Search

• Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have distinct, siloed child protection and welfare systems. • Disability features differently across different child protection and welfare policy regimes. • Our comparative policy content analysis of disability in child protection and welfare policies within Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic demonstrates many similarities between the settings. • When comparing Irish policy on an international liberal welfare playing field, more differences become evident. The isle of Ireland is both socio-politically and geographically divided. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have distinct, siloed child protection and welfare systems owing to political severance in the early 1900 s. Meanwhile disability, as a contested concept with speculative borders and boundaries, features differently across different child protection and welfare policy regimes, in ways that have real effects on everyday practice at a grass-roots level. This paper presents findings of a comparative policy content analysis of disability in child protection and welfare policies within Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. To embed criticality, findings are presented and then contextualized against similar data for child protection and welfare systems within the international liberal welfare regime present in the United States of America. Findings reveal a relatively progressive policy slant across Ireland insofar as international policy standards go. Even so, pervasive international traditions such as associating disability with vulnerability and risk, remain unfortunate and prevalent across the sample. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The term 'capacity' has come to assume a variety of meanings in the law of England and Wales, and the failure of statutes and judges to specify its meaning and application across the civil and criminal law leads to problems. Nowhere is this perhaps clearer than in the law relating to sexual capacity. This paper begins with an overview of two streams of law on sexual capacity in the civil and criminal law. The first stream traces through the criminal law provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the work by the Law Commission which led to its enactment, and the ways in which its provisions have been applied by the courts in practice; and the second examines the Mental Capacity Act 2005 ('MCA 2005') and its parallel application by the civil courts. We illustrate how the case of A Local Authority v JB [2021] UKSC 52 brought these problems to the fore, as the Supreme Court was at last confronted with the differences between the definition and use of the term 'capacity' by the civil and criminal law on sexual capacity. We suggest that the decision made by the Supreme Court in JB has left open terrain which ought to be used to reframe, or perhaps even replace, the concept of 'capacity' within the criminal law on sexual capacity.1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]