The Hidden Proceedings – An Analysis of Accountability of Child Protection Adoption Proceedings in Eight European Jurisdictions

Kenneth Burns, Katrin Kriẑ, J. Krutzinna, Katre Luhamaa, T. Meysen, Tarja Pösö, Sagrario Segado, Marit Skivenes, J. Thoburn
{"title":"The Hidden Proceedings – An Analysis of Accountability of Child Protection Adoption Proceedings in Eight European Jurisdictions","authors":"Kenneth Burns, Katrin Kriẑ, J. Krutzinna, Katre Luhamaa, T. Meysen, Tarja Pösö, Sagrario Segado, Marit Skivenes, J. Thoburn","doi":"10.1163/22134514-00604002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How accountable are decisions about terminating parental rights to ensure an adoption from care? In this paper we examine if the proceedings in eight European jurisdictions are accountable to: a) the private parties, i.e. individuals that are concerned – such as parents, child; b) the general public that authorized the politicians and the government to make legislation; and c) the elected government, i.e. the legislators and the system that have granted the court, court-like or administrative body the authority to make these decisions. Our data material consists of national legislation, organizational guidelines (courts, child protection, or supervisory agencies), statistics and expert knowledge. The conclusions of our analysis are discouraging. There is only limited accountability for one of the most intrusive interventions by a state into the private lives of individuals. There is a lack of information about the proceedings as well as a lack of transparency. We identify systems that, with few exceptions, operate in isolation, with only a few outsiders having access or knowledge about what is going on. We cannot in this study say anything about the decision-making quality in these proceedings, they may be excellent, but the problem is that very few external actors are in a position to examine the quality of the decisions. This missing connection between the wider democratic society and this part of the legal systems in the eight democracies we studied is of huge concern, and we have indications that the situation is equally concerning in other European states.","PeriodicalId":37233,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-00604002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

How accountable are decisions about terminating parental rights to ensure an adoption from care? In this paper we examine if the proceedings in eight European jurisdictions are accountable to: a) the private parties, i.e. individuals that are concerned – such as parents, child; b) the general public that authorized the politicians and the government to make legislation; and c) the elected government, i.e. the legislators and the system that have granted the court, court-like or administrative body the authority to make these decisions. Our data material consists of national legislation, organizational guidelines (courts, child protection, or supervisory agencies), statistics and expert knowledge. The conclusions of our analysis are discouraging. There is only limited accountability for one of the most intrusive interventions by a state into the private lives of individuals. There is a lack of information about the proceedings as well as a lack of transparency. We identify systems that, with few exceptions, operate in isolation, with only a few outsiders having access or knowledge about what is going on. We cannot in this study say anything about the decision-making quality in these proceedings, they may be excellent, but the problem is that very few external actors are in a position to examine the quality of the decisions. This missing connection between the wider democratic society and this part of the legal systems in the eight democracies we studied is of huge concern, and we have indications that the situation is equally concerning in other European states.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
隐藏的程序——欧洲八个司法管辖区儿童保护收养程序的责任分析
终止父母权利以确保收养不受照顾的决定有多可靠?在本文中,我们研究了八个欧洲司法管辖区的诉讼是否对:a)私人当事方,即有关个人-如父母,孩子;B)授权政治家和政府立法的公众;c)民选政府,即立法者和授予法院、类似法院或行政机构做出这些决定的权力的制度。我们的数据材料包括国家立法、组织指南(法院、儿童保护或监管机构)、统计数据和专家知识。我们分析的结论令人沮丧。对于一个国家对个人私生活最具侵入性的干预之一,只有有限的责任。缺乏有关程序的信息,也缺乏透明度。我们确定的系统,除了少数例外,是孤立运行的,只有少数外部人员可以访问或了解正在发生的事情。在本研究中,我们不能对这些程序中的决策质量说任何事情,它们可能是优秀的,但问题是很少有外部参与者能够检查决策的质量。在我们研究的八个民主国家中,更广泛的民主社会和这部分法律体系之间缺失的联系令人非常担忧,我们有迹象表明,其他欧洲国家的情况也同样令人担忧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Green Bond Financing and Corporate Environmental Performance Neuroenhancement Patentability and the Boundaries Conundrum in Psychiatric Disorders Developing Offshore Wind Farms – A Comparison and Analysis of the Legal and Governance Frameworks of the North Sea Coastal States Transfer of Climate Litigation to Biodiversity Protection? Money Makes The World Go Hot – Climate Litigation Against Banks?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1