Search

This paper examines how child welfare workers in England, Norway and the USA (California) perceive children's participation building on 91 qualitative interviews. First, analysing the data using Hart's ladder of children's participation, we found that all Norwegian workers perceived children's participation as some form of decision‐making, whereas 40% of English and 35% of US workers embraced views of children's participation that can be considered token or non‐participation. Second, we coded the data for main themes and found that child welfare workers in all three countries perceived children's participation as hearing the child's opinion and information gathering. The themes of age, maturity and ability to form an opinion also emerged from the data. English workers' reflections about children's participation were more nuanced than their Norwegian and US counterparts; and US workers understood children's participation as children providing valuable information during the investigation of a case more frequently than workers in England and Norway. We discuss the implications of these findings on future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the legal protection of the journalist–source relationship from both sides and the underlying interests involved. The paper begins by analysing why the relationship deserves protection. The position of journalists at common law is analysed with a discussion of the application of the principle established in Norwich Pharmacal v Customs and Excise to journalists. The development of immunity from contempt in s. 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is examined to illustrate the ideological clash between the judiciary and journalists. The impact of the Human Rights Act and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are analysed to assess whether this will lead to a change in attitudes in the UK. Finally, the potential threat to journalists posed by compelled evidentiary disclosure in criminal cases is reviewed, with a particular look at ‘special procedure' material. The US section begins with an analysis of the law at federal level, the decisions of the Supreme Court, including the leading decision of Branzburg v Hayes, as well as the role the legislature has played. The paper then analyses protections provided at state level, with a case study of the California shield law and a review of Californian jurisprudence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]