download Board of Educ. for Wicomico Cnty. v. Sturm

Issue: whether the Maryland Child Victims Act of 2023 revived claims for child sex abuse against boards of education where the alleged victim had no claim to be revived at the time of the alleged abuse because Article VIII, § 3 of Maryland’s Constitution barred the claim, and whether it retroactively waived the constitutional immunity afforded to Maryland’s Boards of Education for incidents that occurred before July 1, 1971.  Enough Abuse and the American Association for Justice argued that victims of sexual abuse in schools should be entitled to compensation and school boards should not be immune from providing it.  (2026)

Link to Amicus Brief.

Danaipour v. McLarey heard by the United States Court of Appeal for the First Circuit

Issue: whether the District court erred in its interpretation of Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention by imposing improper barriers for proving sexual abuse. MassKids challenged a lower court’s decision that two girls sexually abused by their father in Sweden should be returned there to undergo evaluations. The case addressed the specific provisions of the Hague Convention (Article 13b) intended to protect children from future harm if returned to their country of origin. In this precedent-setting case, the court ruled that the children should not be returned to Sweden, the place of abuse and their abuser. (2003)

T.F. v B.L. heard by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Issue: whether the obligation to pay child support under Massachusetts law extends to the non-biological parent of a child whose birth was planned and intended by a same sex couple. MassKids argued that an individual who intends to bring a child into the world and agrees to be a parent to that child should be responsible for parental support, especially given that the child would not have been born if it had not been by mutual agreement. Children born into non-traditional families should be protected equally as are children with two biological parents. (2003)

Extending Custody of Vaughn to Juvenile Court heard by the Massachusetts Appeals Court

Issue: whether the Juvenile Court erred by not making written findings concerning the effect of a father’s abuse of a child’s mother before awarding permanent custody of that child to the father. MassKids argued that courts should be required to make findings of fact regarding domestic violence and its effects in determining custody awards in all types of cases. Courts should not distinguish between care and protection proceedings and other types of custody disputes when making the type of findings required by Custody of Vaughn. Best interests of the child requires that courts consider the effect of domestic violence on that child. (2003)

Care and Protection of Georgette heard by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Issue: whether an attorney appointed under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 117 to represent a minor child in a state intervention case is obligated to follow a standard of representation based upon the direction of the client or the best interests of the child. MassKids argued that the S. J.C. should articulate a consistent and reliable standard for determining the role of attorneys appointed to represent children and that this determination should be made by a judge. It advocated that the decision be based upon an articulated standard that accounts for the 1) age, 2) maturity, and 3) trauma experienced by the child. (2002)

Walsh v. Walsh heard by United States Court of Appeal for the First Circuit

Issue: whether the District court erred in its interpretation of Article 13(b) of The Hague Convention when it ordered two children returned to their father in Ireland, despite the fact that the father had a documented history of committing abuse toward the children’s mother and that the children had witnessed these acts. MassKids argued that the commission of domestic abuse, the children’s witnessing of the abuse, and the history of violent behavior posed a significant risk to the children. Thus, Article 13(b) would permit a U.S. court to refuse their return to Ireland because doing so would expose them to psychological and physical harm. The brief contended that Article 20 would support the refusal to return the children to Ireland because the fundamental principles of the requested State (the United States) relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental rights would not permit such a return. The appeal court found in favor of the mother and dismissed the father’s petition for custody. (2002)

Marinelli heard by the Barnstable County Probate Court

Issue: whether a 4-year-old boy who had been sexually assaulted by his father should be ordered to continue visitation. Under Massachusetts law, courts must consider evidence of past or present abuse toward a child as a factor against the best interests of the child, so as to prevent the awarding of visitation or legal or physical custody to the abuser parent. MassKids argued that visitation should be halted immediately and that, if and when it resumed, it occur only at a court approved visitation center. (2001)