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.     

UNDERSTANDING CHILDREN'S RIGHTS: THEORY AND PRACTICE

This article discusses the meaning of children's rights in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Both place primary responsibility for the upbringing and education of children on their parents and families. The freedom of parents to bring up their children in their own way is an important component of a liberal democracy founded on respect for individual differences. So if parents believe in moderate corporal punishment as a means of educating their children in their own religious beliefs, is the state justified in banning such punishment either in school or in the home in order to protect the children's rights? This article discusses the children's rights which are protected by doing so.     

PROTECTING CHILDREN'S RIGHTS IN CONTACT DISPUTES: THE ROLE OF CHILDREN'S CONTACT SERVICES IN AUSTRALIA*

This article explores the role of Children's Contact Services (CCSs) in protecting children's right to express, and have heard, their wishes in contact disputes. The findings presented are drawn from the Australian Children's Contact Services Project and were based on 142 interviews with representatives from the government, the courts and legal profession who refer families to CCSs, service staff, as well as the parents and children who use the services. An analysis of client data from 396 families who had used one of six contact services in Victoria and Queensland during the month of August 2003 was also conducted. The findings suggested that CCSs successfully engaged children in a “dynamic self‐deterministic” process where children were able to explore their own wishes in relation to contact visits over time as their relationship goals changed. John Eekelaar described this process as being central to making decisions that are in children's best interests.     

A LEGAL PROTECTION OF THE SUGARCANE FARMERS IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF A WELFARE STATE IN THE LOCAL AUTONOMY ERA

After the policy on the local autonomy is implemented, the legal protection of the sugar cane farmers has not yet been able to improve wellfare of farmers, due to some factors. First, the regulations have not taken sides to the welfare of the farmers and no synchronization exists, even there has been a disharmony in various regulations on the protection of the sugar cane farmers. Second, the farmers institutions have not been well organized, and this condition makes the bargaining position of the farmers weak when they face external powers, either the government or the capital owners. Third, land availability to plan sugar canes always decreases. The land possession of farmers is reduced among the macro-economic phenomenon. Ironically, at present 49.5% of farmers in Java and 18. 7 % farmers out of Java are not land owners. Therefore, philosophically, the legal protection of the sugar cane farmers in the future should still refer to the rechtides as stated in Pancasila （Five Basic Principles）. Sociologically, such a protection should reflect the factual condition, and give benefits for farmer welfare and juridically, synchronization and harmonization of the regulations should be quickly made.