LAW 612 | Spring 2026

Professor Tammi Walker, JD, PhD

2026, Apr 28

Tuesdays & Thursdays | 1:30–2:45 PM | Room 160

Family Law Final Review

Frameworks first, then doctrine

Today's Plan — 75 Minutes

  1. Opening (10 min) — Four Questions framework + worked example
  2. Group prep (15 min) — your subject, your concept, your Google Doc entries
  3. Teach-backs (40 min) — 5 groups × 8 min (5 teach + 3 follow-up)
  4. Closing (10 min) — cross-cutting themes

Many of your open questions focused on isolated rules. Today is about how to organize a family law problem so the right rules surface.

The Four Questions

Apply these to every family law problem:

  1. Who are the parties, and how does the law classify them?
    (married/unmarried, parent/non-parent, void/voidable, biological/adoptive, tribal member, etc.)
  2. What standard or rule governs?
  3. Any constitutional limit?
  4. What consequence or remedy follows?

Worked Example — The Jenny Problem

Facts. Jenny — young single mother. After her daughter is found unsupervised near a highway twice, DHS removes both children. DHS provides supervised visits but no housing assistance, transportation, or structured parenting program. The children have been in foster care 16 of the last 22 months. DHS files a TPR petition. Jenny requests expanded visitation moving toward reunification.

Walk this through the Four Questions.

Jenny — Q1 & Q2

Q1 — Parties and classification:
Jenny: still-legal mother (rights not yet terminated). Children: her legal children. DHS: state actor. Foster mother: no independent standing.
Jenny's classification triggers parental-rights doctrine — not third-party custody.

Q2 — Rule:
ASFA (file TPR after 15 of 22 months unless services not provided) · State "reasonable efforts" duty · TPR three-part test (statutory ground, unfitness, substantial risk of harm).

Jenny — Q3 & Q4

Q3 — Constitutional limit:
Santosky v. Kramer — clear and convincing evidence. Probe the record: black eye from a fall on a visit, "perceived hostility" to social-worker advice, criticism of her budget. C&C unfitness — or value-laden critique?

Q4 — Consequence:
No reasonable efforts → ASFA exception; petition dismissed/stayed; expanded visitation. Reasonable efforts + C&C unfitness → TPR granted; adoption follows.

Q1 controls everything that follows. Status drives the analysis.

Group Work — How It Works

Two deliverables per group:

  • Open student questions → write your group's answers in the shared Google Doc
  • Your concept → teach it to the class verbally (5 min) + 3 min Q&A / professor follow-up

For your verbal teach-back, prepare:

  • The 2–3 controlling rules
  • The key distinction or line that decides outcomes
  • How the Four Questions apply to your topic — one or two sentences

Pick one person to lead. Everyone should be able to answer follow-up.

The Five Groups — Concepts to Teach

  1. Constitutional Framework of Marriage — right to marry & heightened scrutiny
  2. Marriage Validity, Annulment & Marital Duties — void/voidable, fraud "essentials," ratification
  3. Dissolution, Property Division & Spousal Support — equitable distribution + premarital agreements
  1. Child Custody & Child Support — nondiscrimination + child support as the child's right
  2. Parentage & ICWA — marital presumption, biology+relationship, de facto, ICWA jurisdiction

Closing Themes

What students miss that costs points

Cross-Cutting Themes

Across the course, students lose points when they skip:

  1. Threshold issues — Is there a valid marriage? Who's a legal parent? Does the court have jurisdiction?
  2. Legal status — Married/unmarried, parent/non-parent, void/voidable. Status often controls the remedy.
  3. Constitutional limits — Some family law rules collapse on contact with the Constitution.
  4. Whose rights are at stake — A child's right is not a parent's right. A tribe's interest is not a parent's interest.

Final Frame

Selecting the right framework and applying core rules carefully will get you further than recalling obscure doctrine.

Presenter note: Set the tone here. Frame this as method, not a content dump. The "isolated rules" line directly addresses the misallocation without naming it. Don't dwell — move quickly to the framework.

Presenter note: Walk students through each question briefly. Emphasize Q1 — "classify" not "status" (which is a term of art they'll encounter inside specific doctrines). The point is to identify the parties and how the law characterizes them. The framework is universal — it works on every doctrine you've covered.

Presenter note: Read the facts aloud once, slowly. Then move to the next slide and walk Q1–Q4 in order, ~60-75 seconds per question. The point isn't TPR — it's showing how the framework decomposes any family law problem.

Presenter note: Spend ~60 seconds per question. On Q1, emphasize that classification is the move — Jenny is still a legal parent, so we're in parental-rights doctrine, not third-party custody. On Q2, note the ASFA exception for failure to provide services.

Presenter note: End with the teaching point — "Q1 controls everything that follows. In your group's topic, the same move applies: anchor on classification before reaching for rules." This sets up exactly what each group needs to do.

Presenter note: Make sure students know the Google Doc link before prep starts. Project it on the screen or pin it in chat. The split format lets the doc capture detail (which they can review later) while teach-backs stay tight.

Presenter note: Read each group's concept aloud as you assign them. Don't dwell on details — those are on their worksheets. Keep this slide up briefly while groups move into formation. Q-FRAMES (use during your 3-min corrections after each teach-back): • G1 (Constitutional Marriage): Q3-heavy. Q1 here is "who is being prevented from marrying?" — the framework asks whether the obstacle is direct and substantial. • G2 (Annulment): Q1 problem (status: void / voidable / valid). Once status is set, Q2 (essentials) and Q4 (annulment vs. ratification) follow. • G3 (Property/Support): Q4-heavy (remedy). Watch Q1 confusion: title is not the classification — Ferguson treats both spouses as contributors. • G4 (Custody/Support): Foreground Q1 — "whose right is at stake?" The child's, not the parents'. Explains non-waivability + high-income deviation. • G5 (Parentage/ICWA): Parentage IS the classification problem (Q1). Marital presumption, biology+relationship, de facto, ICWA — each is a different Q2 rule for answering Q1. Q3 brings parental liberty + unitary-family interest.

Presenter note: Keep this slide up while you synthesize. Walk through each theme with one example from the day's teach-backs ("Group 2 just showed us threshold issues — fraud essentials decides whether the marriage even exists"). This is where you do the priority-repair work without ever saying "this is on the exam."

Presenter note: Land on this. Don't add to it. Wish them well.