Swords in the Hands of Babes: Rethinking Custody Interviews after Troxel

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Wisconsin Law Review Pub Date : 2003-09-18 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.438782
Cynthia Lee Starnes
{"title":"Swords in the Hands of Babes: Rethinking Custody Interviews after Troxel","authors":"Cynthia Lee Starnes","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.438782","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As King Solomon understood, custody disputes ordinarily allow no easy answers. Increasingly, legal actors have begun to rely on the child's custodial preference as a proxy for her best interests. In an effort to ascertain this preference without subjecting the child to the trauma of courtroom testimony, many states authorize courts to interview children in camera. Good intentions notwithstanding, these custody interviews pose considerable risk to children, to their parents, and to the State's best-interests quest. These risks increase dramatically when in-camera interviews serve as tools for searching out preferences that have not been publicly volunteered; when children's preferences are given very weighty or dispositive effect; and when the state denies parents an opportunity to challenge the accuracy and reasonableness of their children's statements. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Troxel v. Granville increases the urgency of a reassessment of these custody practices. Troxel's reaffirmation of the significance and breadth of parental rights strengthens parents' claim that procedural due process entitles them to access their children's in-camera statements. While such parental access reduces information risks, it exacerbates process risks for children, and counsels careful attention to the context and consequence of preference interviews. This Article briefly surveys preference practices, considers their costs and benefits, and urges a retreat from preference-driven interviews and preference-determinative custody decisions. The Article also considers parental demands for access to children's in-camera statements, and concludes that although such parental access increases risks for children, procedural due process favors it. Finally, the Article suggests that the law's increasing willingness to delegate the custody decision to children stems partly from failure of the open-ended best-interests custody model, and advocates substitution of a modified version of the ALI's more determinant approximation standard. This modified ALI model would allow a reformulation of in-camera interviews as opportunities for children to engage in free narrative, more fully empowering their speech while freeing them from the burdens of painful choice.","PeriodicalId":54350,"journal":{"name":"Wisconsin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2003-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wisconsin Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.438782","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

As King Solomon understood, custody disputes ordinarily allow no easy answers. Increasingly, legal actors have begun to rely on the child's custodial preference as a proxy for her best interests. In an effort to ascertain this preference without subjecting the child to the trauma of courtroom testimony, many states authorize courts to interview children in camera. Good intentions notwithstanding, these custody interviews pose considerable risk to children, to their parents, and to the State's best-interests quest. These risks increase dramatically when in-camera interviews serve as tools for searching out preferences that have not been publicly volunteered; when children's preferences are given very weighty or dispositive effect; and when the state denies parents an opportunity to challenge the accuracy and reasonableness of their children's statements. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Troxel v. Granville increases the urgency of a reassessment of these custody practices. Troxel's reaffirmation of the significance and breadth of parental rights strengthens parents' claim that procedural due process entitles them to access their children's in-camera statements. While such parental access reduces information risks, it exacerbates process risks for children, and counsels careful attention to the context and consequence of preference interviews. This Article briefly surveys preference practices, considers their costs and benefits, and urges a retreat from preference-driven interviews and preference-determinative custody decisions. The Article also considers parental demands for access to children's in-camera statements, and concludes that although such parental access increases risks for children, procedural due process favors it. Finally, the Article suggests that the law's increasing willingness to delegate the custody decision to children stems partly from failure of the open-ended best-interests custody model, and advocates substitution of a modified version of the ALI's more determinant approximation standard. This modified ALI model would allow a reformulation of in-camera interviews as opportunities for children to engage in free narrative, more fully empowering their speech while freeing them from the burdens of painful choice.
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
宝贝们手中的剑:Troxel之后监护权采访的再思考
正如所罗门王所理解的,监护权纠纷通常不容易解决。越来越多的法律行为者开始依赖孩子对监护权的偏好来代表她的最大利益。为了在不让孩子受到法庭证词的创伤的情况下确定这种偏好,许多州授权法院对儿童进行镜头采访。尽管意图是好的,但这些监护面谈对儿童、他们的父母和国家的最佳利益追求构成了相当大的风险。当摄像机内的采访被用作寻找未公开自愿的偏好的工具时,这些风险急剧增加;当孩子的偏好被赋予非常重要或决定性的影响时;当州政府不给父母挑战孩子陈述的准确性和合理性的机会时。美国最高法院在特罗克塞尔诉格兰维尔案中的裁决增加了重新评估这些监护做法的紧迫性。Troxel重申了父母权利的重要性和广度,这加强了父母的主张,即程序上的正当程序使他们有权获得孩子的镜头内陈述。虽然这样的家长访问减少了信息风险,但它加剧了儿童的过程风险,并建议仔细注意偏好访谈的背景和后果。本文简要地调查了偏好实践,考虑了它们的成本和收益,并敦促从偏好驱动的访谈和偏好决定性的监护决定中撤退。该条还考虑到父母要求获得儿童的镜头内陈述,并得出结论认为,尽管父母的这种访问增加了儿童的风险,但程序上的正当程序有利于它。最后,本文认为,法律越来越愿意将监护权决策权下放给子女,部分原因在于开放式最大利益监护模式的失败,并主张用一种修改版本的ALI更具决定性的近似标准来替代。这种修改后的ALI模型将允许重新制定镜头内采访,使其成为儿童参与自由叙述的机会,更充分地授权他们的言论,同时将他们从痛苦选择的负担中解放出来。
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
Wisconsin Law Review
Wisconsin Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Wisconsin Law Review is a student-run journal of legal analysis and commentary that is used by professors, judges, practitioners, and others researching contemporary legal topics. The Wisconsin Law Review, which is published six times each year, includes professional and student articles, with content spanning local, state, national, and international topics. In addition to publishing the print journal, the Wisconsin Law Review publishes the Wisconsin Law Review Forward and sponsors an annual symposium at which leading scholars debate a significant issue in contemporary law.
期刊最新文献
The October 2021 Term and the Challenge to Progressive Constitutional Theory Debunking the Stranger in the Bushes Myth: The Case for Sexual Assault Protection Orders (Mis)use of State Law in Bankruptcy: The Hanging Paragraph Story Readings in the economics of contract law: Price adjustment in long-term contracts Educating Lawyers for Community
×
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