Suchergebnisse

This essay examines the continued use of parental marital status as a gatekeeper to determine third‐party standing. Under the statutory law of about half the states, nonparents lack standing to seek contact with a child over parental objection if the child's parents are in an intact marriage. A typical statutory framework grants access to court only if a parent has died or the parents are divorced or never married. While such a framework may have intuitive appeal, case law reveals the illogical results it can produce. Moreover, the framework defines parental liberty based on marital status – an approach in tension, if not in direct conflict, with Troxel. At the same time, the framework disserves children's interests by ignoring their established relationships with third parties in determining standing. Alternative approaches proposed by the Uniform Law Commission and the American Law Institute, which impose a heightened burden of proof and require a showing of harm to the child if contact is denied, would give parental liberty a more even‐handed deference while also respecting the importance of children's established bonds.

Declared a public health emergency by the federal government, the opioid crisis often places children in foster care when parents fatally succumb to their addictions. To unburden the foster care system and to accommodate family members who want to care for these children, Pennsylvania enacted Act No. 21 on July 3, 2018, to expand custody standing to include certain third parties. However, because the legislature has not expanded the legal definition of "parent," Act No. 21 poses a threat to the legal rights of nonbiological LGBTQ parents. This Comment begins by explaining how the opioid crisis motivated the Pennsylvania legislature to amend the statute. This Comment then explores the negative ramifications of expanded standing on LGBTQ families. After examining the current rights of LGBTQ parents in Pennsylvania, this Comment demonstrates how the amendment impacts these rights. Legal scholars have analyzed how LGBTQ familial structures can become increasingly vulnerable when the localized nature of family law allows community morality to inform custody decisions. This Comment adds to this line of scholarship by placing the law within the larger scholarly discussion about LGBTQ parental rights. This Comment finally concludes with two suggestions to help protect LGBTQ parental rights: statutory recognition of "de facto parenthood" and offering proactive legal assistance to low-income LGBTQ parents so they can memorialize their parental intentions.

Japan's Antimonopoly Proceeding has repeatedly changed throughout the 21st century. Originally enacted as the Preliminary Review Procedure, the administrative process evolved into the Complaint Review Procedure from 2005 to 2013, before becoming the Direct Appeal to District Court Procedure in effect now. The proceedings allow the Japan Fair Trade Commission ("JFTC") to regulate the market and shield it from monopolistic behavior. The Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers, and Publishers ("JASRAC") dominates the music copyright management service provider industry in Japan. The company's fee collection methods led the JFTC to issue it a cease and desist order under the Antimonopoly Act. JASRAC subsequently initiated the administrative review process, which was the Complaint Review Procedure at the time, and the case was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court of Japan. During the litigation process, e-License, JASRAC's sole competitor, became involved as well, raising unique third party standing issues in conjunction with the Antimonopoly Act. Accompanied by a partial translation of the Tokyo High Court opinion in the JASRAC case, this comment analyzes the Japanese Antimonopoly Act and its administrative review process, while focusing on the procedural posture presented. As the Japanese government continues its efforts to halt monopolistic activities and enforce the statute, the issue of whether third parties have standing to sue will remain relevant moving forward.

Introduction: This Occasional Paper considers the need to update Victorian environmental law in connection with the law of standing and the rights of third parties to appeal the decisions of environmental regulators. Two recent events have combined to make such a consideration timely and appropriate. First, during the recent election strong commitments were made "to give Victorians a better Government by revitalising Victoria's democracy, restoring the checks and balances that keep government honest and accountable, and returning proper standards of conduct to government". In the environmental context, it was emphasised that "[u]nderpinning Labor's approach to conservation and the environment is a fundamental commitment to greater accountability and public scrutiny". As discussed below, opening up the law of standing and expanding third party appeal rights would help to ensure that these important commitments are met. Second, the impetus to consider reforming the law of standing in the environmental realm has also been prompted by the recent unanimous High Court of Australia ruling in Truth About Motorways Pty Ltd v Macquarie Infrastructure Management Ltd.1 The High Court held that open standing provisions are beyond any doubt constitutional. More importantly, however, in Truth About Motorways the High Court emphasized that open standing provisions serve salutary public interest purposes in contemporary administrative circumstances. Accordingly, it seems advisable in such circumstances to seriously the adequacy of the current standing and third party appeal arrangements in Victoria. The need for such a review becomes even more apparent when one discovers, as discussed below, that except in two important but limited circumstances, open standing and third party appeal rights in Victorian environmental law are lacking. This memorandum proceeds as follows. It first highlights current opportunities for the reform of Victorian environmental law to provide for open standing and third party appeal rights. It next turns its attention to contemporary international norms that reflect the considered view of the international community about the importance of public participation, including by use of the courts, in the environmental field. It then considers the pros and cons of reforming the law to provide for open standing and third party appeal rights. This memorandum also includes a detailed Appendix which sets out statutory provisions across Australia, and internationally, that provide both unqualified and qualified open standing to members of the public to enforce environmental law. The Appendix also contains a large number of examples of Australian statutes that provide third party appeal rights in connection with administrative environmental decisionmaking.

THREE MAJOR POINTS OF INTERACTION BETWEEN PARTY LEADERS & STANDING COMMITTEES IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ARE IDENTIFIED. THESE INVOLVE COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS, SCHEDULING OF FLOOR ACTIVITY, & THE SUBSTANCE OF LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS. FOUR PRINCIPAL FACTORS INFLUENCE THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP: PERSONALITIES OF INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED, BASIC POLICY STANCES OF INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED.