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.     

Private and public voices: Does family group conferencing privilege the voice of children and families in child welfare?

This article examines the use of family group conferencing in child protection and considers its ability to privilege the voice of children and families who reach the attention of statutory child protection services. The family group conference (FGC) is a process of family decision-making in child protection, originally developed in Aotearoa New Zealand, and now practised in many countries including the UK. Examining the literature and research relating to the FGC it considers whether the approach provides a genuine context of participation and partnership, or whether it has become an instrumental professionally led practice as families are charged with greater responsibilities for children at risk.     

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.     

Foster children＇s right to family： A description and analysis of the legislative approach in Sweden

This paper emphasizes the foster children＇s right to family life and investigates whether change of custody and guardianship to foster parents is a successful option to achieve this right. Using CRC as the base for my definition of the right to family I will include the right to continuity, well-being and a family environment in the understanding of the term ＂right to family＂ in this article. These rights may, primarily, be fulfilled by the child＇s parents, and, if necessary for the best interest of the child, be complemented or substituted by foster or adoption parents. The analysis of different solutions concerning state interventions will base on Swedish law. In Sweden, a child in need of help or assistance as a result of abuse, neglect, or other inappropriate behavior in the home setting may be helped by the Social Welfare Committee-voluntarily or by a court order-in the child＇s home or a foster home. Other alternatives contain judicial involvement by changing custody and guardianship or making a decision for adoption. Since many years ago, the most commonly used alternative for children needing long term placements outside their homes in Sweden has become foster care. This development of many long-term placements has been criticized for not fulfilling the needs of the children, especially their needs for family continuity, stability and well-being. As a consequence, an amendment to the Social Services Act 200l was enacted in 2003 which states that the Social Services Committee shall consider the ＂permanence＂ of foster care by changing custody and guardianship to the foster parents three years later since a child starts in foster care, and every six months thereafter, as long as the child remains in the foster parents＇ care. Assuming that the foster parents are fit and willing to become custodians and guardians, and the child views the foster home as his or her home, the District Court can decide to change the custody and the guardianship to the foster parents. The assessment is to be based solely on the best interest of the child, and not on the fitness or wishes of the original custodian. However, can changing the custody and guardianship assist foster children＇s right to family？ This paper elaborates on this question by describing a legal reform in Sweden.     

A COMMENT ON WILLIAM J. HOWE AND HUGH MCISAAC'S ARTICLE “FINDING THE BALANCE” PUBLISHED IN THE JANUARY 2008 ISSUE OF FAMILY COURT REVIEW

This article is a response to an article written by William Howe and Hugh McIsaac that questions their recommendations that court‐based mediation not be used when certain types of persons appear in court. We assert that it will be very difficult for the court to identify these people. Further, we argue that mediation practice has advanced so far that even these persons (those with serious issues of domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health) should be given an opportunity to participate in mediation before being referred to the adversarial court process.     

SURREPLY

This is a follow‐up to our previous “Comment” responding to an article by William How and Hugh McIsaac.     

CRITIQUE OF CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS BY THE LEGAL PROFESSION

This study explored the congruency between child custody evaluations and the needs of the legal profession. One hundred twenty-one judges and attorneys were surveyed. In general, both groups expressed similar attitudes and beliefs. Findings indicated that court-ordered evaluations were most useful, and objectivity was paramount. Judges and attorneys also expressed a need for improvements in child custody reports, particularly greater child focus, provision of custody and visitation recommendations, discussion of legal criteria, and timely completion of evaluations. It is hoped that the findings will inform professional practice and help evaluators better serve the needs of the family court.     

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.     

THE ELUSIVE PURSUIT OF SOLOMON: FALTERING STEPS TOWARD THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

This article provides a brief critique of presumptions about parenting and children seen through the lens of family law. It argues that, historically, decisions largely followed gender‐based and/or moral presumptions of the day and that sometimes these were in tension with each other. Sometimes, too, as in the biblical story of Solomon's judgment, biological parenthood was contested and/or gender did not provide a ready answer. The article argues that, as children's rights and the best interests of the child increasingly came to dominate the decision‐making rhetoric, a Solomon‐like belief has nonetheless persisted, that judicial ingenuity and sophisticated investigative resources can determine the underlying truth of a dispute and lead to the correct outcome. The evidence, however, points in the direction of significant predictive limitations to the legal, social, and psychological knowledge bases supporting most postseparation parenting decisions. It is argued that what is needed is a formal shift in emphasis from a somewhat idealized commitment to discovering the truth in most contested cases to a focus on good decision‐making processes. It is suggested that most transitional families are best served by an emphasis on good, respectful processes associated with good‐enough decisions that formally acknowledge the limitations of our capacity to predict. Good processes and good‐enough decisions are in turn best supported by a clear emphasis on children as individual agents, who, though dependent on adults, are entitled to the full panoply of human rights.     

MEDIATIVE EVALUATIONS: THE PROS AND PERILS OF BLENDING ROLES

Child custody evaluators with experience in mediation may be tempted to use mediation skills and strategies in their evaluation processes. This article explores the benefits and risks of blending mediation with evaluation, comparing the perspectives of professionals and clients.