Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The House of Representatives passed a bill on Oct. 5 titled the “Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of 2004″ (H.R. 4504). The proposed law, introduced by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) in June, is meant to speed up the process of sister-state permanent placement, which at present takes on average one full year more than in-state placement. DeLay said upon passage, “This bill will get these children out of their personal hells and into the arms of a loving family, quickly and safely.”
The bill encourages agencies to consider interstate placement as part of a child's permanency plan and, if passed into law in its present form, will offer states a financial incentive of $1500 for each interstate home study that it completes within 30 days. The bill also would require states to run federal criminal background checks on individuals with whom the children might be placed and to conduct child abuse registry checks of adoptive and foster parents. Such checks are, of course, already routinely conducted in most states
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.