Understanding Parental Gatekeeping in Families with a Special Needs Child

Supporting the positive development of a special needs child is especially challenging when parents have separated or divorced. Invariably, there is an increased need for collaborative co‐parenting wherein information is shared and intervention plans can be implemented effectively. In this article, the evolving literature on parental gatekeeping is applied to families with special needs children, as it offers a useful model for understanding the strengths and liabilities of co‐parenting relationships. We describe some of the typical and unique gatekeeping dynamics that occur when children suffer from developmental, physical, and/or psychiatric syndromes that require specific treatment and specialized parenting skills. Examples of both restrictive and facilitative gatekeeping are described as they manifest in these families. Implications for decision making are also discussed.     

Parenting Plans for Special Needs Children: Applying a Risk‐Assessment Model

Family courts are seeing an increasing number of separating or divorced families who have a special needs child. These cases present complex challenges for family law professionals charged with crafting parenting plans based on best interests standards. For many of these children, the typical developmentally based custodial arrangements may not be suitable, given the child's specific symptoms and treatment needs. We present a model for understanding how the general and specific needs of these children, as well as the demands on parents, can be assessed and understood in the context of divorce. This includes an analysis of risk and protective factors that inform timeshare and custodial recommendations and determinations. The risk assessment model is then applied to three of the most commonly occurring childhood neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders likely to be encountered in family court, namely, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depressive disorders, and autistic spectrum disorders.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• There has been a dramatic rise in the population of children with neurodevelopmental, psychiatric, and medical syndromes whose parents are disputing custody in the family courts.
• Family law professionals of all disciplines should develop a fundamental knowledge base about the most commonly seen special needs children in family court, such as those with neurodevelopmental conditions like autistic spectrum disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and severe depressive disorders (especially with teenagers), which may involve suicidal or self‐harming behaviors.
• Commonly recommended parenting plans may be inappropriate for many special needs children, as some function significantly below their chronological age and pose extreme behavioral challenges.
• A systematic analysis of risk and protective factors should inform timeshare arrangements and determinations with this varied population, including the safety of the child and severity of the disorder, parental commitment and availability to pursue medical, educational, and therapeutic services, the parental attunement and insightful about the problem, and the differential parenting skills of each parent.

     

Severe personality disorder,treatment engagement and the Legal Aid,Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012: what you need to know

Empirical research has demonstrated a link between legal coercion and treatment engagement following conviction among those with severe personality disorder. Legal coercive pressures were often applied by the Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection (IPP), until it was replaced by the Extended Determinate Sentence by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. In this paper, it is proposed that use of the new determinate sentence will lessen motivation for treatment engagement. One effect of treatment refusal may be greater reliance by the Secretary of State for Justice on his jurisdiction to transfer prisoners due for release to secure hospital transfers under the Mental Health Act 1983. Not only will this risk posturing undermine the principal aim of the Offender Personality Disorder Implementation Pathway to improve treatment engagement among the target group, it will also have negative implications for medical practitioners working in secure forensic hospitals. To demonstrate what is at stake, the paper briefly recapitulates empirical findings familiar to readers of the journal, before drawing on original unpublished data.     

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.