“Stay in Your Own Lane” the Inherent Flaws Undermining Children’s Rights Within Australia’s Family Law System: A Perspective from the Field

Journal of Human Rights and Social Work - Trang 1-6 - 2023
Laura Dodds1, Catherine Creamer1, Zalia Powell1, Cindy Davis1
1School of Law and Society, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Australia

Tóm tắt

The social scientists and legal professionals who work in family law in Australia should be recognised for working tirelessly in a complex, overworked, and archaic system. A system that underserves their capacity to maintain integrity, expertise, and ethical diligence in the professions they are assigned. In this perspective piece, we acknowledge the innovative work being done within this system to strive to meet the best interests of the children they serve, whilst highlighting the fundamental flaws of an adversarial system that breeds acculturation across disciplines and disables the practitioners who operate within these systems from legitimately performing their duties and championing the human rights of children.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Amundson, J., & Lux, G. (2019). Tippins and Wittman revisited: Law, social science, and the role of the child custody expert 14 years later. Family Court Review, 57(1), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12398

Australian Association of Social Workers. (2020). Code of ethics 2020. AASW. Retrieved January 14, 2023, from https://www.aasw.asn.au/document/item/13400

Australian Law Reform Commission. (2019). Family law for the future – An inquiry into the family law system, final report. https://apo.org.au/node/229971

Bala, N. (2005). Tippins and Wittmann asked the wrong question. Family Court Review, 43(4), 554–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2005.00054.x

Chisholm, R. (2007). ‘Less adversarial’ proceedings in children’s cases [opinion]. Family Matters, (77), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.948100883278494

Daly, A. (2018). Children, autonomy and the courts: Beyond the right to be heard. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02604011

Firestone, G., & Weinstein, J. (2004). In the best interests of children. Family Court Review, 42(2), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.174-1617.2004.tb00644.x

Fluke, J. D., López López, M., Benbenishty, R., Knorth, E. J., & Baumann, D. J. (Eds.). (2020). Decision-making and judgment in child welfare and protection: Theory, research, and practice. Oxford University Press.

Freckelton, I. (2020). Single joint expert witnesses [other journal article]. Journal of Judicial Administration, 29(3), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.3316/agispt.20200512030013

Harmer, A. L., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2014). Practitioners’ opinions of best interests of the child in Australian legislation. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 21(2), 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2013.808977

Keddell, E. (2016). Interpreting children’s best interests: Needs, attachment and decision-making. Journal of Social Work, 17(3), 324–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017316644694

Leviner, P. (2019). Human rights in child protection – Implications for professional practice and policy, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, edited by Asgeir Falch-Eriksen and Elisabeth Backe-Hansen. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 27(4), 863–868. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02704012

Melinder, A., van der Hagen, M. A., & Sandberg, K. (2021). In the best interest of the child: The Norwegian approach to child protection. International Journal on Child Maltreatment : Research, Policy and Practice, 4(3), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42448-021-00078-6

O’Neill, A. T., Bussey, K., Lennings, C. J., & Seidler, K. M. (2022). What constitutes a high-quality child custody evaluation? A qualitative analysis. Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody & Child Development, 19(2), 157–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/26904586.2021.1951419

Otieno Ngira, D. (2021). Understanding children’s rights from a pluralistic legal context: Multi-legalities and the protection of the best interests of the child in rural Kenya. Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 53(3), 545–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2021.1982170

Rathus, Z. (2021). Social scientists operating in the law: A case study of family assessment experts in the Australian family law system. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 35(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebab051

Robertson, L., & Broadhurst, K. (2019). Introducing social science evidence in family court decision-making and adjudication: Evidence from England and Wales. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 33(2), 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebz002

Schepard, A. I. (2004). Children, courts, and custody: Interdisciplinary models for divorcing families. Cambridge University Press.

Sheehan, R., Rhoades, H., & Stanley, N. (2012). Vulnerable children and the law international evidence for improving child welfare, child protection and children’s rights. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Strømland, M., Andersen, A. J. W., Johansen, V. F., & Bahus, M. K. (2019). In your best interest: A discussion of how capability approach could be used as a guideline to strengthen and supplement the principle of the child’s best interests. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 27(3), 517–544. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02703009

Vandenhole, W., Desmet, E., Reynaert, D., & Lembrechts, S. (2015). Routledge international handbook of children’s rights studies. Routledge.

Weinstein, J. (1997). And never the twain shall meet: The best interests of children and the adversary system. University of Miami Law Review, 52(1). https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/umialr52&div=9&id=&page=

Wise, S. (2017). Developments to strengthen systems for child protection across Australia. Child Family Community Australia, Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Human Rights and Social Work

1-6

Thông tin tác giả