Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2023.2175545
Mavis Maclean
{"title":"Editorial","authors":"Mavis Maclean","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2023.2175545","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2023.2175545","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"45 1","pages":"1 - 2"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46646790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-23DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2022.2148233
{"title":"Notice of duplicate publication: Editorial","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2022.2148233","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2148233","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46841839","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2022.2136711
N. Ho
ABSTRACT As the psychological impact of childhood exposure to domestic abuse gains more traction, referring to children as ‘the hidden victims of domestic abuse’ is becoming increasingly inaccurate and reductionist. Representing children as mere witnesses of domestic abuse also poses wider implications from the view of law and policy. Jurisdictions which recognise children as direct victims rather than hidden witnesses of domestic abuse, for example, send a clear message that the psychological harm of experiencing domestic abuse merits robust intervention (e.g. additional funding for child-specific support and services). Using a comparative approach, this study analyses the legal recognition of children who experience domestic abuse for the purposes of exploring how the child should be conceptualised in laws regulating childhood exposure to domestic abuse. For this comparative review, the jurisdictions of England and Wales, New Zealand and the United States (specifically the State of Washington) were selected, on the basis that they all respond to child experiences of domestic abuse in distinct ways that raise pertinent points of contrast. Whilst the State of Washington relies primarily on perpetrator-centric, criminal law responses to child experiences of domestic abuse, England and Wales and New Zealand resort to family law mechanisms that focus more on the child and the parent–child relationship. All in all, these points of contrast are pertinent because they provide an exploratory view of how the child should be conceptualised in law and policy. As this paper submits, conceptualising the child as a direct victim of domestic abuse––as reflected in England and Wales and New Zealand’s legislative efforts––works to send a powerful message about the severity of harm that children suffer when they experience domestic abuse. The State of Washington, on the other hand, has much to learn from England and Wales and New Zealand’s conceptualisation of the child, as its current legislative efforts appear to be rooted in an outdated understanding of the child as a mere collateral witness.
{"title":"Children – the hidden or direct victims of domestic abuse?","authors":"N. Ho","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2022.2136711","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2136711","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As the psychological impact of childhood exposure to domestic abuse gains more traction, referring to children as ‘the hidden victims of domestic abuse’ is becoming increasingly inaccurate and reductionist. Representing children as mere witnesses of domestic abuse also poses wider implications from the view of law and policy. Jurisdictions which recognise children as direct victims rather than hidden witnesses of domestic abuse, for example, send a clear message that the psychological harm of experiencing domestic abuse merits robust intervention (e.g. additional funding for child-specific support and services). Using a comparative approach, this study analyses the legal recognition of children who experience domestic abuse for the purposes of exploring how the child should be conceptualised in laws regulating childhood exposure to domestic abuse. For this comparative review, the jurisdictions of England and Wales, New Zealand and the United States (specifically the State of Washington) were selected, on the basis that they all respond to child experiences of domestic abuse in distinct ways that raise pertinent points of contrast. Whilst the State of Washington relies primarily on perpetrator-centric, criminal law responses to child experiences of domestic abuse, England and Wales and New Zealand resort to family law mechanisms that focus more on the child and the parent–child relationship. All in all, these points of contrast are pertinent because they provide an exploratory view of how the child should be conceptualised in law and policy. As this paper submits, conceptualising the child as a direct victim of domestic abuse––as reflected in England and Wales and New Zealand’s legislative efforts––works to send a powerful message about the severity of harm that children suffer when they experience domestic abuse. The State of Washington, on the other hand, has much to learn from England and Wales and New Zealand’s conceptualisation of the child, as its current legislative efforts appear to be rooted in an outdated understanding of the child as a mere collateral witness.","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"44 1","pages":"512 - 528"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47526880","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2022.2136714
Rachel McPherson
ABSTRACT This paper considers the implications and unintended consequences of the increased use of non-harassment orders in criminal proceedings. In particular, it considers how non-harassment orders co-exist with the existing framework for decisions related to child contact proceedings. In this paper it will be shown that while non-harassment orders are needed for the protection of the victim and any child of the family, such orders may impact upon the traditional routes in which child contact decisions are made. This fact has not been the subject of consideration but is very significant given the inherent tension which results in a landscape where there is a trend towards respect for the views of children in Scottish child contact proceedings. It is recommended that priority must now be given to the use of such orders in cases involving children. Opportunities to consider this issue in more detail are highlighted.
{"title":"Unintended consequences of non-harassment orders: child contact decision-making","authors":"Rachel McPherson","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2022.2136714","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2136714","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper considers the implications and unintended consequences of the increased use of non-harassment orders in criminal proceedings. In particular, it considers how non-harassment orders co-exist with the existing framework for decisions related to child contact proceedings. In this paper it will be shown that while non-harassment orders are needed for the protection of the victim and any child of the family, such orders may impact upon the traditional routes in which child contact decisions are made. This fact has not been the subject of consideration but is very significant given the inherent tension which results in a landscape where there is a trend towards respect for the views of children in Scottish child contact proceedings. It is recommended that priority must now be given to the use of such orders in cases involving children. Opportunities to consider this issue in more detail are highlighted.","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"44 1","pages":"495 - 511"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44149930","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2022.2136708
E. Hitchings
{"title":"Editorial","authors":"E. Hitchings","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2022.2136708","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2136708","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"44 1","pages":"429 - 430"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45843495","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2022.2136704
Lucy Crompton
ABSTRACT This case review critiques Cohen J’s judgment in Goddard-Watts v Goddard-Watts [2022] EWHC 711 (Fam), a second rehearing of the wife’s application for financial remedies on divorce. The foundational critique is Cohen J’s minimisation of the husband’s fraudulent non-disclosure of a massive increase in the value of some shares, which had necessitated the rehearing. I argue that the judge failed to consider whether the husband’s non-disclosure had undermined the basis on which the original consent order had been made: the husband had received more than half of the capital based largely on the risk associated with the shares, which had clearly paid off. The judge also failed to consider whether the decision in the first rehearing that the increase in the value of the shares was attributable to the husband’s post-separation endeavour was undermined by his failure to disclose the size of the increase. I critique the judge for making a needs-based award to the wife, arguing that this switches focus to the wife, further obscuring the husband’s deceit. Switching to needs allows the judge to retreat to safe ground where he can avoid difficult questions about the impact of the husband’s fraud on his ability to resist sharing his wealth with the wife.
{"title":"The curious case of the vanishing fraud","authors":"Lucy Crompton","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2022.2136704","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2136704","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This case review critiques Cohen J’s judgment in Goddard-Watts v Goddard-Watts [2022] EWHC 711 (Fam), a second rehearing of the wife’s application for financial remedies on divorce. The foundational critique is Cohen J’s minimisation of the husband’s fraudulent non-disclosure of a massive increase in the value of some shares, which had necessitated the rehearing. I argue that the judge failed to consider whether the husband’s non-disclosure had undermined the basis on which the original consent order had been made: the husband had received more than half of the capital based largely on the risk associated with the shares, which had clearly paid off. The judge also failed to consider whether the decision in the first rehearing that the increase in the value of the shares was attributable to the husband’s post-separation endeavour was undermined by his failure to disclose the size of the increase. I critique the judge for making a needs-based award to the wife, arguing that this switches focus to the wife, further obscuring the husband’s deceit. Switching to needs allows the judge to retreat to safe ground where he can avoid difficult questions about the impact of the husband’s fraud on his ability to resist sharing his wealth with the wife.","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"44 1","pages":"537 - 540"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48279303","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2022.2136713
L. Mulcahy, Anna Tsalapatanis
ABSTRACT England and Wales are in the middle of an ambitious court reform programme, a key element of which is the shift to more online hearings in appropriate cases. This raises a series of new questions for the judiciary, not least of which is whether there are circumstances in which a video hearing is unsuitable because a key participant is not able to engage effectively online. This article considers current thinking about the circumstances in which a case should be excluded from the list of online proceedings and compares judicial approaches to what we know of digital disadvantage from the social science literature. The authors draw on emerging judicial statements about threshold competencies, and original research with court staff, regular participants in court hearings and lay users. It is argued that the complex dynamics of digital disadvantage are frequently misunderstood and underestimated. This article makes clear the need for a more in-depth consideration of the multiple ways in which digital disadvantage manifests itself beyond a lack of equipment or skills. In doing so it raises critical questions about what we mean by user perspectives and how the voices of users are being heard.
{"title":"Exclusion in the interests of inclusion: who should stay offline in the emerging world of online justice?","authors":"L. Mulcahy, Anna Tsalapatanis","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2022.2136713","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2136713","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT England and Wales are in the middle of an ambitious court reform programme, a key element of which is the shift to more online hearings in appropriate cases. This raises a series of new questions for the judiciary, not least of which is whether there are circumstances in which a video hearing is unsuitable because a key participant is not able to engage effectively online. This article considers current thinking about the circumstances in which a case should be excluded from the list of online proceedings and compares judicial approaches to what we know of digital disadvantage from the social science literature. The authors draw on emerging judicial statements about threshold competencies, and original research with court staff, regular participants in court hearings and lay users. It is argued that the complex dynamics of digital disadvantage are frequently misunderstood and underestimated. This article makes clear the need for a more in-depth consideration of the multiple ways in which digital disadvantage manifests itself beyond a lack of equipment or skills. In doing so it raises critical questions about what we mean by user perspectives and how the voices of users are being heard.","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"44 1","pages":"455 - 476"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43812736","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2022.2136712
Rita Griffiths, R. Cain
ABSTRACT Intended to simplify benefits and encourage paid employment, Universal Credit is the UK’s main working-age benefit. Assessed and paid monthly in arrears to low-income individuals and couples with and without earnings, the single monthly payment is based on entitlement, less a proportion deducted for any household earnings and/or debts. Research has highlighted the financial hardship that deductions for debts can cause for claimants. Less attention has been paid to the experiences of couples who have joint liability for repaying debts that one or both of the partners may have accrued, including those which may pre-date the start of their current partnership. Drawing on new empirical research findings, we explore the effects of deductions in the context of a joint Universal Credit claim, and on the different partners. The paper argues that greater stringency, data sharing and automation in the capture and recovery of debts, compared with the legacy system, have reduced the scope for flexibility and discretion in the way debts are collected and deductions are administered. This is creating additional financial hardship and potential relationship instability for couples for whom adverse financial and emotional effects can be multiplied. Options for reform are discussed.
{"title":"Universal Credit, deductions and ‘sexually transmitted’ debt","authors":"Rita Griffiths, R. Cain","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2022.2136712","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2136712","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Intended to simplify benefits and encourage paid employment, Universal Credit is the UK’s main working-age benefit. Assessed and paid monthly in arrears to low-income individuals and couples with and without earnings, the single monthly payment is based on entitlement, less a proportion deducted for any household earnings and/or debts. Research has highlighted the financial hardship that deductions for debts can cause for claimants. Less attention has been paid to the experiences of couples who have joint liability for repaying debts that one or both of the partners may have accrued, including those which may pre-date the start of their current partnership. Drawing on new empirical research findings, we explore the effects of deductions in the context of a joint Universal Credit claim, and on the different partners. The paper argues that greater stringency, data sharing and automation in the capture and recovery of debts, compared with the legacy system, have reduced the scope for flexibility and discretion in the way debts are collected and deductions are administered. This is creating additional financial hardship and potential relationship instability for couples for whom adverse financial and emotional effects can be multiplied. Options for reform are discussed.","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"44 1","pages":"431 - 454"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45356492","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2022.2136703
J. Masson
In Re H-W [2022] UKSC 17 the Supreme Court examined the standards for decisionmaking and proportionality in care cases, revisiting an area thoroughly considered in and after Munby P’s decision in Re B-S (Children)(Adoption Order: Leave to Oppose) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 and creating a bright line for the test for appeals. In a single judgement, it held that it was no longer enough for judges to do the right thing i.e. not be wrong, they must now make decisions in the right way. Failure to consider all the court’s powers (Children Act 1989, s.1(3)(g)), comparing each option, holistically, with all the others as set out by McFarlane LJ in Re G (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Welfare Evaluation) [2013] EWCA Civ 965 was fatal. There were no allowances for experience of first instance judges, extempore judgements or the pressure of making decisions in the family court. At a stroke the Supreme Court imposed a more stringent test for proportionality in care cases; a decision could only be upheld where the judge’s reasoning fully explained why all other options for mitigating risks and securing welfare, not just realistic ones, have been rejected. Decision-making was not only about substance but also structure and form (cf Munby P in Re R (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1625, paras 18 and 68). A summary of the facts There was a long history of neglect and sexual abuse in the mother’s extended family. In care proceedings in 2013, her son, A, was found to have abused her daughters B and C, and F2, the father of her youngest daughter, E, was found to have had a sexually abusive relationship with the mother, starting in her early teens. The court made a care order for A who was and placed in foster care; residence and supervision orders for B, C, D and E, who remained with their mother. F2ʹs application for residence of E was rejected and an injunction made preventing him entering the family home. Although the supervision orders expired in 2015, the local authority remained involved with M and her current partner, F3. In 2016, there were care proceedings in respect of F3ʹs children who, with the exception of G, were living with their mother; G was made subject of child arrangements and supervision orders to live with F3, but the placement broke down and G went into care. The local authority conducted family assessments in 2016/17 but M did not tell them that she had taken B for a week’s holiday with F2, where they had all shared a chalet, information that only emerged in the latest care proceedings. Child protection plans for
在Re H-W [2022] UKSC 17中，最高法院审查了护理案件中的决策和比例标准，重新审视了Munby P在Re B-S(儿童)(收养令:反对许可)[2013]EWCA Civ 1146中的决定中和之后彻底考虑的领域，并为上诉测试创造了一条清晰的界限。在一个单一的判决中，它认为法官仅仅做正确的事(即不犯错)已经不够了，他们现在必须以正确的方式做出决定。未能考虑到法院的所有权力(1989年《儿童法案》第1(3)(g)条)，将每个选项与McFarlane LJ在Re g (A Child)(护理程序:福利评估)[2013]EWCA Civ 965中所规定的所有其他选项进行整体比较是致命的。没有考虑到初审法官的经验、临时判决或在家事法庭作出裁决的压力。最高法院一下子对护理案件的比例性实施了更严格的检验;只有当法官的推理充分解释了为什么所有其他减轻风险和确保福利的选择都被拒绝，而不仅仅是现实的选择，一个决定才能得到维持。决策不仅涉及内容，还涉及结构和形式(参见Munby P in Re R (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1625，第18和68段)。在这位母亲的大家庭中，长期以来一直存在忽视和性虐待的现象。在2013年的看护程序中，她的儿子A被发现虐待女儿B和C，她最小的女儿E的父亲F2被发现从她十几岁的时候就开始与母亲发生性虐待关系。法院对被寄养的a作出照料令;对B、C、D和E的居留和监管令，他们仍与母亲在一起。F2的居留申请被拒绝，并发出禁令，禁止他进入家庭住宅。尽管监管令于2015年到期，但当地政府仍与M及其现任伴侣F3有关系。2016年，对35名儿童进行了照料程序，除G外，这些儿童与母亲生活在一起;G受到儿童安排和监督令的约束，与F3一起生活，但安置破裂，G进入了护理中心。当地政府在2016/17年度进行了家庭评估，但M没有告诉他们她带B和F2一起度假一周，他们在那里共享一个小木屋，这些信息直到最近的护理程序中才出现。儿童保护计划
{"title":"Judging care proceedings – ‘it’s not what you do it’s the way that you do it’","authors":"J. Masson","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2022.2136703","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2136703","url":null,"abstract":"In Re H-W [2022] UKSC 17 the Supreme Court examined the standards for decisionmaking and proportionality in care cases, revisiting an area thoroughly considered in and after Munby P’s decision in Re B-S (Children)(Adoption Order: Leave to Oppose) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 and creating a bright line for the test for appeals. In a single judgement, it held that it was no longer enough for judges to do the right thing i.e. not be wrong, they must now make decisions in the right way. Failure to consider all the court’s powers (Children Act 1989, s.1(3)(g)), comparing each option, holistically, with all the others as set out by McFarlane LJ in Re G (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Welfare Evaluation) [2013] EWCA Civ 965 was fatal. There were no allowances for experience of first instance judges, extempore judgements or the pressure of making decisions in the family court. At a stroke the Supreme Court imposed a more stringent test for proportionality in care cases; a decision could only be upheld where the judge’s reasoning fully explained why all other options for mitigating risks and securing welfare, not just realistic ones, have been rejected. Decision-making was not only about substance but also structure and form (cf Munby P in Re R (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1625, paras 18 and 68). A summary of the facts There was a long history of neglect and sexual abuse in the mother’s extended family. In care proceedings in 2013, her son, A, was found to have abused her daughters B and C, and F2, the father of her youngest daughter, E, was found to have had a sexually abusive relationship with the mother, starting in her early teens. The court made a care order for A who was and placed in foster care; residence and supervision orders for B, C, D and E, who remained with their mother. F2ʹs application for residence of E was rejected and an injunction made preventing him entering the family home. Although the supervision orders expired in 2015, the local authority remained involved with M and her current partner, F3. In 2016, there were care proceedings in respect of F3ʹs children who, with the exception of G, were living with their mother; G was made subject of child arrangements and supervision orders to live with F3, but the placement broke down and G went into care. The local authority conducted family assessments in 2016/17 but M did not tell them that she had taken B for a week’s holiday with F2, where they had all shared a chalet, information that only emerged in the latest care proceedings. Child protection plans for","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"44 1","pages":"533 - 536"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43413364","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2022.2136710
Bridgette Toy-Cronin
ABSTRACT Courts around the world moved rapidly to adopt remote hearings as the Covid-19 pandemic took hold. This accelerated a trend that pre-dated the pandemic, as governments and courts looked to remote hearings for their potential cost savings and the promise of greater accessibility. The debate about remote hearings has focused on using audio-visual technology, but audio-only hearings are widely used and involve the much more accessible technology, the telephone. Can an effective hearing (a key component of access to justice) be delivered by telephone? Drawing on a study of the New Zealand housing court, this article considers the benefits and problems for tenants – unrepresented and often vulnerable participants – when using audio-only hearings. It concludes that audio-hearings do offer the potential for greater access to justice as long as these hearings include adequate preparation, access to information, and support for the tenants.
{"title":"A happy medium? Telephone hearings for litigants in person facing housing eviction","authors":"Bridgette Toy-Cronin","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2022.2136710","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2136710","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Courts around the world moved rapidly to adopt remote hearings as the Covid-19 pandemic took hold. This accelerated a trend that pre-dated the pandemic, as governments and courts looked to remote hearings for their potential cost savings and the promise of greater accessibility. The debate about remote hearings has focused on using audio-visual technology, but audio-only hearings are widely used and involve the much more accessible technology, the telephone. Can an effective hearing (a key component of access to justice) be delivered by telephone? Drawing on a study of the New Zealand housing court, this article considers the benefits and problems for tenants – unrepresented and often vulnerable participants – when using audio-only hearings. It concludes that audio-hearings do offer the potential for greater access to justice as long as these hearings include adequate preparation, access to information, and support for the tenants.","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"44 1","pages":"477 - 494"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48623583","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：