Explore the vast range of titles available.

A large proportion of child contact cases in England take place within a context of domestic abuse and significant risks to victims and their childrenq associated with post separation contact. The legal response has largely been inadequate and the potential impact of human rights law by the family courts has yet to be fully explored. This paper analyses an exploratory empirical research project undertaken in 2017/2018 with Women's Aid England and 72 victims of domestic abuse regarding their experiences of human rights law in the family courts. The results, theorised through the lens of performativity and against the context of international human rights law, reveal a high level of non- performativity with respect to the human rights of the participants. The paper concludes with recommendations and the implications the analysis holds for feminist organisations if they are to fully realise the human rights of the victims of domestic abuse.

Much academic attention has been devoted to violence against women (VAW) in Europe and research has focused on the mounting policy reform initiatives and capacity building strategies in the EU. Council of Europe initiatives in this area have, surprisingly, by contrast, remained under-researched. This paper seeks to fill the gap in the literature by engaging in an examination and critique of the ways in which the Council of Europe has incorporated and framed VAW within various legal and policy initiatives. It will employ a methodology of critical frame analysis as theorised by the literature on social movements, and anti-essentialist critiques within feminist literature to ask: how VAW is problematised; what solutions are offered; where they are located; to what extent they are gendered; and who has a voice in these policy and legal texts.

This article presents empirical findings from a research study conducted by Women’s Aid Federation England and Queen Mary University of London looking at domestic abuse and the family courts. The study found that allegations of parental alienation were frequently being used during child arrangements proceedings to obscure and undermine allegations of domestic abuse. These findings are presented against a backdrop of a recent revival of ideas around alienation in the family court in England and Wales. The article highlights a growing body of evidence demonstrating the gendered assumptions underlying parental alienation as a concept, and argues that the concept should not be accepted without analysis and understanding of the harmful impact it has on survivors of domestic abuse and their children.

The ‘best interests’ standard is a highly seductive standard in English law. Not only does it appear to be fairly uncontroversial but it also presents as the most sensible, objective and ‘fair’ method of dealing with decision making on behalf of those who are perceived to be the most vulnerable within society. This article aims to provide a critical appraisal of how the standard has been applied within family law, to outline how the standard is to be applied within healthcare law and, finally, to assess the relevance of the family law experience of the best interests standard to the operation of the standards as envisaged by the MCA.

There has been a widespread resurgence of rights talk in social and legal discourses pertaining to the regulation of family life, as well as an increase in the use of rights in family law cases, in the UK, the US, Canada and Australia. Rights, Gender and Family Law addresses the implications of these developments – and, in particular, the impact of rights-based approaches upon the idea of welfare and its practical application. There are now many areas of family law in which rights and welfare based approaches have been forced together. But whilst, to many, they are premised upon different ethics – respectively, of justice and of care – for others, they can nevertheless be reconciled. In this respect, a central concern is the 'gender-blind' character of rights-based approaches, and the ontological and practical consequences of their employment in the gendered context of the family. Rights, Gender and Family Law explores the tensions between rights-based and welfare-based approaches: explaining their differences and connections; considering whether, if at all, they are reconcilable; and addressing the extent to which they can advantage or disadvantage the interests of women, children and men. It may be that rights-based discourses will dominate family law, at least in the way that social policy and legislation respond to calls of equality of rights between mothers and fathers. This collection, however, argues that rights cannot be given centre-stage without thinking through the ramifications for gendered power-relations, and the welfare of children. It will be of interest to researchers and scholars working in the fields of family law, gender studies and social welfare. 1. Welfare, Rights, Care and Gender in Family Law, Shazia Choudhry, Jonathan Herring and Julie Wallbank 2. Gender, Rights, Responsibilities and Social Policy, Brid Featherstone 3. Child Protection, Gender and Rights, Felicity Kaganas 4. Rights and Responsibility: Girls and Boys Who Behave Badly, Christine Piper 5. (En)Gendering The Fusion of Rights and Responsibilities in the Law of Contact, Julie Wallbank 6. Fatherhood, Law and Fathers’ Rights: Rethinking the Relationship Between Gender and Welfare, Richard Collier 7. Mandatory Prosecution and Arrest as a Form of Compliance with Due Diligence Duties in Domestic Violence – The Gender Implications, Shazia Choudhry 8. The Limitations of Equality Discourses on the Contours of Intimate Obligations, Lisa Glennon 9. Public Norms and Private Lives: Rights, Fairness and Family Law, Alison Diduck 10. The Identification of ‘Parents’ and ‘Siblings’: New Possibilities under the Reformed Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, Caroline Jones 11. Children with Exceptional Needs: Welfare, Rights and Caring Responsibilities, Joanna Bridgeman 12. Relational Autonomy and Family Law, Jonathan Herring 13. Concluding Thoughts: The Enduring Chaos of Family Law, Helen Rhodes Julie Wallbank is Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Leeds. Shazia Choudhry is Senior Lecturer in Law at Queen Mary, University of London. Jonathan Herring is a Fellow at Exeter College, Oxford University.

My work in the field of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and domestic family law grew out of concern as to whether the so-called 'paramountcy principle' contained in the Children Act 1989 (CA 1989) was compatible with the ECHR as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). My first examination of its compatibility took place within the context of the extension of the paramountcy principle from private law children proceedings to public law adoption proceedings by the Adoption and Children Act 2002. This evolved into a larger and more detailed analysis with Professor Helen Fenwick, an expert in the field of human rights, of the compatibility of the principle in both private and public law proceedings under the CA 1989 within the broader context of the merits of adopting a rights-based approach to applications by parents under the act. This also examined in detail what I considered to be a great deal of sceptism about the adoption of a rights based approach and the possible reasons for it within the domestic family law field. After this, I was able to provide a detailed analysis of the merits of adopting a rights based approach to the issue of domestic violence with Professor Jonathan Herring in two further publications. All of these publications therefore form part of the body of work on which the PhD is based.

This article argues that resistance to the Human Rights Act has built up in the context of disputes relating to children and that such resistance is founded in the attachment of the courts to the welfare or paramountcy principle as currently conceived—the principle that the child’s welfare automatically prevails over the rights of other family members. It argues that the failure to take account of Convention arguments could only be a legitimate stance if there was no conflict between the demands of the welfare principle and those of the Convention guarantees, but that in fact the approach of the European Court of Human Rights differs considerably from that of the UK courts since it seeks to balance the rights of different family members. The article goes on to argue that, taking account of the Strasbourg stance and of the already established domestic recognition of the presumptive equality of competing qualified Convention rights, it is time to accept the adoption of a new model of judicial reasoning in the context of disputes over children—the ‘parallel analysis’ or ‘ultimate balancing act’.

Forced Marriage brings together leading practitioners and researchers from the disciplines of criminology, sociology and law to provide a compelling alternative perspective to the problem of forced marriage. The volume examines advances in theoretical debates, analyses existing research and presents new evidence that challenges the cultural essentialism that often characterises efforts to explain, and even justify, this violation of women's rights. By locating forced marriage within broader debates on violence against women, social justice and human rights, the authors offer an intersectional perspective that can be used to inform both theory and practice, making this unique book essential reading for practitioners and students alike.

This book examines the idea of 'parental responsibility' in English law and what is expected of a responsible parent. The scope of 'parental responsibility', a key concept in family law, is undefined and often ambiguous. Yet, to date, more attention has been paid to how individuals acquire parental responsibility than to the question of the rights, powers, duties and responsibilities they have once they obtain it. This book redresses the balance by providing the first sustained examination of the different elements of parental responsibility, bringing together leading scholars to comment on specific aspects of its operation.

European human rights and family law, by Shazia Choudhry and Jonathan Herring, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010. 442 + xxxviii pp. ISBN 978-1-84113-175-7 55.00 pounds paperback.