Suchergebnisse

The Civil Code in force brought some changes in the matter of parental authority, the establishment of the child's residence and other measures that can be taken with regard to children, changes that brought to light a universally applicable rule: the principle of the best interest of the child. The transition from a divided parental authority to a parental authority exercised jointly and equally raised a series of problems. Both the legal subjects involved, mainly the parents, as well as the Courts constantly appealed to the best interest of the child, adopting different solutions from case to case

AbstractAn abolitionist approach to children's work bans all work; a regulatory approach bans harmful work and regulates other work. I argue for a regulatory approach, using the 'least restrictive' alternative test applied in law. I contend, however, that definitions of harmful work must be appropriate to local contexts and informed by working children's views. I support this with a case study of a village in Ethiopia where the current abolitionist approach is overly restrictive. However, a regulatory approach based on international definitions of harmful work would probably not protect children in the case study village against some harmful work. Children and parents in the village are able to define harmful work more precisely than international definitions, suggesting that locally specific definitions developed with working children should form the basis of regulatory legislation. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The 'best interests of the child' is rhetoric often applied and to an obscure legal concept. Nevertheless, it remains one of the most important standards, if not the most important, to be applied when attempting to determine what might be the interests of children at law. But as might be the case with other supposedly fundamental principles, there is much ambiguity in the meaning and uncertainty in the application of this principle and the standard it presumes to impose. Not surprisingly, many questions remain unanswered. Firstly, what exactly is the paramount status of the best interests standard? Secondly, in deciding the best interests of the child, does the ultimate responsibility lie with the judge or does it require some judicial deference to community values, as presumably expressed in the legislation? Lastly, does the standard, as it stands today, run the risk of being so general that its application can easily be distorted? Indeed, given the inherent difficulties in articulation and application of the standard, it might be unrealistic to expect mere legal provisions to ease social and emotional tensions that exist in the realm of child welfare today. As children themselves generally do not make applications to the court, their interests inevitably will be dependent on those of other parties, such as parents and the various professionals who assist them. As long as these principles are sought to be upheld in a system which is philosophically and practically adversarial, our ability to promote, maintain and protect the best interests of children will be inhibited. Is near enough good enough … or is it just the best we can do?

An abolitionist approach to children's work bans all work; a regulatory approach bans harmful work and regulates other work. I argue for a regulatory approach, using the "least restrictive alternative" test commonly applied in law. I contend, however, that definitions of harmful work must appropriately specific to local contexts and informed by the views of working children. I support this with a case study of a village in Ethiopia, where the current abolitionist approach is overly restrictive. However, a regulatory approach based on international definitions of harmful work would probably not protect children against some harmful work. Children and their parents have a better understanding of which work is harmful, so local definitions ought to be the basis of regulatory legislation.

With the rise of divorce mediation as an effective means of resolving divorce and custody disputes, a question that arises is whether a child should actively participate in the mediation process to make his or her voice heard. This article discusses the costs and benefits of involvement, focusing on four specific approaches to the inclusion of children in divorce mediation. This article comes to the conclusion that the integration of children in mediation ought to be considered on a case‐by‐case basis, and further proposes that a child be included in divorce mediation in circumstances where the child's input is needed to help parents resolve an issue of dispute that concerns their child's interests.

Cet article examine l'histoire de l'adoption en Suède par une analyse des évaluations explicites et de la formation des nouvelles familles. Avec en toile de fond les tendances générales des adoptions et leurs transitions, depuis les années 1910 jusqu'aux années 2010, des cas individuels sont exploités pour explorer la façon dont l'adoption a été rendue légitime en référence à l'intérêt supérieur de l'enfant. L'analyse est basée sur les déclarations écrites des travailleurs sociaux concernant les adoptions d'enfants non apparentés, de quatre périodes différentes : les années 1920, 1950, 1970 et 2010. Elle se focalise sur les moyens rhétoriques utilisés pour catégoriser les parents adoptifs en tant que parents appropriés, et sur ce que cela peut nous apprendre sur les nouvelles notions de bonne parentalité et de l'intérêt supérieur de l'enfant. Les résultats sont abordés par rapport aux précédentes recherches, et les différentes approches sont identifiées comme étant décisives pour l'évolution de l'adoption ; notamment que l'adoption est une institution du bien-être de l'enfant qui doit être gérée et contrôlée par l'expertise des travailleurs sociaux, que c'est un acte humanitaire ayant pour objectif principal de « sauver » les enfants dans le besoin, et que c'est un moyen pour aider les couples ne pouvant pas avoir d'enfant à construire une famille. C'est à travers le chevauchement de ces perspectives contestataires mais croisées que l'adoption, ainsi que les significations attribuées à la bonne parentalité et à l'intérêt supérieur de l'enfant, ont changé.

Tarja Pösö uses memory work with professionals to examine the intercountry adoption of Finnish children that took place from the 1950s to the 1970s. Since then, however, Finland has been a receiving country for children adopted from abroad and even the domestic adoption of those born in Finland is rare. The aim of the study is to shed light on the time, space and culture-bound character of child protection and intercountry adoption. The data consist of group conversations with the social workers, now retired, who arranged the intercountry adoptions. The importance of the data is emphasised by the fact that no research or statistics exist on these adoptions; indeed, there is little knowledge that they ever took place. The Finnish example shows that the need and opportunities for intercountry adoptions may vary even within a relatively short period of time. The current global pattern of intercountry adoptions cannot be considered permanent.