共查询到7条相似文献，搜索用时 0 毫秒
1.
This article provides a response to Prof. Thomson's critique, noting many points of agreement and also the broader consensus that is emerging among experts in the field. The research evidence, and the wider body of knowledge on children's well‐being generally, supports the proposition that relocation is a risk factor for children after parental separation but provides no support for a general presumption either in favor of, nor against, relocation. Nor should it be assumed that the interests of children are the same as those of their primary caregiver. We defend our three questions arguing the need in an adult‐centric debate to focus resolutely on children's interests rather than on adult rights. Both Prof. Thompson's approach and our own involve guided decision making with the child's best interests as the paramount consideration—his through weak presumptions based upon research about how judges respond to relocation issues and ours through focused questions based on research on how parents and children respond to relocations issues. We do not consider that codifying the existing practices of the courts represents real reform. We identify various risks involved in using presumptions, but note that, in jurisdictions with limited publicly funded resources for individual case assessment, presumptions, burdens or guidelines may be needed to offer rough justice to impecunious parents.
- Key Points for the Family Court Community
- Notes points of emerging agreement on relocation within the research community
- Explores the differences between the use of presumptions and focused questions and highlights the role of empirical research of the lived experience of children and families postrelocation disputes
- Identifies how the level of public resourcing for the family law system may impact upon decisions about the substance of the law concerning relocation
2.
Philip M. Stahl 《Family Court Review》2016,54(4):632-641
Parkinson and Cashmore ( 2015 ) and Thompson ( 2015 ) have written comprehensive articles outlining suggested reforms to the family law system in relocation cases. This brief article, from a child custody evaluator's perspective as opposed to researchers' and legal scholars' perspectives, highlights areas of agreement, in hope of leading to increased consensus, as well as areas of disagreement, furthering the discussion and debate of critical issues in relocation matters. Rather than an either/or approach to relocation presumptions, this article will identify a both/and perspective on presumptions for these cases. It will also focus on suggestions for evaluators in an effort to help guide ways that evaluations can be most helpful to the court. 相似文献
3.
4.
Helping Families by Maintaining a Strong Well‐Funded Family Court that Encourages Consensual Peacemaking: A Judicial Perspective 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Hon. Thomas Trent Lewis 《Family Court Review》2015,53(3):371-377
This article explores alternatives for the court process that promote a child‐centered approach to resolution of family law issues including a summary of procedures used in Los Angeles County to assist families. The article also explores alternatives to the traditional custody litigation model.
- Key Points for the Family Court Community:
- Evaluations and trials are not the only tools available in family law.
- Structured court ordered counseling can provide a meaningful intervention and reduce family conflict.
- Alternative forms of mediation can help families address the “need to be heard” and retain personal autonomy in decision making.
- The court system should help educate families about how to resolve conflict in a safe, effective, and meaningful way.
5.
Philip Rawlings 《The Modern law review》2012,75(6):1099-1122
The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012, which abolishes the consumer assured's duty to volunteer information, heralds the first successful outcome of the English and Scottish Law Commissions current insurance contract law reform project. This paper outlines the defects of the common law duty of disclosure which the Law Commissions sought to address. It goes on to consider why previous legislative attempts failed, the self‐regulatory measures introduced by the insurance industry as a means of resisting earlier pressure for statutory intervention, and how that resistance broke down. Finally, it examines the scope of the 2012 reforms and the current consultation being undertaken in respect of the duty of disclosure in relation to business insurance. It concludes by assessing the significance of the statute in providing a necessary impetus for future insurance law reforms. 相似文献
6.