homepage news

Two Decades of Dedication: Celebrating Professor Ann England's Legacy at Colorado Law

Erin Calkins — Wed, 02 Apr 2025 19:19:20 +0000

Two Decades of Dedication: Celebrating Professor Ann England's Legacy at Colorado Law Erin Calkins Wed, 04/02/2025 - 13:19

Erin Calkins

What originally inspired you to focus on criminal defense, and how did that passion evolve during your time at the law school?

When I was in law school, I worked primarily with unhoused individuals. I had plans to start a homeless legal clinic, but that didn’t work out. Instead, I clerked for a Juvenile Court judge, where I observed criminal court and was drawn to the public defenders and the work they did with clients. I applied to a public defender’s office, thinking I’d never get hired, but I did and I was fortunate to work with great mentors who taught me the ins and outs of criminal defense.

When I joined the Criminal Defense Clinic at the law school, I was excited to share my passion for helping people with my students. Teaching has been a constant source of growth for me, and over the years, the biggest lesson I’ve learned is to trust my students. Even though they’re new to the work, their passion to act on injustice is often less jaded. Each year, I relearn this lesson. I am consistently inspired by their drive to change the world.

Reflecting on your 20 years at the law school, what stands out most about your time here?

Teaching at the law school has been a rewarding experience, largely because we’re encouraged to follow our passions. I’ve had the opportunity to organize conferences on issues I care about, bring in national speakers, and create new classes with my colleagues – some that allowed me to travel the world while doing it. I’ve worked closely with national death penalty defenders and started the Korey Wise Innocence Project.

Additionally, I’ve had the privilege to practice in a variety of jurisdictions across the Front Range, from representing service members in Colorado Springs to working with municipal public defenders in Aurora. One of the most rewarding aspects has been being able to represent clients who fall through the cracks—people who can’t afford private attorneys but don’t qualify for public defender services. The freedom to follow my passions, with the law school’s support, is something I’ll always be grateful for.

You've taught countless students over the years—are there any particular stories or experiences with students that have had a lasting impact on you?

It’s always exciting to be part of a student’s first trial experience. I still remember my first trial in law school, and I know how transformative that experience can be. One moment that stands out was when we were fighting Boulder’s camping laws. We did several jury trials representing unhoused individuals, each with a unique and impactful story. In one trial, after the verdict, every juror collected their $6 payment and gave it to the client. That powerful act made both the students and I tear up. Those are the moments I’ll never forget.

I’m endlessly inspired by the students I work with. They remind me that change is possible, and they’re going to be the ones to make it happen.

What are you most excited about in the next chapter of your career?

I’m excited to take on a larger role with the Korey Wise Innocence Project (KWIP) as the next Director. While I’ve been the faculty director since its inception, I’m eager to help KWIP transition into its next phase. We have an incredibly strong staff and board, and I’m looking forward to helping the organization grow.

I’m also excited to explore what’s next for me personally. I’m still driven by the desire to change the world, and I’m ready to find new ways to contribute to the movement for justice.

What advice would you give to your students who are about to begin their careers in criminal defense?

If you see injustice or something that seems unfair, fight it. It’s the small things that add up to the big things.

Trust your instincts—if something feels wrong, trust that, and stand up and object. You can figure out what to say after you stand up.

What will you miss most about your time here at the law school?

While I’m not leaving completely, I will miss the students. Every year, I get to work with a new group of students, and their passion for justice is always inspiring. This generation faces a lot of challenges, but I’m hopeful because they’re smart, compassionate, and driven to make a difference. I’ll miss watching them grow, but I know they’re going to change the world.

As you depart, what final message would you like to leave with the law school community?

Follow your passions.

After two decades of dedicated service, Ann England will be retiring at the end of this year. Throughout her time with Colorado Law and the Clinical Education Program, Ann has made a profound impact on nearly 500 clinic students, as well as her colleagues and community members. Her unwavering commitment to service and her invaluable contributions have been instrumental in shaping the success of both the program and those it serves.

Off

Traditional

White

Essentially a Mother: A Q&A with Jennifer Hendricks exploring her groundbreaking new book

Anonymous — Thu, 13 Jul 2023 18:47:39 +0000

Essentially a Mother: A Q&A with Jennifer Hendricks exploring her groundbreaking new book  Anonymous (not verified) Thu, 07/13/2023 - 12:47

Emily Battaglia

Jennifer Hendricks, professor of law and co-director of the Juvenile and Family Law Program, recently published a new book. Essentially a Mother: A Feminist Approach to the Law of Pregnancy and Motherhood argues that the law of pregnancy and motherhood has been overrun by sexist ideology. Over the past few decades, courts have held that a woman’s pregnancy hardly counts in her claim to parent her child and have stripped women of the right to abortion, treated surrogate mothers as mere vessels, and handed biological fathers automatic rights over women and their children. Essentially a Mother argues that feminists must overthrow this skewed value system and incorporate new kinds of feminist analysis that have been ignored in the law before now. 

In this interview, Professor Hendricks sits down with Colorado Law’s Emily Battaglia to chat about her new book, the inspiration behind it, and the contribution she hopes it provides to the legal field.  

Thank you so much, Professor Hendricks, for taking time to answer my questions. I would love to know: what was the inspiration behind this book?  

JH: Thanks so much for taking the time to talk. The cases I point to as the crux of the book are a series of court cases about IVF mix-ups. These are cases in which women who had been struggling with infertility finally became pregnant through IVF at a clinic, only to learn that they’d been given the wrong embryos; they were then be forced to turn over the babies to the genetic parents (or even to would-be parents who bought someone else’s egg or sperm). These are hard and tragic situations, and I’m not saying there’s an easy or obvious way these cases should be decided. But what’s appalling to me is how easy the courts think those cases are—how quick they are to dismiss the birth mother’s claim in favor of the genetic parents. They basically turn her into an involuntary surrogate. In some cases, the judges have been quite horrible about scolding the birth mother, telling her it was all her fault for letting herself get attached to the baby that she literally made with her body.  It’s an extreme example of how courts have come to define parenthood in terms of genes, to the exclusion of the actual work that parents do to create and care for their children—including not just pregnancy and birth, but all the caretaking that parents do after birth as well. 

On the flip side, this minimizing of pregnancy—treating it as irrelevant to parenthood—helped pave the way for the supreme court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the case that overruled Roe v. Wade and eliminated the right to abortion. In that case, the Republicans on the supreme court told women that if they didn’t want a baby, they should just stay pregnant, give birth, and then place the baby for adoption. But we know that women who are denied abortions overwhelmingly reject adoption as an option. Why? Because an embryo is not the same as a baby, and having an abortion is not the same as giving up a child you’ve borne. Pregnancy is a lot of physical work, but it’s also very emotional for most people, so it leads to a bond even if it was forced on you in the first place. But the supreme court basically said pregnancy doesn’t matter, either physically or emotionally—it’s just an inconvenience. That’s the attitude that Essentially a Mother is trying to fight. 

What are the main points you hope readers take away from reading this book?  

JH: I hope to convince people that the law should define parenthood primarily in terms of caretaking for the child; and critically, the process of gestation and childbirth should be considered “caretaking” that establishes parental rights as soon as the child is born. Genes alone, without any caretaking, should not be enough. Fathers and others who don’t gestate their children can take care of them in other ways, and that caretaking should count more than just genes. We often romanticize pregnancy as some blissful, magical state, but we don’t give it real importance in terms of rights; while with fathers, we focus only on genes and child support. My argument is that, on the one hand, the law shouldn’t be acting like babies just appear out of nowhere when they’re born, with no connection to the person they just popped out of. On the other hand, the law also shouldn’t act like giving birth creates a mystical connection that is superior to other ways of becoming a parent. 

  More generally, I want people to see the connections between losing the right to abortion and denigrating pregnancy in other areas of the law, and in our culture. Women are suffering horribly, every day, from the loss of Roe v. Wade. As we fight to win back the right to abortion, we have the chance to do it in a much broader way that will protect everyone’s reproductive rights and freedoms. We must overthrow the entire skewed value system, currently enshrined in the law, that subordinates women, devalues pregnancy and other forms of caregiving, and denies too many people the right to choose whether to become parents and to raise their families with dignity and security. 

Can you talk about how this book builds upon your previous work? 

JH: Essentially a Mother is the culmination of work I’ve been doing on these issues for about fifteen years. The IVF mix-up cases are the tip of the iceberg in terms of how the genetic definition of parenthood has taken over family law. Defining parenthood in terms of genes is, at its root, a sexist approach to the law. It says that a pregnant woman’s nine months of gestation count for basically nothing when it comes to her claim to be the parent of the child she bears. Armed with this notion of parenthood, courts have handed biological fathers—even those who become fathers through rape—automatic rights over women and their children. 

Part of the problem is a logical error that courts make in terms of what it means for the law to be sex-neutral. To me, the core of parenthood is caretaking for a child, so parental rights should be based on a caretaking relationship. That caretaking can come in a variety of forms, including pregnancy. Many courts and scholars, however, have implicitly concluded that pregnancy and childbirth cannot be part of the definition of parenthood, because that would be unfair to men. That means that genes are all that’s left for identifying the parents at the time the child is born. But that isn’t sex-neutral; that’s discrimination against the people who get pregnant, because you’re refusing to count this huge thing that they did. 

The focus on genes also ends up hurting men who put a lot into taking care of their kids. When courts are judging fathers, the one thing they are likely to consider in addition to genes is whether a man paid child support. In one case, the supreme court denied parental rights to an unmarried father who had raised his son all by himself, because he’d never filed the paperwork to formally take financial responsibility. It’s all part of a pattern where the actual, physical labor of creating, birthing, and raising a child just doesn’t count for much in the law.  

With this work, what perspective do you hope to add to the current field of research in this area?   

JH: One of the things I talk about in the book is that a lot of feminist legal scholars have been surprisingly supportive of legal rules that minimize the importance of pregnancy. I think that’s because, abortion aside, a huge amount of feminist legal work is focused on employment law and constitutional law. In those fields, most of the fights in the past have been about women trying to win the same privileges as men by showing they are just as good as men at being a lawyer or a soldier or whatever. But family law is one of the most dynamic and exciting fields in legal scholarship right now, and it also has the most experience grappling with issues about gender and relationships. Essentially a Mother challenges constitutional lawyers to confront and incorporate new kinds of feminist analysis that have been ignored in the law before now. 

The book is available for order at your local bookstore, from online booksellers, and from the University of California Press.

Off

Traditional

White