Suchergebnisse
Filter
9 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
SSRN
They Persist: Parent and Youth Voice in the Age of Trump
In: Family court review: publ. in assoc. with: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Band 56, Heft 2, S. 308-330
ISSN: 1744-1617
In recent decades, parents and youth involved in the child welfare and foster care systems have created myriad ways to have their voices heard and their concerns appreciated, including through collective self‐advocacy efforts. New forms of individual and communal advocacy have emerged, including with supportive professionals, that acknowledge the centrality of parents and youth in every decision being made about their lives and about the systems that control their lives. Nevertheless, studies of youth and parent engagement identify the numerous individual and systemic barriers to meaningful participation and self‐advocacy efforts and the challenges to overcoming those barriers. This essay explores how empowered parents and youth can surmount those barriers with the assistance of their professional allies. Ultimately, this individual and communal engagement will strengthen a family‐oriented child welfare system and a more responsive government in these uncertain times.
Family Defense and the Disappearing Problem-Solving Court
In: CUNY Law Review, Band 20
SSRN
Dignity Rights: A Response to Peggy Cooper Davis's Little Citizens and Their Families
In: Fordham Urban Law Journal, Band XLII
SSRN
Judicial Leadership in Family Court: A Cautionary Tale
In: 10 Tenn. J. L.& Pol'y 47, Fall 2014
SSRN
A Conversation About Problem-Solving Courts: Take 2
In: University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender & Class, Vol. 10, p. 113, 2010
SSRN
Working paper
ROMANCING THE COURT
In: Family court review: publ. in assoc. with: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Band 46, Heft 2, S. 258-274
ISSN: 1744-1617
Problem‐solving courts, created at the end of the twentieth century, make court‐based solutions central to addressing significant societal problems, such as substance abuse and its impact on criminal activity and family functioning. Yet, lessons gleaned from over 100 years of family court history suggest that court‐based solutions to intractable social problems have rarely been effective. This article asks three questions of the problem‐solving court movement: What problem are we trying to solve? Is the court the best place to solve the problem? What are the consequences of giving authority to a court for solving the problem? Answering those questions through the lens of specific examples from family court—the original problem‐solving court—leads to the conclusion that neither the structural issues that courts face, such as overwhelming numbers of cases, nor the momentous societal issues that problem‐solving courts have recently begun to shoulder can be adequately addressed through court‐based solutions. The factors that allegedly distinguish new problem‐solving courts from earlier exemplars, especially the family court, are both less unique and less successful than they have been portrayed by problem‐solving court enthusiasts. These factors alone fail to justify the expansion of problem‐solving courts without further evidence of their effectiveness. Moreover, the potential dangers inherent in problem‐solving courts are not theoretical. By examining illustrative examples from the history of the family court, the dangers become clearly apparent.
Strengthened Bonds: Abolishing the Child Welfare System and Re-Envisioning Child Well-Being
The 2001 book, Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare, by Dorothy Roberts, called out the racism of the child welfare system and the harms that system perpetrates on families and communities. Twenty years later, despite numerous reform efforts, the racism and profound harms endure. It is time for transformative change. In this foreword to the symposium Strengthened Bonds: Abolishing the Child Welfare System and Re-Envisioning Child Well-Being, honoring the 20th anniversary of Shattered Bonds, we highlight Professor Roberts' articulation of her development as a family policing abolitionist and summarize the articles and comments contributed from scholars in numerous disciplines and well as impacted parents, family defense advocates and system-change activists. These contributions help us learn from history and political theory; focus on the unique and shared circumstances of Native American families; critique, and call for repeal of, much of current law; condemn the punitive, and racially disproportionate, surveillance of families; and demand a new approach that diverts the massive funding of the foster-care industrial complex into support, services, and healing for families, tribes, and communities. We call for abolition of the family regulation system, the term we use as a more accurate description of what is commonly called the child welfare or child protection system. We situate this call in the context of the more developed movement for prison abolition. The current system is predicated on seeing individual parents as a risk to their children. It fails to see the strengths and resilience of parents and families; the harms of surveillance and removal; and the structural forces that harm children by failing to invest in adequate housing, income, child care, health and mental health services, and educational opportunities for all families. Abolition provides the transformative mind-set that will enable loving and strengthened families to raise happy, healthy, safe, educated, and imaginative children.
BASE
Foreword: Strengthened Bonds: Abolishing the Child Welfare System and Re-envisioning Child Well-Being
In: Columbia Public Law Research Paper
SSRN