Keeping the Family Together: Why New York Must Amend Evidence Rules to Protect a Parent's Right to be a Parent

In New York, hearsay statements made by children may be admissible in a child protective proceeding. Under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, an out‐of‐court statement only requires corroboration to support the statement's reliability. The Family Court has the choice to determine what evidence will be sufficient for corroboration. In comparison to other statutes from different states, New York's statute is very broad. This Note proposes amending the current evidence statute under Article 10 of the Family Court Act to strengthen the standard for admitting hearsay statements in child protective proceedings.     

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.     

Forgotten Children of Immigration and Family Law: How The Absence of Legal Aid Affects Children in the United States

The absence of government‐appointed legal counsel in immigration proceedings adversely affects large numbers of children in the United States. Children born in the United States to parents without citizenship status (U.S.‐born children of noncitizen parents or UCNP) are harmed by a parent's detention and removal. Unaccompanied alien children (UAC) who have entered the country without legal status are adversely affected by their own detention and removal. The possibility of obtaining relief from removal is drastically diminished by the lack of legal representation. Currently UAC and immigrant parents are not entitled to court‐appointed attorneys. Any meaningful change in immigration law, such as a federal statutory amendment to provide UAC and immigrant parents with government‐appointed counsel is unlikely due to the present political dissension in Congress regarding this issue. Because UAC and immigrant parents are not entitled to government‐funded legal representation, a pro bono legal service system has developed, but is unable to meet the present need adequately. For immigrant parents, this Note proposes the adoption of a statute to allow the appointment of court liaisons in family court proceedings. The court liaison is a nonattorney who is familiar with the processes of the family court and ensures that immigrant parents are fully informed regarding all pertinent family court proceedings. For UAC, this Note proposes an amendment to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act to mandate the appointment of a child advocate to all UAC. The child advocate is not a lawyer, but works with the UAC's attorney to provide the child with legal representation and advocacy.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• UCNP confront the loss of parents to detention and removal. Children are condemned to limbo, torn between absent biological parents and placement in foster care.
• The recent surge in the number of UAC who enter the United States by crossing the border from Mexico has been described as a humanitarian crisis. These children often remain alone without legal protection, vulnerable to detention and removal.
• Ideally, UAC and the immigrant parents would be provided with government‐funded legal representation in immigration proceedings. In the absence of the federal statutory reform necessary to make that a reality, state statutory reform to allow for the provision of court liaison programs for immigrant parents and federal statutory reform to allow the appointment of child advocates for UAC can begin to offer children and families needed legal support and advocacy.

     

From ‘Doctor Knows Best’ to Dignity: Placing Adults Who Lack Capacity at the Centre of Decisions About Their Medical Treatment

In 1989, the House of Lords first derived a ‘best interests’ test for the medical treatment of adults who lack capacity from the doctrine of necessity and, now codified, the test continues to apply today. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out a non‐exhaustive checklist of relevant considerations, but it gives no particular priority to the patient's wishes. There is also no formal expectation that the patient will participate directly in any court proceedings in which her best interests are to be determined. This article will consider the advantages and disadvantages of providing additional guidance to decision‐makers in order to help them navigate both taking seriously the wishes of people who lack capacity and, at the same time, not abandoning patients who need help and support. More specifically, this article advocates formalising current best practice in the Court of Protection through the introduction of a series of rebuttable presumptions, or starting points.     

Voices of minor children heard and unheard in judicial divorce proceedings in the Netherlands

Under Dutch divorce law, children in theory have ample opportunity to make their voices heard: the petition for divorce must state how the children have been involved in preparing a parenting plan; all children aged 12 or 16 (depending on the context) or older have the right to be heard by the judge, and the judge may additionally hear younger children; the court may appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the child; and the child has the right to seek informal access to the court (by letter or telephone, for example) which may lead to an ex officio decision that changes the arrangements agreed by the parents in a divorce settlement or an earlier judicial decision. In practice, however, there is no guarantee that children's voices will actually be heard in divorce proceedings. Notably in the case of separation after an informal relationship (other than marriage or registered partnership) the opportunities given to children to be heard are often a dead letter.     

Troubled Children and Children in Trouble: Redefining the Role of the Juvenile Court in the Lives of Children

This Essay considers the emerging research in the area of dual‐jurisdiction children, often referred to as “crossover kids”—those currently or previously involved in maltreatment proceedings who have also committed delinquent acts. Part I describes the development of the juvenile courts in the early twentieth century. Part II of this Essay questions the need to “track” children along one legal path or another and points to the pitfalls of providing services to some children through a criminal justice paradigm instead of treating all children through a social work paradigm. Finally, Part III advocates a redesign of the juvenile court—a return to its roots—to better enable a court to consider the needs of the whole child, in context with the needs of her/his family.     

Children’s and parents’ involvement in care order proceedings: a cross-national comparison of judicial decision-makers’ views and experiences

This paper presents the views of judicial decision-makers (n = 1794) in four child protection jurisdictions (England, Finland, Norway, and the USA (California)), about whether parents and children are provided with appropriate opportunities to participate in proceedings in their countries. Overall, the study found a high degree of agreement within and between the countries as regards the important conditions for parents’ and children´s involvement, although the four systems themselves are very different. There was less agreement about children’s involvement than parents’, and the court decision-makers from Norway and Finland were more likely to express doubts about this. Nevertheless, the main message from the judicial decision-makers is that they are relatively satisfied as to how parents’ and children´s involvement is handled in their countries. Whether or not this confidence is justified, the emphasis on achieving effective involvement of children and parents in court proceedings is likely to grow, with major implications for the workers, decision-makers and agencies involved.     

Voices heard and unheard – A Scandinavian perspective

Children's rights to participate in legal processes concerning them have been a key policy issue for the Scandinavian legislators during recent decades. From the 1980s, there have been frequent amendments to the law to secure the position of the child. Despite numerous provisions stating the right of the child to express his or her views and for these to be considered before decisions are taken, there are continuing obstacles to full recognition of children as legal subjects. Too often children's voices are not heard or not heeded. This article explores the reasons for this and argues that the ambition to promote equal parenthood is one reason for the failure to give the child's views real impact on decision-making in matters concerning children.     

A COMMENT. The road to court improvement in child protection cases

Judges are the key to court reform in child protection proceedings but legislative mandates cannot guarantee the requisite level of judicial commitment. Lack of full implementation of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 demonstrates that rather than rely on statutory language, court reformers ought to increase judicial understanding of the provisions of federal law through initiatives such as cross-training. From December 1996 to June 1998, Kentucky's Court Improvement Project delivered 11 regional cross-training sessions to more than 550 judges, attorneys, social service personnel and other child advocates. Based on a statewide survey, cross-training increased significantly awareness of federal child protection objectives among the state's judges. Awareness of a policy among those expected to implement it is the first step toward implementation.     

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.     

Fostering permanency of children in out-of-home care: psycho-legal aspects

Over the past 20 years increasing interest has been given to children's rights that grant special protections to children living apart from their biological parents. The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 was promulgated to prevent unnecessary removal of children from their original families and to ensure permanency when return to their families could not be secured. The psychiatrist's role in this process has been to ensure that effective interventions occur prior to the child being removed from home and that every effort is made to return the child to his or her family of origin once placement has been made. In the event that the child cannot return home, the psychiatrist can assist the court by providing grounds for termination of parental rights and by otherwise ensuring that the child's best interests are protected.     

Federal employees health benefits children's equity. Final rule

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing final regulations to implement the Federal Employees Health Benefits Children's Equity Act of 2000, which was enacted October 30, 2000. This law mandates the enrollment of a Federal employee for self and family coverage in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program, if the employee is subject to a court or administrative order requiring him or her to provide health benefits for his or her child or children and the employee does not provide documentation of compliance with the order.     

NEED TO BE HEARD: INCREASING CHILD PARTICIPATION IN PROTECTION MEDIATION THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MODEL STANDARDS*

There are more than three million reports of abuse and neglect each year. Some children may enter the court system while others will voluntarily or by court order enter a mediation program. What these children have in common is these youths are often removed from their home and placed in foster or institutional care without ever expressing their wishes or concerns. This Note advocates for the adoption of model standards drafted to ensure universal and meaningful child participation. The Model Standards are set forth in detail and accompanied by useful tips on their implementation. Through the course of this Note, the benefits of child participation are outlined, as are the reasons most often given for denying children the opportunity to meaningfully participate. The Note concludes with an explanation of how the benefits derived from implementing these standards far outweigh any potential negative side effects.     

‘The beneficent and legal godfather’: a history of the guardianship of unaccompanied immigrant and refugee children in Australia, 1946–1975

Abstract

In Australia in 1946, the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act was passed. This Act was intended to support the postwar migration to Australia of British children, unaccompanied by their parents, and provided them a guardian in Australia: the Immigration Minister. This key provision of the Act continues into the present, covering all unaccompanied child migrants, including refugees. Starting with the parliamentary debates which occurred at the formation of the Act in 1946, this article traces a history of the Act until its first High Court challenge in 1975. In doing so, a focus is placed on a series of key questions raised by its production of categories: How does the Act construct ideas of migranthood? What do the discussions it has provoked have to say about notions of parenthood and the ideal family? And, finally, what concepts of the child have been produced through this legislative and legal history? Through an examination of archival materials, parliamentary debates, court records, and newspaper coverage, this article explores the discursive productions of the Act, following the understanding that ideas of the family, of parenthood, of guardianship, of migrant status, and of the child are not natural, but instead are historically created and produced, here through racialized techniques of governmentality.     

Confidentiality and the Juvenile and Family Courts

Court proceedings and court records are traditionally open to the public. The courts are public institutions, and openness serves a number of important purposes including protection of the free discussion of governmental affairs and the enhancement of the quality and integrity of the fact finding process. But court proceedings also address family matters including adoptions, juvenile delinquency, child protection, and domestic relations cases. These types of cases often involve personal issues, and many family members would prefer that they remain private. In most states, many of these proceedings have been closed to the public. Strong policy reasons support both openness of family court proceedings and privacy considerations for family members, particularly children. This article addresses confidentiality in the context of juvenile and family court proceedings. It takes the position that the tension between these conflicting policies can be reduced if most family court proceedings are presumptively open, but judges are given the authority to place conditions on the information that can be revealed by observers outside the courtroom. Additionally, the article asserts that if the courts and the media take steps to change their practices and their relationship with one another, both the public interest and the confidentiality interest of the parties can be better served.     

BURDEN OF PROOF BEGONE

This article examines the tendency of emergency child removal decisions—by social workers, police officers, and judges—to become self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating in subsequent child protective proceedings. This snowball effect, as one court has referred to it, is widely acknowledged by lawyers who practice in juvenile court, yet is largely unknown beyond those circles. The article explores the causes and consequnces of this phenomenon in the age of the 1997 federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), which converts every day that a child spends in foster care into one more tick of the clock in a countdown toward termination of parental rights. The article provides some background on the law and practice of emergency child removal in the United States today, analyzes the factors that make initial removals outcome determinative in many child protection cases, considers the implications of this phenomenon in light of ASFA, and identifies possible solutions.     

BURDEN OF PROOF BEGONE

This article examines the tendency of emergency child removal decisions—by social workers, police officers, and judges—to become self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating in subsequent child protective proceedings. This "snow-ball effect," as one court has referred to it, is widely acknowledged by lawyers who practice in juvenile court yet is largely unknown beyond those circles. The article explores the causes and consequences of this phenomenon in the age of ASFA (the 1997 federal Adoption and Safe Families Act), which converts every day that a child spends in foster care into one more tick of the clock in a countdown toward termination of parental rights. This article provides some background on the law and practice of emergency child removal in the United States today, analyzes the factors that make initial removals outcome determinative in many child protection cases, considers the implications of this phenomenon in light of ASFA, and identifies possible solutions.     

Judicial Oversight of Parental Visitation in Family Reunification Cases

This article explores the issue of visitation between a child and parents in the context of child protection proceedings, addressing the following areas: 1) the importance of visitation in the context of family reunification; 2) the results of an informal study of visitation practices in several jurisdictions; 3) the law relating to visitation in child protection proceedings; 4) some best practices that have been identified by commentators; 5) the role of the judge regarding visitation issues; and 6) some recommendations for judges and court systems regarding visitation. The article concludes that visitation between a child and her parents often occurs too infrequently; as a result, the relationship between the child and parents can be damaged, the child can suffer further trauma, and the chances for successful family reunification may be reduced. Finally, judges and social service agencies can and must improve both the quality and quantity of parent‐child visitation.     

VIEW FROM THE BENCH

Although some believe that the family courts are gender biased against fathers, Judge Menno disagrees. From his experience as a family court judge and his view from the bench, fathers are treated fairly in court determinations pertaining to access to their children. In making these determinations, courts must take into consideration the reality of divorce and out-of-wedlock arrangements. This article describes how Judge Menno's county family court operates, and he further subgroups various types of fathers, describing how each fares in the family court when trying to gain access to their children.     

Protecting Ohio's Children: Ohio Juvenile Court Jurisdiction to Prevent Nonparty Interference in the Protection of the Best Interest of a Child

Ohio Rule of Juvenile Procedure 2(Y) allows juvenile courts to do what other courts cannot: designate additional parties to an action, allowing juvenile courts to better accomplish their statutory purpose of pursuing the best interests of children. However, sometimes this can lead to confusion about juvenile courts’ actions to protect children, especially when courts invoke Rule 2(Y) to stop interference with proceedings. This article will examine the historical foundations of Ohio's juvenile courts, the unique authority that they possess, and the conflicts that can arise due to interference with juvenile court proceedings. Ohio's juvenile courts have unique authority, and they can use that authority in a way that does not conflict with constitutional rights, while still working to protect the interests of children.