March 10 & 11, 2017
TOPIC: Child Welfare and Parental Disability
The University Of San Diego School Of Law wins the National Moot Court Competition in Child Welfare & Adoption Law
On March 10 & 11th, the Family and Youth Law Center and Capital University Law School hosted the twelfth annual National Moot Court Competition in Child Welfare & Adoption Law. The competition problem involved “Child Welfare and Parental Disability”. This year’s competition drew 23 teams of law students from across the country; oral argument rounds were held at the Ohio Statehouse and the Supreme Court of Ohio.
We were especially pleased to welcome the following schools, which participated for the first time this year: Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law, and the William & Mary Law School.
Supreme Court of Ohio Justice Patrick DeWine presided over the final round in which the University of San Diego team of Kendra Tovey & Ryan Ramos defeated an excellent team from Loyola University Chicago School of Law. The final round panel also included Dean Rachel Janutis and representatives of the Competition’s national partners: Colleen Quinn of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, and Judge Anthony Capizzi of the National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges.
We would like to thank the Columbus Bar Foundation’s Theodore L. Horst Fund for sponsoring the competition’s lunch on Friday and the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys for providing an annual pledge that supports Competition awards, including a plaque for the winning team, a plaque and trophy for the winning school.
A competition of this size would not have been possible without the over 60 judges, magistrates, attorneys, law professors, students, and community members who volunteered their time for this event. We had over 20 Capital University Law School Alumni and 24 Capital University Law School students volunteer! Thank you to everyone who participated to make this year’s competition a huge success!
Congratulations to our Champions!
Team 21: The University of San Diego School of Law -- Kendra Tovey & Ryan Ramos
Team 25: Loyola University Chicago School of Law, Heather Nelson & James Naughton
Best Final Round Oralist: James Naughton
Team 17: The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law -- Alison Buzzard and Krista Warren
Team 18: The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law -- Savannah Fox and Stacey Hauff
1st Place: Team 12 Michigan State University College of Law -- Morgan Lear & Lauren Rogers
2nd Place: Team 25 Loyola University School of Law -- Heather Nelson & James Naughton
3rd Place: Team 15 Southern Illinois University School of Law -- Cortney McKinney & Myra Yelle
2017 Final Round Judges were representatives from the following partners:
- The ABA Center on Children and the Law
- The American Academy of Adoption Attorneys
- The Family & Youth Law Center
- The National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges
- “The competition is run so smoothly, it is flawless every year. I love the locations of where the competition is held.” – participant
- “There were quite a few very talented teams, and the level of competition, on average, was very good. As for the administration of the tournament, I cannot praise you enough. We host a national tournament at our school every year, and I know how much work goes into it. Everything was run extremely professionally. We were all extremely impressed with how well the tournament was administered.” – participant
- “It was a wonderful experience throughout. I enjoyed researching and writing the topic. The competition was also exceptionally well organized throughout. Staff members were always very responsive, knowledgeable and pleasant to deal with. The locations were really great. Arguing at the statehouse and state supreme court were experiences I will remember forever.” - participant
- “Keep up the great work. This competition just gets better every year!” – faculty advisor/coach
- “The superb presentations are a reflection of the many, many hours of work that each student put into their presentation. I also appreciate the opportunity to be on the ‘other side’ of the bench which I believe is far more challenging to an attorney than a judge or magistrate who would be hearing just another case, albeit a far better prepared one. I thoroughly enjoyed being part of this event for the third time!” – attorney/judge
- “The materials were outstanding. The problem was great and instructions to judges could not [have been] better.” – attorney/judge