Interview with Janice Mac Avoy, 2018 Recipient of the Zero Tolerance Award

Pieter Keushkerian

THE HISTORY In 1973, in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, the United States’

THE HISTORY

In 1973, in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, the United States’ Supreme Court ruled in favor of a woman’s right to have an abortion.

Forty-five years later, the national debate sparked by the Supreme Court’s decision wages on. As traditionally conservative states continue to pass legislation aimed at closing abortion clinics, more and more women have broken the silence around what has historically been deemed a “taboo” topic. These women, many of whom have had abortions themselves, believe that it has been their ability to control their own bodies through access to safe and legal abortion that has allowed them to become the successful and independent women they are today.

Sanctuary is proud to honor one of these women, Janice Mac Avoy, as the 2018 recipient of the Zero Tolerance Award for her work in the legal battle to uphold abortion rights for all women.

JANICE MAC AVOY

Janice Mac Avoy is a New York-based partner at the law firm of Fried Frank, where she is a member of the Real Estate Department and the Litigation Department, head of the Real Estate Litigation Practice Group, and co-chair of the Firm’s Pro Bono Committee. She is a member of the American Law Institute and the Association of Real Estate Women, a former member of the Board of directors of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and current board member of Sanctuary for Families and the Center for Reproductive Rights, as well as a member and voting representative of the CRE Finance Council.

Janice Mac Avoy is a partner at the Fried Frank law firm in New York.

Janice graduated summa cum laude from Washington University and received her JD from Columbia Law School, where she was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar and associate editor of the Columbia Law Review.

Two years ago, Janice was the lead signer on an amicus (friend of the court) brief to the United States Supreme Court in the Whole Women’s Health case – an important Supreme Court case addressing Texas’ restrictive abortion laws, which would have closed 75% of the abortion clinics in the state.  Janice wrote an article for the Washington Post discussing her role in the amicus brief and how the right to abortion changed her life and why it needs to be upheld. Recently, Sanctuary got the chance to interview Janice and find out more about her personal and legal connection to the ongoing battle over women’s right to abortion:

INTERVIEW

How did you first get involved with Sanctuary for Families?

I first got involved with Sanctuary about thirty-one years ago, when I was a student at Columbia Law School. During my time there, I participated in a family law clinic to get orders of protection for women who had been subjected to domestic assault. Ultimately, about fifteen years later, I was very involved in Fried Frank’s efforts to fund the beginning of  the Courtroom Advocates Project at Sanctuary, which formalized the practice of students assisting victims of domestic violence obtain orders of protection. I started doing pro-bono work with Sanctuary right out of law school, and I have continued working with Sanctuary ever since.

What is/are you connection(s) to domestic violence?

I have always tried to be an advocate for victims of domestic violence since law school, and I continue to work with Sanctuary and other service providers to help victims of domestic violence escape their abusers.  I have worked on almost 500 divorces, mostly for victims of domestic violence.  I also believe that in order for women to fulfill their potential, they need to control their bodies, not only by being free of physical abuse or exploitation, but also by choosing when or if to have children.  In addition to the friend of the court brief in Whole Women’s Health, which was signed by me and over 100 female attorneys who had exercised their constitutional right to have an abortion, I have also acted as counsel to other organizations that have submitted friend of the court briefs to the United States Supreme Court and other courts in support of protecting abortion rights, including the National Abortion Federation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and other medical professionals who support women’s access to safe, legal abortion.

The issue of a woman’s right to have an abortion is not an abstract one; it is a very real issue for women from all walks of life. The women lawyer’s brief got a lot of press, and I realized I had to keep speaking out on the issue, which then led to the Washington Post article, the CNN article, and a number of public speaking engagements discussing how critical it is to talk about abortion.  The importance of access to reproductive rights is vital to a woman’s ability to control her destiny. Much of my work and the work done at organizations like Sanctuary is all about empowering women to be free of the patriarchal systems that currently dominate our political and social landscapes.

 

Pro-choice activists hold signs as marchers of the annual March for Life arrive in front of the U.S. Supreme Court January 22, 2014 on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

The theme for this year’s Zero Tolerance benefit is “Breaking the Silence.” What made you want to break the silence around what has for so long been deemed the “taboo” topic of abortion?

When the president of the Center for Reproductive Rights contacted me about being the lead signer on the Whole Women’s Health brief, I was very nervous about public reaction, but I knew I was going to do it anyway. I decided I wanted to talk to my family before agreeing to do it.

We all sat around the dinner table – me, my husband, my daughter, who was 16 at the time, and my son, who was 13. I sat them down and told them: “This is a big deal. My name is going to be out there, so it could affect you too.” My husband responded by saying that it was my decision and he supported whatever I wanted to do, and my daughter said that she would be disappointed in me if I didn’t do it. Everyone was incredibly supportive of my decision to speak out about my abortion. I even spoke with my mother, who absolutely supported my wish to speak out. “I wish I had the choices that you had,” she told me.

The firm’s support was also a big help. After the brief and before the decision, so many at Fried Frank were supportive in not only publicizing the firm’s role in the Supreme Court brief, but also furthering our efforts within the context of gender rights.

What do you hope other women can gain from your story, and those of other women who have broken the silence surrounding abortion rights?

We need to stop being ashamed. No matter what the issue is. Sanctuary has played an important role in breaking the silence on domestic violence and sex trafficking, and I hope to continue breaking the silence on abortion.  Women shouldn’t be made to feel ashamed because they chose to have an abortion, just like they should not be shamed if they decided to have a child. This issue needs to be talked about. We have to take the shame away, and breaking the silence is a primary way to do that.

For a summary and photos of our 2018 Zero Tolerance Benefit, click here.

Davis Polk Team Achieves Tremendous Financial Victory for Mother of Two

Emily Suran

At this year’s Above & Beyond Pro Bono Achievement Awards and Benefit, Sanctuary for Families is honoring a team of Davis Polk attorneys for their for their pro bono work on behalf of Sanctuary client “Fiona.”

At this year’s Above & Beyond Pro Bono Achievement Awards and Benefit, Sanctuary for Families is honoring a team of Davis Polk & Wardwell attorneys for their pro bono work on behalf of Sanctuary client “Fiona,” a survivor of domestic violence whose abusive ex-husband owed thousands of dollars in child support arrears. The Davis Polk team of partner Joel Cohen and associates Daniel Spitzer, Nick DiMarino, and Rachelle Navarro, working hand in hand with Sanctuary lawyers, not only won a court order compelling the husband to pay $20,000 in overdue support, but also doubled the amount of child support that the children would receive going forward.

—

When Fiona came to Sanctuary for Families several years ago, a pro bono team of Davis Polk attorneys helped her obtain a divorce judgment with a stipulation for child support.

In the divorce judgment, Fiona’s ex-husband stipulated to biweekly child support payments and the annual exchange of financial information so the child support order could be updated accordingly. After discovering that her ex-husband had secured a job making significantly more income than he had at the time of the divorce judgment, Fiona returned to Sanctuary for assistance in enforcing the judgment and increasing the child support payments. Once again, Sanctuary turned to Davis Polk for pro bono assistance, and once again, Davis Polk delivered. Partner Joel Cohen and associates Daniel Spitzer, Nick DiMarino and Rachelle Navarro deftly navigated complex procedural questions and obtained a huge financial victory for Fiona and her children.

Procedurally, this case presented “quite a thicket” said Joel Cohen, a litigation partner at Davis Polk. But “the great thing about working with Sanctuary,” he continued, “is that you’re working with experts.” He credited Sanctuary attorneys Dara Sheinfeld and Amanda Norejko with providing excellent guidance and advocacy as the Davis Polk team strategized how to get Fiona the best possible result. Rachelle, a litigation associate at the firm, concurred, adding that “it was wonderful and challenging to constantly be in discussions about the correct procedural path.”

The first filing in Family Court was a petition for enforcement of the divorce judgment, which was supplemented by a petition for modification a few months later. The Family Court granted the team’s request for modification of the amount of child support going forward but denied the petition to enforce and collect past arrears because it believed it lacked jurisdiction to do so.  The pro bono team then prepared an enforcement action in Supreme Court, where they ultimately negotiated an extremely advantageous settlement for Fiona and her children. As a result of their diligent efforts in two separate courts, Fiona now receives twice as much in biweekly child support payments as she did previously, and she was awarded $20,000 in child support arrears.

This was the first Sanctuary for Families case for these Davis Polk litigators, but it certainly won’t be the last. “The work [Sanctuary] does for its clients is broad-ranging and essential,” says Daniel, “and goes far beyond just providing legal services.”Fiona was a particularly engaging client, and the team agrees that the relationship they were able to develop with the client was the most rewarding part of working on her case. As for Fiona, she says she will be forever thankful to her wonderful attorneys:

“Thank you and please continue with your selfless help to other families such as ours. You have left such an indelible mark in our lives forever. We are truly grateful.”

—

Join us at our Above & Beyond celebration on October 19, 2016 at the Highline Ballroom as we honor Davis Polk’s outstanding pro bono work.  

Emily Suran is a Project, Energy and Infrastructure Finance associate at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP and currently represents a Sanctuary client seeking asylum. She is also a member of Sanctuary’s Pro Bono Council. 

 

The Supreme Court ruling is a blow for immigrant victims of gender violence

Michael Shannon

This is a heartbreaking decision for over 5 million undocumented immigrant.

This is a heartbreaking decision for over 5 million undocumented immigrants, including many of our own clients here at Sanctuary for Families.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced a 4-4 ruling in U.S. v. Texas, the case deciding whether President Obama’s 2014 executive action immigration relief programs can go into effect.

This decision holds deep repercussions for many of Sanctuary for Families’ clients, for survivors of gender violence seeking safety and freedom in the US, and for immigrants and their families throughout our country.

As a result of the tie, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and the expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA+) programs will not be implemented. These programs were a lifeline for many of the clients we serve every day.

This is a heartbreaking decision, especially for the roughly 5 million undocumented immigrants who were eligible for these programs. It is equally heartbreaking for their family members, including their U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident children, who are directly impacted by their parents’ ability to work legally and live without fear of deportation.

But mostly, this is a very sad day for all immigrant parents who have been in this country for years raising the next generation of US citizens.

Every single day, we meet them in our offices and see first-hand how their lack of work authorization and lawful status affect their families’ emotional and economic health, having a lasting impact on their families, their communities, and our country as a whole.

Despite today’s disappointing decision, we will continue fighting for the rights of all non-citizen survivors of domestic violence, gender based violence, and trafficking, as well as for the rights of all immigrants.

Today’s result brings with it many opportunities to advocate for comprehensive immigration reform that will benefit our clients, their families, and our shared communities. One of these opportunities, which we encourage you to attend, is a rally organized by the New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC) on Tuesday, June 28th at 6pm at Foley Square.

In the coming days and weeks, we expect more mobilizations and advocacy efforts, both here in New York City, as well as nationally, so please follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and check back here to stay tuned.

Michael Shannon is an attorney and Immigrant Justice Corps Fellow with Sanctuary’s Immigration Intervention Project.