Reflections on the Challenge of Inez Moore: Family Integrity in the Wake of Mass Incarceration
Reflections on the Challenge of Inez Moore: Family Integrity in the Wake of Mass Incarceration
Ann Cammett 0
0 City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law , USA
Recommended Citation Ann Cammett, Reflections on the Challenge of Inez Moore: Family Integrity in the Wake of Mass Incarceration, 85 Fordham L. Rev. 2579 (2017). Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol85/iss6/5
REFLECTIONS ON THE CHALLENGE
OF INEZ MOORE: FAMILY INTEGRITY
IN THE WAKE OF MASS INCARCERATION
The U.S. Supreme Court case Moore v. City of East Cleveland1 has long
been celebrated as affirming constitutional rights related to family integrity.
The Moore holding specifically confirmed the Court’s obligation to
scrutinize housing ordinances that regulate a traditional family’s household
composition.2 By comparison and extension, one might assume that
alternative family formations would trigger similar scrutiny, but the Court
has been loath to extend these protections.3
Apart from the Court’s failure to increase protections beyond traditional
extended families, an interesting phenomenon has gone largely unexplored
in this jurisprudential framework. In the wake of late twentieth-century
mass incarceration, lawmakers and courts have failed to protect the rights of
any family—traditional, extended, or otherwise—that is burdened by
criminal justice involvement. Given the decision in Moore, this paradox is
especially ironic and poignant with regard to challenges related to
maintaining family integrity in the housing context.
How would Inez Moore’s constitutionally protected decision regarding
the composition of her household play out in an era when families’ options
are severely constrained by the civil collateral consequences that flow from
criminal convictions? Would she, as an African American grandmother and
* Professor of Law; Director, Family Law Practice Clinic, City University of New York
(CUNY) School of Law. I am grateful, as always, to Marcia M. Gallo for her comments and
insight and to CUNY School of Law for the continuing support that enables me to do this
work. This Article was prepared for the Fordham Law Review Family Law Symposium
entitled Moore Kinship held at Fordham University School of Law. For an overview of the
symposium, see R.A. Lenhardt & Clare Huntington, Foreword: Moore Kinship, 85
FORDHAM L. REV. 2551 (2017).
1. 431 U.S. 494 (1977).
2. Id. at 504 (“Ours is by no means a tradition limited to respect for the bonds uniting
the members of the nuclear family. The tradition of uncles, aunts, cousins, and especially
grandparents sharing a household along with parents and children has roots equally
venerable and equally deserving of constitutional recognition.”).
3. See Peggy Cooper Davis, Moore v. City of East Cleveland: Constructing the
Suburban Family, in FAMILY LAW STORIES 77, 87 (Carol Sanger ed., 2008) (noting that the
Court has historically found ways to protect family rights deemed fundamental by linking
them to constitutional provisions that do not mention family).
family matriarch, be allowed to welcome, nurture, and support her extended
family members trying to get back on their feet if they had criminal
records—even minor ones? In pertinent part, that question can be answered
by analyzing the powerful impact of mass criminalization on low-income
families. Extended family patterns of cohabitation, historically utilized by
black families,4 have been severely tested by the policing norms of the
emerging criminal justice state, which punish entire families for the actions
of individuals, including children found guilty of even minor offenses. This
Article seeks to expose the contradictions between the Court’s purported
embrace of families’ choices in household composition and the
government’s punitive regulation of families when a member has a criminal
record. Through law and policy targeting crime in public housing, the
government has hampered the maintenance of family integrity in
lowincome black communities like that of Inez Moore, especially because mass
incarceration affects poor African Americans more than others.5
I. COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF MASS CRIMINALIZATION
It is understood that since 1977, when Moore was decided, a
skyrocketing number of U.S. residents have been either incarcerated or
convicted of a crime.6 While those numbers have recently declined, the
four-decade overuse of incarceration has resulted in a dizzying array of civil
collateral consequences that hinder those seeking to reintegrate into society.
These legal obstacles to accessing basic life necessities such as housing,
employment, education, public benefits, the right to vote, and jury service
constrain opportunities to resume citizenship, pursue economic
advancement, and even ensure survival.7 Due to the problem of mass
criminalization, it is not uncommon for individuals to have criminal
records; at least 70 million people—one in three adults—have arrest or
4. The plurality decision in Moore did not explicitly mention race and socioeconomic
class. Rather, in invalidating the single-family zoning ordinance, the Court focused on
constitutional protections afforded to the extended family by questioning the “arbitrary
boundary” on the nuclear family. Moore, 431 U.S. at 502. However, these boundaries
implicate race and class quite directly. Justice William Brennan’s concurring opinion, joined
by Justice Thurgood Marshall, has long received praise for his explicit acknowledgment of
extended family forms that are deserving of protection and their continuing relevance among
black families who embrace them for both cultural and economic reasons. Id. at 508–09
(Brennan, J., concurring).
5. See ASHLEY NELLIS, SENTENCING PROJECT, THE COLOR OF JUSTICE: RACIAL
AND ETHNIC DISPARITY IN STATE PRISONS 3 (2016), http://www.sentencing
(“African Americans are incarcerated in state prisons at a rate that is 5.1 times the
imprisonment of whites. In five states . . . the disparity is more than 10 to 1.”)
6. Nearly 2.2 million Americans are behind bars today. Criminal Justice Facts, SENT’G
PROJECT, http://www.sentencingproject.org/criminal-justice-facts/ (last visited Apr. 14,
7. See Ann Cammett, Shadow Citizens: Felony Disenfranchisement and the
Criminalization of Debt, 117 PENN ST. L. REV. 349, 370 (2012).
conviction records.8 However, poor communities disproportionately bear
these convictions and the resulting stigmas. Those in poor communities
have fewer resources and social support networks to assist in overcoming
the disadvantages of criminal convictions.9 When an individual has fewer
opportunities due to a lack of personal resources, social connections, or
networks, his or her reliance on the state for access to resources is greater.
In this way, civil barriers that result from criminal convictions generally
unfairly target the poor.10 Therefore, many individuals struggling with the
collateral effects of a criminal conviction rely more on family members to
assist them in this time of need.11
II. COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES AND THE FAMILY
Collateral consequences do not simply hamper individuals. They can
also have a devastating effect on the family. The loss of a previous earner’s
income and emotional support can create tremendous difficulties for those
left behind. Family members, themselves often possessing limited financial
means, have to pick up the slack for those who will need more support and
resources than before.12 Less appreciated are the consequences of parental
criminal records on children.13
8. LEGAL ACTION CTR., HELPING MOMS, DADS & KIDS TO COME HOME: ELIMINATING
BARRIERS TO HOUSING FOR PEOPLE WITH CRIMINAL RECORDS 1 (2016),
https://indd.adobe.com/view/04243d7e-5a9a-4bd8-9d97-1bb1ce77b9c5 (adding that “at least
11 million people are cycling through our nation’s jails, and more than 600,000 people are
returning home from prison each year”) [https://perma.cc/C6T6-PFGD].
9. See Anthony C. Thompson, Navigating the Hidden Obstacles to Ex-Offender
Reentry, 45 B.C. L. REV. 255, 259 (2004) (“The ex-offender population has tended to
recidivate due in part to an unavailability of economic and social supports.”).
10. See Cammett, supra note 7, at 373–74 (“[R]egulations target income supports used
by low-income people. For example, an ex-offender may be banned from living with a
family member in public housing, denied eligibility for federal welfare and food stamp
benefits, subjected to limits on financial aid for higher education, and faced with far reaching
restrictions on employment [and licensing] opportunities.”); see also Ann Cammett,
Expanding Collateral Sanctions: The Hidden Costs of Aggressive Child Support
Enforcement Against Incarcerated Parents, 13 GEO. J. ON POVERTY L. & POL’Y 313, 319
(2006) (“One aspect of these civil disabilities should be of particular interest to anti-poverty
advocates. Collateral sanctions, particularly against people with drug convictions, affect
poor people almost exclusively. . . . [S]anctions themselves deprive formerly incarcerated
people of opportunities to lift themselves out of poverty . . . .”).
11. See Rebecca L. Naser & Nancy G. LaVigne, Family Support in the Prisoner Reentry
Process: Expectations and Realities, 43 J. OFFENDER REHABILITATION 93, 103 (2006)
(reporting that released prisoners rely on family members for housing, financial, and
emotional support, which are all integral to reintegration).
12. MITALI NAGRECHA ET AL., CTR. FOR CMTY. ALTS., FIRST PERSON ACCOUNTS OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE DEBT: WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, FINING THE FAMILY 3 (2015),
http://communityalternatives.org/pdf/Criminal-Justice-Debt.pdf (“While families have an
important role to play in the successful reintegration of their family member, they should not
have to bear the burden of debt repayment as a means to avert the re-incarceration of their
loved one. This is particularly important as the financial condition of families of formerly
incarcerated people is often precarious even without their shouldering financial penalties.”)
13. See generally REBECCA VALLAS ET AL., CTR. FOR AM. PROGRESS, REMOVING
BARRIERS TO OPPORTUNITY FOR PARENTS WITH CRIMINAL RECORDS AND THEIR CHILDREN: A
TWO-GENERATION APPROACH 3 (2015), https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/
The Center for American Progress (“the Center”) estimates that “between
33 million and 36.5 million children in the United States—nearly half of
U.S. children—now have at least one parent with a criminal record.”14
Having a stable home, along with employment, has powerful antirecidivism
effects for parents with criminal histories. To that end, the Center examined
five pillars of family well-being: income, savings and assets, education,
housing, and family strength and stability.15 It determined that all of these
areas of family life are significantly diminished by criminalization.16 Not
surprisingly, they determined that barriers associated with a parent’s
criminal record negatively affect both a child’s short- and long-term
outcomes. Moreover, parental incarceration is increasingly considered to
be what social scientists call an “Adverse Childhood Experience, . . . an
experience that is associated with
a greater risk of traumatic stress.”17 This
perpetuates poor outcomes for the children of incarcerated parents,
diminishes opportunities for economic gain, and contributes to an
intergenerational cycle of poverty.18
Paradoxically, as noted earlier, family support is absolutely critical to
prisoners’ successful reentry.19 Recently, policymakers and practitioners
have actively begun to engage families in the reentry process based on the
theory that strengthening families and social support networks will bring
about more successful reentry outcomes.20 One of the ways that families
have traditionally helped defray the most immediate effects of a criminal
conviction or period of incarceration is to provide housing to family
members.21 Access to housing curtails recidivism, affects employment
opportunities, and provides prospects for family reunification.22 It is in this
uploads/2015/12/09060720/CriminalRecords-report2.pdf (analyzing the five pillars of family
well-being and self-sufficiency) [https://perma.cc/JCZ8-YYMZ].
14. Id. at 1.
15. Id. at 2.
17. Id. at 3.
18. Id. at 15 (noting that, unsurprisingly, policies that help adults as both parents and
workers can have a profound effect on a child’s long-term outlook and well-being).
19. FONTAINE ET AL., URBAN INST., FAMILIES AND REENTRY: UNPACKING HOW SOCIAL
SUPPORT MATTERS, at iv (2012), http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/
publication-pdfs/1001630-Families-and-Reentry-Unpacking-How-Social-SupportMatters.pdf (“It is well known that families and social support networks play a critical role in
prisoners’ transition from incarceration to the community. . . . Case management techniques
that are family-inclusive and family-focused have been shown to reduce the likelihood that
an individual will return to criminal activity.” (citation omitted))
21. Id. at 1; see also id. at 44 (“Both formerly incarcerated persons and family members
acknowledged that affordable housing is a critical shortage, not just for those returning from
prison. Some suggested the need for a series of housing options that would enable [formerly
incarcerated persons] to move along a continuum of subsidized housing as they are
increasingly able to assume responsibility for their own living arrangements.”).
22. See AFOMEIA TESFAI & KIM GILHULY, HUMAN IMPACT PARTNERS, THE LONG ROAD
HOME: DECREASING BARRIERS TO PUBLIC HOUSING FOR PEOPLE WITH CRIMINAL RECORDS
http://www.humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/OHA-HIA-FinalReport.pdf (citing a 2015 survey in fourteen states of 712 formerly incarcerated people and
388 family members of formerly incarcerated people with results showing that 58 percent of
context that we return to the challenge faced by the many Inez Moores of
the twenty-first century—those who seek to provide stability to family
members by sharing their homes.
III. COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES AND PRIVATE HOUSING
Access to affordable housing is one of the most critical issues currently
facing all low-income families. “For African Americans lingering
economic disparities arising from generations of forced racial segregation
and the disproportional impact of mass incarceration have magnified [this]
African Americans still tend to have much lower home ownership rates
and less equity in those homes.24 Even though Inez Moore owned her
home in the 1970s, she was not a woman of means.25 She still experienced
enough economic marginality to qualify for Legal Aid services to pursue
the case that bears her name. However, what ownership of property did
confer upon her—especially subsequent to the Supreme Court decision—
was the right to lay claim to her family and to house an extended family
member of her choosing.
For communities of color, owning a home and being able to house family
is no small matter. Criminal record restrictions for private housing have
been an accepted and enforced practice across the country for decades—
excluding many renters who are then forced to seek shelter on the
commercial rental market.26 To complicate matters further, ownership does
not necessarily mean that one can take the full measure of rights as a
property owner. Some state and local ordinances create mandatory housing
restrictions for people with criminal convictions that presumably (although
questionably) supersede property rights.27 At least in theory, such
ordinances could ironically render a family member an “illegal occupant”—
much in the way that Inez Moore’s grandson John Jr. was deemed to be.28
Exclusionary practices in private housing have become so pervasive that
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) stepped in to
participants were living with family members and 9 percent were living in transitional
housing or housing that was not intended to be permanent)
23. Ann Cammett, Confronting Race and Collateral Consequences in Public Housing,
39 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 1123, 1124 (2016) (footnote omitted) (detailing the intersection of
federal housing policy contributing to segregation and exclusions from federal public
housing based on criminal convictions).
24. See LAURA SULLIVAN ET AL., DEMOS & BRANDEIS UNIV. INST. ON ASSETS & SOC.
POLICY, THE RACIAL WEALTH GAP: WHY POLICY MATTERS 1–2 (2015),
longstanding homeownership and home equity disparities) [https://perma.cc/RAJ8-KA5J].
25. See Davis, supra note 3, at 78 (“In court proceedings she was represented by the
Legal Aid Society of Cleveland and proceeded in forma pauperis.”).
26. See LEGAL ACTION CTR., supra note 8, at 2.
27. Id. at 12 (surveying state and local options for housing ordinances or voluntary
programs that actively encourage landlords to deny housing to individuals involved with the
criminal justice system).
28. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 497 (1977).
provide guidance for private landlords.29 People with criminal records are
not a protected class under the Fair Housing Act. Nevertheless, “blanket
policies of refusing to rent to anybody with a criminal record are de facto
discrimination . . . because of the systemic [racial] disparities of the
American criminal justice system.”30 Thus, property owners who wish to
house family members that have criminal convictions probably have the
legal recourse to do so, despite pressures on them by municipalities that
would urge exclusion of all people with criminal records of any kind.
The practice of using blanket exclusions to deny private housing
indicates that criminal convictions themselves have become a proxy for
inherent “unworthiness” and serve as pretext for denying housing under the
guise of protecting public safety. However, these blanket exclusions are
circular in their logic. Low-income communities of color have been the
most targeted by all aspects of the criminal justice state—including
policing, arrest, conviction, and disproportionate sentencing.31 Yet in
communities targeted by overzealous policing, the impact of these labels
further hampers the ability of individuals to maintain family relations and
work toward building strong communities. Even so, homeowners affected
by incarceration retain some authority to house family members as they see
fit. For those in public housing—arguably poorer, more vulnerable, and
thus more in need of constitutional protection—the law has evolved to
divest these families entirely of the right to make decisions regarding many
aspects of their lives, including family composition.
29. See U.S. DEP’T OF HOUS. & URBAN DEV., GUIDANCE ON APPLICATION OF THE FAIR
HOUSING ACT STANDARDS TO THE USE OF CRIMINAL RECORDS BY PROVIDERS OF HOUSING
AND REAL ESTATE-RELATED TRANSACTIONS 2 (2016), https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/
documents/huddoc?id=HUD_OGCGuidAppFHAStandCR.pdf (“[C]riminal records-based
barriers to housing are likely to have a disproportionate impact on minority home seekers.
While having a criminal record is not a protected characteristic under the Fair Housing Act,
criminal history-based restrictions on housing opportunities violate the Act if, without
justification, their burden falls more often on renters or other housing market participants of
one race or national origin over another.”) [https://perma.cc/2FSY-B6XT].
30. Camila Domonoske, Denying Housing over Criminal Record May Be
Discrimination, Feds Say, NPR (Apr. 4, 2016, 1:14 AM), http://www.npr.org/sections/
31. C. Eugene Emery, Jr., Hillary Clinton Says Blacks More Likely to Be Arrested, Get
Longer Sentences, POLITIFACT (Feb. 26, 2016, 3:09 PM),
http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/statements/2016/feb/26/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-blacks-more-likely-bearreste/ [https://perma.cc/M5LP-SYT4]; see also SENTENCING PROJECT, REPORT OF THE
SENTENCING PROJECT TO THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE REGARDING
RACIAL DISPARITIES IN THE UNITED STATES CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 1 (2013),
http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Race-and-Justice-Shadow-ReportICCPR.pdf (“Racial minorities are more likely than white Americans to be arrested; once
arrested, they are more likely to be convicted; and once convicted, they are more likely to
face stiff sentences. African American males are six times more likely to be incarcerated
than white males and 2.5 times more likely than Hispanic males.”)
IV. COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES AND PUBLIC HOUSING
In previous writings, I have explored how exclusion from publicly
subsidized housing because of criminal convictions serves as a powerful
form of race discrimination.32 There, I explained that generations of racial
segregation leading to overrepresentation of African Americans in public
housing in conjunction with the racial impact of mass incarceration have
resulted in the tenancies of African Americans being more at risk.
Moreover, I noted that “[e]victions, denial of admission, and permanent
exclusion of family members from public housing—based on almost any
type of criminal system exposure—have served to further entrench poverty,
contribute to homelessness, and trigger unwarranted family disruption.”33
More importantly, because status as a public housing resident does not
confer any “rights” to family integrity when confronted with evidence of a
criminal conviction, formerly incarcerated individuals are denied the basic
constitutional protections afforded to families seeking the self-definition
that Moore represents.
Beginning in the 1970s, Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) have been
required to examine the criminal histories of public housing applicants for
evidence of “physical violence to persons or property or other criminal acts
that would affect the health, safety, or welfare of other tenants.”34 Since
then, most PHAs have elected to adopt broad screening policies that
exclude applicants with criminal histories.35 The government’s War on
Drugs during the 1980s and 1990s gave rise to federal laws that required
zero tolerance for any criminal behavior in public housing.36 Collectively,
these laws were known as “One Strike.”37
According to its proponents, One Strike policy reflected concerns that
crime within public housing authorities made “intervention and eviction
remedies necessary to address criminal behavior by public housing tenants,
their children, and their guests.”38 Critics acknowledge that public safety is
an important interest for the entire community but argue that zero tolerance
rules that result in regular evictions of low-income families (often for minor
drug activity) create more family displacement than safety in public
housing projects. For example, I have previously noted that
32. See generally Cammett, supra note 23.
33. Id. at 1124.
34. NAT’L HOUS. LAW PROJECT, AN AFFORDABLE HOME ON RE-ENTRY: FEDERALLY
ASSISTED HOUSING AND PREVIOUSLY INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS 1 (2008),
http://www.reentry.net/ny/search/download.149254 [https://perma.cc/4DTH-KFGC]; see
also Cammett, supra note 23, at 1138.
35. See Cammett, supra note 23, at 1138.
36. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(l)(6) (2012) (“[A]ny criminal activity that threatens the
health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants or any
drugrelated criminal activity on or off such premises, engaged in by a public housing tenant, any
member of the tenant’s household, or any guest or other person under the tenant’s control,
shall be cause for termination of tenancy.”); see also Cammett, supra note 23, at 1139.
37. Cammett, supra note 23, at 1138.
[l]egal scholar Regina Austin insightfully observe[d]: “ . . . those
adversely impacted by the campaign have been poor single minority
female heads of household, often senior citizens, who are living with their
actual or adopted offspring, one or more of whom, usually an adolescent
or young adult male child or grandchild, sells or possesses drugs.”
Stated differently, the impact of One Strike redounds to the detriment
of some innocent people who have the least power and economic
resources to resist its full impact. Low-income tenants, especially older
mothers trying to hold families together, are the ones that invoke the most
compelling claims of unfairness. . . . [E]victions [of entire families] can
and do routinely occur for minor marijuana use, an activity which is fairly
common among youth.39
Black youth, however, are most vulnerable to state surveillance and,
consequently, families often pay a heavier price for youthful indiscretions.
In the case of One Strike, HUD has argued that the statute gives local
PHAs the power to evict entire families, no matter how trivial the offense.
The leaseholder’s lack of knowledge or responsibility does not matter. As I
discuss in a previous work, “The U.S. Supreme Court addressed this
question in Department of Housing & Urban Development v. Rucker in
2002.”40 Rucker was “a class action suit brought by Oakland Housing
Authority tenants, including a grandmother named Pearlie Rucker (whose
mentally ill daughter incurred a drug conviction).”41 In a unanimous
decision, the Court ruled in favor of HUD.42
Many condemned the harsh results that followed after Rucker, but to no
avail. For example, Representative Barbara Lee of California failed to
move legislation out of committee that would amend One Strike to exempt
“elderly tenants and those who were not aware of such criminal activity”
from being evicted or denied admissions into a housing project.43 Despite
these concerns, One Strike policy remains the law of the land.
The Moore case established a requirement that courts scrutinize housing
ordinances that regulate a family’s household composition. But public
housing residents who are subject to eviction in cases like those resulting
from One Strike have no ability to invoke their constitutional right to keep
their families intact. Strict liability allows PHAs to exercise their authority
to evict families, whatever the impact.
The effect of a criminal conviction, even for minor drug activity, on the
life of a young person in subsidized housing can be even more devastating.
Instead of eviction, some PHAs grant exceptions and allow for “permanent
exclusion” of offending parties, even minors, “for the leaseholder to retain
her tenancy.”44 As I have stated, “Such a situation creates a conflict of
interest between parents and their offspring, leaving many families with the
terrible choice of whether to send a member into exile for life or relinquish
the family’s home.”45 This devolution of family rights makes a mockery of
the promise of Moore—that families can define themselves as they wish and
their interests will be constitutionally protected.
In an era of mass criminalization, the state’s right to intervene in the lives
of families, under the guise of public safety, trumps the constitutional rights
of people struggling to keep their families together. Families should not
have to forfeit fundamental rights to service a state’s strict liability doctrine
simply because they are poor and live in public housing. Extending the
logic of Moore to require the government to extend protections to
alternative family formations beyond those deemed normative might not be
enough. Another logical extension of Moore, and a more transformative
one, would be to require the state to protect families from unwarranted and
destructive interference as a result of minor criminal justice involvement.
39. Id . at 1141-42 ( footnote omitted) (quoting Regina Austin, “Step on a Crack, Break Your Mother's Back”: Poor Moms, Myths of Authority, and Drug-Related Evictions from Public Housing, 14 YALE J.L. & FEMINISM 273 , 275 ( 2002 )).
40. Id . at 1140.
41. Id .
42. Dep 't of Hous. & Urban Dev . v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 , 127 - 28 ( 2002 ).
43. Cammett , supra note 23, at 1142 ( citing H.R . 173 , 110th Cong. ( 2007 ); All Actions: H.R. 173- One Strike and You're Out! Act of 2007, CONGRESS .GOV, https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/173/all-actions -withoutamendments?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr173%22%5D%7D&r=6 (last visited Apr . 14 , 2017 ) [https://perma.cc/EYD5-QMB7]).
44. Id . at 1144.
45. Id . (footnote omitted) (citing Wendy J . Kaplan & David Rossman , Called “Out” at Home: The One Strike Eviction Policy and Juvenile Court, 3 DUKE F . FOR L. & SOC. CHANGE 109 , 110 ( 2011 )).