Search

In the United States (US), children's ‘best interest’ principles are central to child welfare policy, but their incorporation into immigration laws is less robust. Drawing on data from international and domestic policies, interviews with legal professionals and legal guidelines, we compare how Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) and asylum – the main forms of immigration relief for undocumented youths in the US – align with children's best interest principles. SIJS, while promising, undermines family integrity by imposing rigid child‐rearing standards that may penalize immigrant families. Asylum upholds family integrity, but the application process involves intense interviews and strict evidentiary standards that harm youths’ well‐being. Given asylum's high denial rates, the process often results in trauma without much promise of the permanency asylum can offer. Consequently, both SIJS and asylum fall short of protecting children's rights and best interests. We argue that how legal systems manage youths significantly affects youths’ well‐being and their access to rights and benefits. The impact of legal processes on youths should be paramount to best interest policies and practices. We conclude with policy recommendations for SIJS and asylum that better promote children's best interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New York Domestic Relations Law Section 110, which outlines who can adopt, precludes married petitioners from adopting without their spouse joining in the adoption petition, even when all parties involved support the adoption, and it is in the child's best interests. Some judges have prioritized the child's best interests and granted adoptions in such cases, while others have rigidly construed the statute and denied them. Amending the statute so that anyone can adopt, regardless of marital status, if it is in the child's best interests would ensure the child's best interests are the judicial system's primary consideration in approving adoptions. Key points for the family court community: New York Domestic Relations Law Section 110 provides: "An adult unmarried person, an adult married couple together, or any two unmarried adult intimate partners together may adopt another person."Although under New York law a married person cannot adopt without his or her spouse joining in the adoption petition unless the couple has a written separation agreement or judgment of separation, or has been living apart for three or more years, some married petitioners in intact marriages have been granted adoptions without their spouses joining in the petitions.Legally formalizing existing parent–child relationships was emotionally and pragmatically important for these families.Some states, such as California, Nevada, and New Jersey, expressly allow married petitioners to adopt without their spouses as co‐petitioners when the spouses provide written consent.Other states, such as Arizona and Vermont, allow married petitioners to adopt without their spouses as co‐petitioners but only require written consent when the adoptee is an adult. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The existing ethico‐legal regulation of adolescent children's participation in health research in South Africa is currently unclear. The article interrogates the existing framework governing children's consent to research participation, with specific emphasis on discrepancies in consent norms in law and ethical guidelines. Against the backdrop of the constitutional directive that requires that a child's best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child, the article assesses whether sufficient consideration is given to children's evolving maturity and capacities when consent to their participation in health research is sought. The article provides specific recommendations and proposes a legislative change to consent provisions in the National Health Act 61 of 2003 in order to address the existing lacunae and to align the framework with constitutional imperatives and international fundamental rights considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Misogyny is a universal prejudice against women manifest in all areas of society. To interrogate the nature of this prejudice, the author uses the family court system as her focus. The myth of gender neutrality in family court is pervasive. Current laws are framed around the assumption that both parents are on a level playing field. The reality is that our legal system is biased against mothers. This often reveals itself in the way courts make determinations of "the best interests of the child". Family court is a microcosm of societal attitudes about parents, especially mothers, and related beliefs about what protects children. A brief review of family law and the "best interest" standard follows as well as a review of what we know and do not know about what is protective for children. The author reviews the problems inherent in family law and mental health training and practice—forensic and clinical. Although mandated to protect children, family court decisions sometimes have the opposite impact, and at times, even endangering the most protective parent and the child. This occurs mainly by devaluing the caretaking role while requiring the more responsible parent to facilitate the other parent's relationship with the child—regardless of the impact on her and the child. There are many reasons for this, but the basic one is the misogyny built into this system. This essay describes how social science research, psychological theory, and developmental principles are misused by both the legal and mental health professions to that end. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article describes a pilot research study done by the author which focused on the judicial implementation of the "best interests of the child" standard, also known as Article 5, Section 70 of the New York State Domestic Relations Law. This is the statutory principle that guides determinations of child custody in the USA. The ambiguous nature of this law grants judges significant discretion when determining the custodial arrangements for children, as it does not explicitly define what constitutes the best interests of a child. The lack of consensus surrounding this law results in marked inconsistencies in its application. In the absence of external guidance, the author presumed that judges rely heavily on their individual knowledge and conceptualization of childhood when making custody decisions, especially those regarding facts relayed by or about children. Through in‐depth interviews conducted with seven judges from the City of New York, this study sheds light on this complex and essential issue. By incorporating insights from sociological theories of law and childhood, this study provides further insight into how judges arrive at their rulings and can be used to assist in improving the lives of families who must interact with the legal system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The peak of the "Europe migrant crisis" has witnessed a record number of unaccompanied and separated children crossing the Mediterranean Sea (UNICEF, [10]). Article 3 of the convention states: "In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." In September 2016, the member states of the UN reaffirmed their commitment to addressing the specific needs of children travelling as part of large movements of refugees and migrants, especially children who are unaccompanied or separated from their families, in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. [Extracted from the article]

Amendments to the Canadian Divorce Act have required that family violence, specifically coercive controlling behaviour, be considered when making best interest determinations for children. This paper (1) outlines how this concealed, patterned, and harmful behaviour presents in family law disputes and (2) sets out considerations for parenting arrangements. It identifies the perils of subjective impressions as well as where the legal system and its interventions may be vulnerable to misuse. Children in families where coercive control is occurring are at risk of harm. The lack of intentional analysis of coercive control does not serve the best interests of the child. Practitioner's Key Points: Coercive Controlling violence is generally the most serious type of violence in family law.Children are directly impacted by coercive control even after separation.The subjective perceptions made by Family law and mental health professionals about family violence impacts the identification of this harmful conduct.Family Law and allied professionals need to identify and understand how the subtle and often concealed patterns of coercive controlling behaviour can present in their files.Family Law and allied professionals need to understand where the legal system and its interventions may be vulnerable to misuse by a perpetrator of coercive control.Best Interest Determinations require an intentional analysis of the presence of coercive controlling behaviours on the part of a parent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: We examined how physicians in different medical specialties would evaluate treatment decisions for vulnerable patients in need of resuscitation.Methods: A survey depicting six acutely ill patients from newborn infant to aged, all in need of resuscitation with similar prognoses, was distributed (in 2009) to a representative sample of 1650 members of the Norwegian Medical Association and 676 members of the Norwegian Pediatric Association.Results: There were 1335 respondents (57% participation rate). The majority of respondents across all specialties thought resuscitation was in the best interest of a 24 weeks' gestation preterm infant and would resuscitate the patient, but would also accept palliative care on the family's demand. Accepting a family's refusal of resuscitation was more common for the newborn infants. Specialists were overall similar in their answers, but specialty, age and gender were associated with different answers for the patients at both ends of the age spectrum.Conclusion: Resuscitation decisions for the very young do not always seem to follow the best interest principle. Specialty and personal characteristics still have an impact on how we consider important ethical issues. We must be cognisant of our own valuations and how they may influence care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay examines the role of racial, ethnic, and cultural bias in custody cases. It analyzes cases where the court explicitly considered the parents' racial, ethnic, or cultural background and cases where the court did not acknowledge these factors but where it is clear from the court's opinion that biases influenced its decision. It then briefly describes the literature on implicit bias to demonstrate how biases may influence the assessments of custody evaluators, lawyers, and judges despite best efforts to make fair and impartial decisions. Drawing on studies suggesting that individuals can reduce their implicit biases and their effects on decision making, the essay explores individual strategies and institutional reforms to address bias in custody disputes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article recommends a modification of the child interview and observational components of the conventional child custody evaluation. By scheduling these events in back-to-back sequence, the evaluator adds critical process-oriented data to familiar content-oriented data. These additional data include at least eight landmark separation, reunion, and transition events valuable to understanding the dynamic family system. The benefits of this protocol are discussed in terms of the ecological validity of available data, reduced evaluation time and costs, and research. Limitations are discussed relevant to questions of sampling bias, fatigue and sequence effects, and practical dilemmas that arise when evaluating families with many children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The principal aim of this investigation was to help develop ‘Interdisciplinary Studies of Childhood Ethics’ as a new field of inquiry. We identified: (i) current intra‐disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge gaps in childhood ethics; and (ii) priorities for future research and development. A prominent problem, highlighted within and across disciplines, relates to how the best interests standard should be reconciled with the recognition of children as agents. This project makes an innovative contribution by promoting the development of interdisciplinary childhood ethics knowledge and standards, informing future improvements in childhood research and services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The pure 'best interests' approach to relocation law is a failure. It is unpredictable and expensive, increasing conflict and discouraging settlement. The 'fundamental questions' proposed by Parkinson and Cashmore in their article will not reform the law. Real reform will require the use of presumptions or burdens to guide best interests. 'Presumptions' are not 'rules,' but only starting points. No simple presumption 'for' or 'against' all relocations can be justified, but there are large categories of cases that do warrant presumptions: interim moves, unilateral relocations, shared care, and predominant primary caregivers. The first three involve presumptions against relocation, while the last-the largest category-warrants a presumption that relocation is in the best interests of the child, unless the contrary is proved. There will remain a small minority of in-between cases where none of these presumptions will operate, recognizing the limits of our general knowledge. It is time to move the relocation reform debate beyond pure 'best interests,' to the next stage, to a serious discussion of which cases warrant presumptions, and of what strength. Key Points for the Family Court Community Pure best interests approach to relocation law is a failure, Presumptions or burdens needed to reform the law, but not just 'for' or 'against', Presumptions are identified for four categories of relocation cases: interim moves, unilateral relocations, shared care, and predominant primary caregivers [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

F (Mother) v F (Father) concerned a dispute between parents as to whether or not their 15 and 11 year old children should receive the MMR inoculation. Mrs Justice Theis took into consideration the wishes of both parents and the two 'intelligent, articulate and thoughtful' minors and held that inoculation was in their best interests. The troubled history of the MMR vaccine and its importance to public health provided the backdrop. Whilst the court's efforts to establish the views of the minors are to be commended, the decision is problematic in its assessment of the minors' individual medical interests and capacities, and in the significance placed on their views when determining whether inoculation would be in their best interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the trend toward statutory presumptions in favor of joint legal and physical custody, practitioners increasingly recognize that domestic violence has serious implications for the efficacy and safety of parenting and shared care. This article explores the implications of domestic violence for shared parenting and for the statutory legal and physical custody presumptions and exceptions which are triggered by or are applicable to domestic violence. This article proposes that a better framework for addressing intimate partner violence-related custody cases is one that guides practitioners toward fact-based determinations of the implications of the violence for parenting and co-parenting in individual cases. Key Points for the Family Court Community: Parents who are coercive controlling abusers frequently exhibit the types of problematic parenting behaviors which make shared parenting unrealistic., Instead of applying blanket joint custody presumptions, all family court practitioners, including judges, should: (1) be alert to signs that domestic violence may be an issue; (2) understand the nature and context of any abuse; (3) determine the implications, if any, of the abuse for parenting and co-parenting; and (4) account for the violence and its implications in their handling of cases., Exceptions for domestic violence cases fail to prevent the inappropriate application of joint custody presumptions to many families for whom domestic violence is a significant issue because: (1) abuse is often not detected by the system, (2) victims have problems proving that the abuse occurred, and (3) many practitioners are disinclined to believe that the abuse occurred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Best Interest of the Child Questionnaire (BIC-Q) has been designed as an instrument for screening the quality of the rearing situation of asylum-seeking or refugee children. It is intended to aid legal decisions in asylum procedures. The aim of this study was to determine the reliability and the construct validity of the BIC-Q. Based on a study sample of refugee or asylum-seeking children in the Netherlands ( N = 74), the psychometric quality of the BIC-Q was investigated using Cohen's kappa for the inter- and intrarater reliability and a nonparametric item response model for the construct validity. The interrater and intrarater reliabilities of the BIC-Q were good (kappa = .65 and .74 respectively). The results of the item response model revealed that the 14 pedagogical environmental conditions formed a strong and valid measurement scale for the quality of the childrearing environment ( H = .55; rho = .94). Preliminary results indicate that the BIC-Q may be applied to support decisions on where the asylum-seeking or refugee child has the best opportunities for development. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasingly, immigrants and immigration issues are present in family court practice. One underutilized protection available to provide relief to abused, abandoned, and neglected immigrant youth is Special Immigrant Juvenile Status ( SIJS). After providing an overview of the law and regulations concerning SIJS, this article presents the challenges that immigrant youth face in seeking SIJS. By focusing on one hypothetical child, we illustrate how children are treated differently based upon how the child came to this country, what happened once the child arrived here, and whether and when child welfare agency involvement was triggered. Often children who lived through very similar abuse or neglect circumstances will have very different immigration outcomes depending on whether they were found to be in need of state care, as compared to those outside the system (residing with a relative caregiver, homeless, or simply unable to access the child welfare system). In short, a youth's ability to access state courts and secure the necessary state court findings is often left to chance and happenstance. We propose several strategies to increase both flexibility and uniformity as to how these matters are handled by our state courts. Among our recommendations are the need for increased training (both general and SIJS focused), the development of model and standardized policies and tools, and legislative reform. Practitioner's Key Points: Provides a definition and overview of Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), Explains the challenges of immigrant youth, practitioners and judges in establishing eligibility for SIJS for children in need, Offers concrete scenarios to illustrate the problem, Explores solutions that have been implemented in certain jurisdictions, such as training programs, uniform court practices, and special legislation, to facilitate the state court role in SIJS, Key Points for the Family Court Community: SIJS provides immigration relief to abused, abandoned, neglected, and other children in need-eligibility depends on special state court findings, All SIJS-eligible children do not have the same ability to access the state courts for relief and to secure the special findings, which leads to many children remaining vulnerable to deportation, Several states have used training, uniform screening tools, model orders, and legislation to reduce the disparate treatment of eligible children depending on their custody circumstances, Additional state and federal reforms can further ensure that all eligible children have access to the state courts and are identified as SIJS-eligible [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Background The Best Interest of the Child-Questionnaire (BIC-Q) has been designed as an instrument for screening the quality of the rearing situation of children with behavioural problems or delinquency. It is intended to aid legal decisions in juvenile and family law. Aims The aim of the study was to establish the reliability and validation of the BIC-Q. Methods Records of 83 children in detention or secure treatment centres and 58 children with no delinquent behaviours were rated by trained researchers. Interrater reliability was tested with a sub-sample of 31 of the former. Content validity was evaluated across the whole group, using Cronbach's alpha to check internal consistency, Spearman's rho to examine correlations and explorative principal component analysis (PCA) to test the extent to which variance in the 14 underlying conditions could be accounted for by a single factor 'quality of rearing'. Results Interrater reliability was good (r = 0.89). The PCA lent support to the content validity of the questionnaire with four factors, which together explained 66% of the variance in child rearing: (1) attachment and bonding; (2) rules and provisions; (3) health care and physical care in the family context; and (4) care and models provided for in the societal environment. Conclusions The BIC-Q is a reliable and valid measure of the overall quality of child rearing. Implications for practice Preliminary results indicate that the BIC-Q may be applied to support court decisions on where the child should live after detention or secure treatment. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author shares his perspective on the use of best interest tests as a determinant in reaching decisions in cases when doctors and parents disagree about treatment of an infant. He illustrates the rise of moral distress, anxiety and confusion when agreement cannot be reach between the parties, citing the case of a child with a genetically determined mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome who was withdrawn from mechanical ventilation. He discusses the principles of zone of parental discretion.

ABSTRACT- In his article on the approximation rule, Warshak correctly notes both that the rule is unlikely to minimize the adverse effects of parents' separation on their children's adjustment and that it misrepresents the relevant social science literature. More specifically, the rule is unlikely to reduce either the level of conflict between parents or their children's harmful exposure to it, mistakenly confuses the amount of parent-child time with parental commitment, and ignores the difficulties inherent in measuring not only the amounts of time spent in caregiving but also other fundamental aspects of parental involvement and importance. For these reasons, it does not represent an improvement over the 'best-interests standard' it seeks to replace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]