CHILDREN,THE UNCRC,AND FAMILY LAW IN ENGLAND AND WALES

There is no doubt that, overall, there has been a great deal of activity in relation to children's rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) since it was ratified by the UK government in 1991. Of particular significance in the context of family law, however, are the provisions of Article 12, which have in many ways proved to be more problematic than other provisions, not least because, in the context of family law, children's participation rights are necessarily juxtaposed with the long‐standing and hitherto unchallenged rights of parents to make important decisions about family life. The reorganisation in 2001 of the family court welfare services in England and Wales with the creation of the Children and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), generated a new impetus for the consideration of children's participation rights and, at an organizational level, considerable progress has been made in embracing the provisions of the UNCRC. More problematic, however, is the acceptance of children's participation in making decisions about their futures by adults using and working in the family justice system. At the level of the courts, judicial attitudes are slow to change and in England, as court judgments often demonstrate, these are firmly rooted in a view of children as being incompetent in such issues; at the level of parents using the system, it is arguable that new discourses about the best interests of the child serve as a proxy for continuing discourses about parents’ rights that have become evident, most recently, in the context of an increasingly influential fathers’ rights lobby; and at the level of welfare practitioners, recent research also demonstrates that, although the rhetoric of children's rights is widely accepted, the willingness and ability to make these real in the context of family proceedings is, for a variety of reasons, less in evidence.     

EVIDENCE OF A DIFFERENT NATURE: THE CHILD‐ RESPONSIVE AND LESS ADVERSARIAL INITIATIVES OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

This article charts the constellation of vision and research that underpin a new era in the Family Court of Australia, focusing on the development and outcomes of two programs that have attempted to meaningfully reinforce the centrality of children's rights and needs in family court proceedings. The Less Adversarial Trial and its front‐end Child Responsive Program (CRP) both aim to minimise the potentially negative effects on parents of a litigation process by application of a more intensive case management model adopted with the intention of altering the parents’ experience of the journey. Key features of this approach include the adoption of inquisitorial techniques, which include direct consultation with children through the CRP, modified application of the rules of evidence, and strong judicial management rather than being party driven. Findings from two studies into the pilot Children's Cases Program (now the Less Adversarial Trial) and the CRP are discussed. Significantly, evidence is outlined around the capacity of the new processes to impact on both the co‐parenting and parent–child relationships and to influence short‐term adjustment of complex families in high‐conflict dispute. In encouraging a more active focus on children's needs and views and by facilitating a stronger voice for children in proceedings that affect them, both initiatives advance Australia's commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.     

CHOOSE TO HUG,NOT HIT*

This article discusses reasonable chastisement of children as a defense by parents to assault charges. It suggests that its continued retention contravenes the rights of children and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It compares developments in various countries, such as the Scandinavian countries and New Zealand, where the defense has been abolished, as compared with the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, where it has been retained. It suggests that its continued retention encourages bullying and violence in schools and in later adult life.     

EU Accession to the ECHR: Between Autonomy and Adaptation

After the European Union's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights the EU will become subject to legally binding judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and participate in statutory bodies of the Council of Europe (Parliamentary Assembly; Committee of Ministers) when they act under the Convention. Convention rights and their interpretation by the ECtHR will be directly enforceable against the EU institutions and against Member States when acting within the scope of EU law. This will vest the ECHR with additional force in a number of Member States, including Germany and the UK. All Member States will further be subject to additional constraints when acting under the Convention system. The article considers the reasons for, and consequences of the EU's primus inter pares position under the Convention and within the Council of Europe, and the likely practical effect of the EU's accession for its Member States.     

The Trump Effect,Children, and the Value of Human Rights Education

Since launching his presidential campaign, Donald Trump's rhetoric has often been divisive as well as demeaning of selected groups. This article examines the impact of Trump's rhetoric on children and their communities and explores the role that human rights education can play in responding to Trump and forging broader support for human rights. The article reviews the research on human rights education and considers how human rights education can be embedded in broader efforts to educate children. Using children's literature as a case study, the article argues for the importance of mainstreaming human rights education and meeting children where they are, in order to foster greater recognition of and respect for the rights of all individuals.     

Surrogacy,Identity, Parentage and Childrenʼs Rights – Through the Eyes of a Child

In this article I will focus on two important aspects of children's rights which are impacted by artificial reproductive technology (particularly surrogacy); being the rights to identity and the rights to legal parentage. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child acknowledges the importance of a child's right to identity, to be protected from discrimination on the basis of the status or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians or family members. For many children born through surrogacy arrangements, they may have only one or no legally recognized parent. The adults caring for them may have parental responsibility orders but this falls well short of providing children with the benefits and protections that legal parentage does. The issue of identity can be complex. Increasingly, states have recognized the importance of children knowing the circumstances of their birth and being able to access biological and genetic information including medical information. From a child's perspective the issues of identity and parenthood are intertwined. Given the importance of identity, more needs to be done to ensure that identifying information about children born as a result of artificial reproductive technology is properly stored and readily accessible for these children. Denying a child legal parentage when there are no concerns about the care being provided by their parents cannot be justified when considered from a children's rights perspective.     

CHILDREN'S RIGHTS IN EUROPEAN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS: WHY ARE FAMILY PRACTICES SO DIFFERENT FROM LEGAL THEORIES?

Debates about child custody following parental separation often have been framed in terms of a battle between the competing rights of different family members. In the United States, advocates of mothers’ rights square off against proponents of fathers’ rights, with each side claiming to truly represent children's rights. Of course, not all advocates lay claim to children's rights in contact and custody disputes merely as a tactical maneuver. Some experts believe that children are entitled to (and benefit from) their own, independent legal advocate in custody cases. In theory, at least, the position that children lay claim to a third set of independent rights is strongly held in Europe, more strongly than in many U.S. states, because of the adoption of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in Europe, but not in the United States. In this article, we examine children's rights in custody disputes from a European perspective, particularly children's legal right to contact with their parents, as well as the children's right to be heard in custody and contact disputes. We find that, despite differences in legal theory, tradition, and family demographics, European countries ultimately face a familiar reality: Custody and contact disputes are, in reality, more about renegotiating family relationships than they are a matter of a mother's, father's, or child's rights.     

Maintaining the Legal Status of People with Intellectual Disabilities as Parents: The ADA and the CRPD

People with intellectual disabilities face proceedings to terminate their parental rights with disturbing regularity, with protecting the interests of offspring the primary justification. Although protecting children from harm is surely critical, these termination proceedings involve problematic assumptions about how fitness to parent is understood, how parenting is legally constructed, and what nondiscrimination requires for parents with intellectual disabilities. Using Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as a model, it suggests two alternatives to the all‐or‐nothing termination processes in place today that might better realize the enjoyment of legal capacity as parents on an equal basis with others for people with intellectual disabilities: limited terminations analogous to limited guardianships and supported parenting along the lines of supported decision making proposed in the CRPD.     

Listening to children: Participation rights of minors in Italy and the United States

This article compares laws and policies in Italy and the US regarding children's right to be heard and to engage in the life of the community. Italy has adopted a strong children's rights perspective, informed by the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The US, with its pre-modern constitution and resistance to international law, has been slow to recognise children's rights to voice and agency. The US Supreme Court has extended some due process rights to children in criminal court proceedings, but the US lags far behind Italy in recognition of children's rights to participate in civic life and collective decision-making. Child well-being rankings may reflect these differences in attitudes towards children's rights. Italy ranks significantly higher than the US on objective measures of child well-being and Italian children report superior peer and family relationships.     

WHAT DOES ACCESS TO JUSTICE REQUIRE? — OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO INVOKE THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Persons with disabilities have a right to effective access to justice under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). This article provides insights on the parameters of that right, including a close examination of the history and text of Article 13, which directly addresses access to justice and other relevant UNCRPD provisions. In addition to the UNCRPD, this article discusses implementation guidance from the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, including its guidelines for State Party reports and jurisprudence. The initial reports by eleven States Parties — Argentina, Azerbaijan, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Hungary, Mexico, Peru and Turkmenistan — are also considered. The Committee’s feedback regarding implementation of Article 13 by these eleven States parties is critiqued for being limited and inconsistent. This article then attempts to clarify what effective access to justice actually requires. It does so by focusing on the insights that can be drawn from implementation of Article 13 since the UNCRPD was adopted as well as implementation guidance from the Conference of States Parties, the International Disability Alliance, the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry and the National Center for Access to Justice. This article concludes with recommendations on how the Committee can improve its guidance on access to justice to help ensure that equal rights will not be illusory for persons with disabilities.     

THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD AND THE NEED FOR ITS INCORPORATION INTO A BILL OF RIGHTS

In this article I discuss the failure of most democratic countries to accept or properly implement the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, despite, except in the case of the United States, having ratified it. I consider the domestic implementation of treaties. I discuss, from an Australian perspective, that country's failure to enact a Bill of Rights and argue that children in Australia have suffered as a result. I also discuss judicial approaches to international law and compare the situation in countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand and suggest that even in those countries that do have a Bill of Rights, it is not oriented toward children and therefore does not properly recognize their rights.     

Children's Participation in Family Law Proceedings: A Step Too Far or a Step Too Small?

The Children (Scotland) Act 1995 established children's rights to have their views considered in family law proceedings. These rights go further than elsewhere in the UK: in requiring parents to consult their children when making any ‘major decision’, in creating a range of mechanisms for children to state their views and through facilitating children becoming party to legal proceedings if they are legally competent. Such rights are not without controversy, either in abstract (Is it in children's best interests to be involved in court proceedings? Should children have such rights?) or in practice (Do children and parents know of these rights and accompanying duties? How do legal professionals judge a child's competency?). This paper explores such controversies, using findings from a feasibility study undertaken with children, parents and legal professionals.     

Incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK Law: Implications for education

This article focuses on the UK government's proposal to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, and the consequences of incorporation for the individual in the context of education. The first part of the article explores the mechanisms proposed for bringing about incorporation, and stresses in particular the importance attached by the government to upholding the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the UK Parliament. In this context it emphasises the government's decision to deny to the British courts the capacity to strike down legislative provisions as being incompatible with Convention rights. The second part of the article goes on to explore (highly selectively) a number of key areas in which incorporation of the ECHR has the potential to enhance individual rights in the field of education, including parental choice of school, collective worship and religious education, and aspects of the secular curriculum. The discussion emphasises strongly the likely significance of the UK government's reservation to the second sentence of Article 2 of the First Protocol to the ECHR. Broadly, the conclusion drawn is that the incorporation of the Convention will have only a very marginal impact on the reality of individual rights to education.     

Human Rights Watch v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Victim Status,Extraterritoriality and the Search for Principled Reasoning

In Human Rights Watch v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the UK Investigatory Powers Tribunal found that the relevant standard of ‘victim status’ that applies in secret surveillance cases consists in a potential risk of being subjected to surveillance and that the European Convention on Human Rights does not apply to the surveillance of individuals who reside outside of the UK. This note argues that the Tribunal's finding regarding the victim status of the applicants was sound but that the underlying reasoning was not. It concludes that the Tribunal's finding on extraterritoriality is unsatisfactory and that its engagement with the European Court of Human Rights case law on the matter lacked depth. Finally, the note considers the defects of the Human Rights Watch case, and the case law on extraterritoriality more generally, against the backdrop of the place of principled reasoning in human rights adjudication.     

从《残疾人权利公约》反思国际人权机制

2007年3月起开放签字的《残疾人权利公约》是联合国体系在保护人权领域的最新努力。与以往的多数人权条约一样,《残疾人权利公约》列举了具体权利、构划了报告体制,同时通过任择议定书设计建立一套来文制度。这意味着在国际人权法上又添加了一套体制。虽然从权利保护发展本身看,这一公约的出现丰富了联合国体系的人权保护内容,但是从国际法治的理念上看,它是国际法不成体系的特征的继续与延伸,本质上不仅无益于国际法治的完善,而且有可能进一步提高国际法维护人权各个环节的成本。现阶段有必要考虑将包括人权、环境等领域的规范进行编纂,将相应机构进行整合,以推进国际法治的目标。     

Pre-Trial Defence Rights and the Fair Use of Eyewitness Identification Procedures

This paper sets out the normative basis of a claim to procedural rights concerning the fair use of eyewitness identification procedures. It is argued that there are two aspects to suspects' procedural rights. The first aims to secure an opportunity for the suspect to participate in procedures where doing so might result in exculpatory evidence (a participatory right). The second is the state's obligation to take reasonable measures to prevent wrongful conviction on the basis of mistaken identification by providing the suspect with a satisfactory degree of procedural accuracy (a protective right). This normative analysis provides the basis of a claim that Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a suspect with similar rights. The final part of the paper considers whether domestic procedure is compatible with these putative rights, and whether it could be said to provide an effective remedy if they were to be breached.     

《儿童权利公约》与我国儿童证人权利制度之完善

儿童证人是刑事诉讼中特殊的诉讼参与人。《儿童权利公约》确立了对儿童权益保护的一般原则，有关国际文件也确立了儿童证人在刑事诉讼中所应享有的诉讼权利。国外的刑事诉讼立法有的也对儿童证人权利制度作了规定。比较而言，我国儿童证人权利制度内容贫乏，既不能满足司法实践对儿童证人保护的需要，也没有体现公约及有关国际文件的要求。应从免于宣誓等方面构建我国儿童证人权利制度。     

The Swansea Bureau: A model of diversion from the Youth Justice System

The Swansea Bureau is an innovative initiative designed to divert young people out of the formal processes of the Youth Justice System. The Swansea Bureau extends beyond simple diversion grounded in minimal or non-intervention and into tackling the underlying causes of youth crime through mechanisms that normalise youth offending and promote prosocial behaviour, children's rights, youth participation and the engagement of both parents/carers and the local community. Inter-agency working is pursued in a political, strategic and operational context of viewing young people as ‘children first, offenders second’. This article discusses the development of the Bureau and explores how this child-orientated model is beginning to yield positive results in terms of decreases in first time entrants into the Youth Justice System and reductions in reconviction. The Bureau process has also elicited widespread positive qualitative feedback from key stakeholders regarding its engagement with Welsh national policy, parents/carers and the children's rights agenda.     

The Enjoyment of Rights and Freedoms: A New Conception of the 'Ambit' under Article 14 ECHR

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as applied by the UK judiciary under the Human Rights Act 1998, is in danger of becoming as 'parasitic' as it is often described. Judges have inappropriately narrowed the scope of the 'ambit' of other Convention articles, and thus limited the number of claims to which Article 14 can apply, by defining it according to considerations more properly weighed in a justification analysis incorporating proportionality. The emerging approach departs from Strasbourg jurisprudence, and fails to give full effect to the language and intent of Article 14. This trend need not continue. This article begins the process of fashioning a new conception of the ambit of Convention articles: one that could change the fortunes of Article 14 cases in the UK, but that flows naturally from the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights, and gives effect to the spirit of the HRA.     

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Punishment of Children Under English Law – Public and Private Vices?

The punishment of children in the domestic sphere and in the public domain is an issue of concern for those with care of children or whose interests lie in the protection of children’s human rights. How children are treated when they are judged to have broken rules reveals fundamental approaches to the welfare of those who have yet to reach adulthood. The effect of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in respect of how children are punished, whether in the home or as transgressors of criminal law, may be examined through two distinct but linked spheres: the private and home life context of domestic or personal punishment, and the public domain of state punishment of children in terms of criminal responsibility under English Law. Both spheres reveal attitudes towards the rights of children which suggest how human rights are accorded to particular groups in applying international obligations to a state’s domestic provision. This article seeks to explore some issues of compliance with Article 19 (the physical chastisement of children), Article 37 (the imprisonment of children being a ‚last resort’) and Article 40 (the minimum age of criminal responsibility) of the United Nations Convention on the␣Rights of the Child. The application of the rights of children and the operation of the ‚best interests’ of the child in applying Articles 19, 37 and 40 suggests that there are issues in relation to non-compliance which indicate a diminution of the separate rights of children under English Law in particular and in the operation of the best interests of the child. Penny Booth is a Reader in Law at Staffordshire University Law School.