Law and Children’s Decision Making: What Is the Rights Approach?

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW Laws Pub Date : 2023-08-15 DOI:10.3390/laws12040071
J. Tobin
{"title":"Law and Children’s Decision Making: What Is the Rights Approach?","authors":"J. Tobin","doi":"10.3390/laws12040071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper outlines three broad models that have informed the relationship between the law and children’s involvement in decision making—the property/instrumentalist approach, the welfare approach, and a rights-based approach. It identifies and critiques contemporary legal practices that regulate children’s decision making against the standards required under a rights-based approach. The focus is on three contexts—(i) statutory bright line minimum age rules; (ii) presumptive age limits, and (iii) individual decision making involving children where there is often an interplay between the principle of Gillick competency and the parens patriae jurisdiction of a court. The key arguments advanced are that a rights-based approach tolerates minimum age rules and presumptive age limits under certain conditions. A rights-based approach also aligns closely with the principle of Gillick competency but offers a deeper and more nuanced insight into how to enable and support decision making with children across childhood. Finally, a rights-based approach also offers novel insights into how the parens patriae jurisdiction of common law courts, with its historical emphasis on the protection of children, could be developed to better protect children’s rights and decisional autonomy.","PeriodicalId":30534,"journal":{"name":"Laws","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laws","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/laws12040071","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This paper outlines three broad models that have informed the relationship between the law and children’s involvement in decision making—the property/instrumentalist approach, the welfare approach, and a rights-based approach. It identifies and critiques contemporary legal practices that regulate children’s decision making against the standards required under a rights-based approach. The focus is on three contexts—(i) statutory bright line minimum age rules; (ii) presumptive age limits, and (iii) individual decision making involving children where there is often an interplay between the principle of Gillick competency and the parens patriae jurisdiction of a court. The key arguments advanced are that a rights-based approach tolerates minimum age rules and presumptive age limits under certain conditions. A rights-based approach also aligns closely with the principle of Gillick competency but offers a deeper and more nuanced insight into how to enable and support decision making with children across childhood. Finally, a rights-based approach also offers novel insights into how the parens patriae jurisdiction of common law courts, with its historical emphasis on the protection of children, could be developed to better protect children’s rights and decisional autonomy.
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
法律与儿童决策:什么是权利方法?
本文概述了三种广泛的模式,它们为法律和儿童参与决策之间的关系提供了信息——财产/工具主义方法、福利方法和基于权利的方法。它确定并批评了当代法律实践,这些实践规范了儿童的决策,违反了基于权利的方法所要求的标准。重点放在三个方面——(i)法定的最低年龄规则;(ii)推定年龄限制,以及(iii)涉及儿童的个人决策,其中Gillick能力原则和法院的父母管辖权之间经常存在相互作用。提出的关键论点是,基于权利的方法在某些条件下容忍最低年龄规则和推定年龄限制。基于权利的方法也与Gillick能力原则密切一致,但对如何在整个童年时期支持和支持儿童的决策提供了更深入、更细致的见解。最后,一种基于权利的方法也为如何发展以保护儿童为历史重点的普通法法院的父系管辖权,以更好地保护儿童的权利和决策自主权提供了新的见解。
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
Laws
Laws LAW-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
77
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Energy Security, Energy Transition, and Foreign Investments: An Evolving Complex Relationship The Right to Data Portability as a Personal Right Beyond Auto-Brewery: Why Dysbiosis and the Legalome Matter to Forensic and Legal Psychology The OECD Dispute Resolution System in Tax Controversies Reconceptualizing Policing for Cybercrime: Perspectives from Singapore
×
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