self-evident.  Paramount is a business.  Its primary objective is to make money. It is not a political or charitable organization or one which is dedicated to the advancement of public policies. 

It makes decision to support its financial goals. 

With this column, I apologize to Colbert for never having watched him. I also hope that he did not squander his $15 million-a-year salary and saved enough to get by in retirement.

I wish it had happened to me. If it had, I would have smiled and supported the politics.