Explore the vast range of titles available.

Inspired by Merton and Barber’s sociological theory on ambivalence, this article analyses ‘co-parenting’ between foster parents and birth parents as prototypes of ambivalent relationships; that is, relationships based on incompatible role requirements. This incompatibility is rooted in the conflicts between (a) the professional role of foster carers and their emotional involvement in the child in their care, and (b) the status of birth parents as ‘failed parents’ (from the perspective of the authorities) and their continuous aspirations to get their child home again. The article is based on qualitative interviews with foster parents and birth parents of children in foster care in Denmark. We show how the structural ambivalence is associated with difficulties, for both foster parents and birth parents, in translating the principle of ‘the best interest of the child’ into concrete practice in out-of-home placements.

The number of children affected by family dissolution is increasing worldwide. Beneficially, a growing number of both parents desire to remain active in their children’s lives, favouring the practice of shared care. Unfortunately, this has introduced new dilemmas that can negatively impact children’s well-being. One example is the controversial topic of travelling children, who have become ‘visitors’ traversing between their parent’s households. The bird’s nest arrangement, a child-centred shared parenting system wherein the child resides in a single home while the parents rotate living with them, can resolve this problem. Despite its unique focus, few studies have investigated its application or the effects of the arrangement. To identify factors related to the child’s best interests, this work qualitatively explored the experiences of Estonian parents who chose a bird’s nest arrangement. Parents recruited through purposive sampling underwent in-depth, semi-structured interviews from March 2020 to January 2021. Bird’s nest parenting was found to be guided by the parents’ desire to act in the best interests of their children, holding the view that children should not suffer due to parents’ separation. The post-divorce physical setting was found to impact the child’s health and well-being as the preservation of a single familiar home was associated with multiple advantages like avoiding adjustment problems, ensuring stability and improving relations. While also viable for long-term solutions, nesting was considered particularly useful for the transitional period following separation, as it minimised sudden, harmful changes. The arrangement was perceived as beneficial for both children and parents.

In patient centred care, shared decision making is a central feature and widely referred to as a norm for patient centred medical consultation. However, it is far from clear how to distinguish SDM from standard models and ideals for medical decision making, such as paternalism and patient choice, and e.g., whether paternalism and patient choice can involve a greater degree of the sort of sharing involved in SDM and still retain their essential features. In the article, different versions of SDM are explored, versions compatible with paternalism and patient choice as well as versions that go beyond these traditional decision making models. Whenever SDM is discussed or introduced it is of importance to be clear over which of these different versions are being pursued, since they connect to basic values and ideals of health care in different ways. It is further argued that we have reason to pursue versions of SDM involving, what is called, a high level dynamics in medical decision-making. This leaves four alternative models to choose between depending on how we balance between the values of patient best interest, patient autonomy, and an effective decision in terms of patient compliance or adherence: Shared Rational Deliberative Patient Choice, Shared Rational Deliberative Paternalism, Shared Rational Deliberative Joint Decision, and Professionally Driven Best Interest Compromise. In relation to these models it is argued that we ideally should use the Shared Rational Deliberative Joint Decision model. However, when the patient and professional fail to reach consensus we will have reason to pursue the Professionally Driven Best Interest Compromise model since this will best harmonise between the different values at stake: patient best interest, patient autonomy, patient adherence and a continued care relationship.

The case of Charlie Gard sparked an ongoing public and academic debate whether in court decisions about medical treatment for children in England & Wales the best interests test should be replaced by a harm threshold. However, the literature has scantly considered (1) what the impact of such a replacement would be on future litigation and (2) how a harm threshold should be introduced: for triage or as standard for decision-making. This article directly addresses these gaps, by first analysing reported cases in England & Wales about medical treatment in the context of a S31 order, thus using a harm threshold for triage and second comparing court decisions about medical treatment for children in England & Wales based on the best interest test with Dutch and German case law using a harm threshold. The investigation found that whilst no substantial increase of parental discretion can be expected an introduction of a harm threshold for triage would change litigation. In particular, cases in which harm is limited, currently only heard when there are concerns about parental decision-making, may be denied a court hearing as might cases in which the child has lost their capacity to suffer. Applying a harm threshold for triage in decisions about withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment might lead to a continuation of medical treatment that could be considered futile.

It has been highlighted that in the area of immigration law the protection offered by the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) to children and family life is arguably at its weakest. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) immigration case law on Article 8 ECHR has shown an uneven and uncertain application of the child’s best interests. Little significance is attached to the child’s respect for family life when determining whether the immigration measure is compatible with the ECHR. This paper will explore how the Court is identifying the best interests of the child and analyse what weight the Court apportions to the best interests of the child when balancing the state’s and the applicant’s interests. It will also examine whether the Court priori-tize migration control over the child’s best interests in cases where both family matters and immigration matters are involved.

Both academic and policy discourses on femicide are rapidly evolving, but still notably oriented towards direct victims and perpetrators. The impact on children, though multiple and profound, is neglected. Femicides predominantly occur within the home where children become witnesses to violence. The risk of being collateral victims is high. The primary suspect, typically the child’s father or stepfather, is either arrested or dies by suicide. Hence, many surviving children are bereaved of not only one, but both parents, and left as double orphans . Their rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child become vulnerable to violation. Reflecting on the specific situation of double orphans, this article aims to make children visible as secondary victims of femicide and to demonstrate how state responses can be aligned with a rights-based approach under international law. It explores key areas where rights are most at risk and critically evaluates the ethical-legal dilemmas involved against the best interests of the child standard. The article finds that, where rights are in conflict, protecting children from further harm must take precedence over formal family preservation. While some child-centred reforms have begun to emerge, the case of Argentina shows that responses remain uneven: its custody law is normatively aligned with the child’s best interests , yet the economic reparation scheme does not meet the scope and urgency of the issue.

The aim of this paper is to highlight Tribes’ efforts to Indigenize their child welfare systems through the instrument of Tribal law. Since its founding, the United States has strategically focused on Native children in its efforts to assimilate Native Peoples. By the mid-twentieth century, federal and state governments removed nearly one in four Native children from their homes—and permanently placed most in non-Native care. In 1978, Congress recognized Tribes’ inherent authority to protect their children through the Indian Child Welfare Act. Tribal nations responded by creating their own child welfare laws and programs, but at least initially, most were not predicated on their respective Tribes’ cultures, values, and worldviews. This article considers the more recent shift among Tribal nations toward Indigenization of their child welfare systems and points to examples of this shift found in Tribal law. It reviews statements of purpose within the codes, which lay the groundwork for culturally infused child protection; statements about “best interests,” which communicate Tribal concepts about the foundations of children’s wellbeing; and definitions of “family,” which can vary greatly from western views. Reflection on these changes yields several lessons for U.S.-based Tribal nations in their ongoing efforts to promote their own visions of child wellbeing and, more generally, for other governments whose responsibilities include improving child welfare.

Children need family. And children need safety. The \"best interests of the child\" principle attempts to balance those needs in child protection disputes, asking judges to focus on the child's interests when determining whether to remove the child from an allegedly abusive or neglectful home. In practice, the principle has tipped the scale, overprotecting children at the expense of family unity for poor and disproportionately nonwhite families. Nevertheless, advocates for child refugees promote the best interest principle's extension to asylum cases involving children, recognizing its potential to increase procedural protections and substantive asylum eligibility for some of the world's most vulnerable kids.

The research reported in this article was centred on three research questions about the issue of ensuring that, in education and schooling, the principle of the best interests of the child is respected. The inauspicious treatment of children through the ages led the international community in the form of the United Nations to adopt its Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1989. The series of developments culminating in the adoption of the CRC led to the formulation of the following three research questions: (1) What motivated the United Nations to adopt its CRC, in particular its formulation of the notion of ‘the best interests of the child’? (2) How did the notion of ‘the best interests of the child’ subsequently find expression in the 1996 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and the South African jurisprudence following thereafter? (3) What perspectives does the Bible, as the Word of God, provide on the notion of ‘the best interests of the child’? Interpretivism-constructivism was used in putting together the thesis developed in this article. Interpretivism was applied to the results of an initial literature study on the status of the child, followed by constructivism in construing the line of argumentation that follows. The second part of the article emerged after a critical analysis of the post-1994 legislation and jurisprudence in South Africa. The norm set by the CRC has been respected since the advent of the new political dispensation in South African legislation and subsequent jurisprudence. The Bible, as the Word of God, also provides perspectives regarding the notion of ‘the best interests of the child’, although it does not employ this phrase as such. It teaches that since children are human beings and created in the image of God, and also because they are vulnerable, they have to be treated with loving care, respect, sympathy, and empathy.ContributionThe article sheds light on the way the concept ‘best interests of the child’ attained international acceptance and subsequently obtained application in the South African constitutional arena since 1994. It also creates a link between legal stipulations and biblical perspectives regarding the notion of ‘the best interests of the child’.

Background In line with the legal duty to monitor the compliance of policy and practice with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Netherlands’ Ombudsman for Children collects data concerning children’s views about their rearing environment and well-being. This Children’s Rights Monitor uses the Best Interests of the Child Self-Report (BIC-S). The psychometric properties of the BIC-S need to be further investigated. Method For the 2018 Children’s Rights Monitor, 1639 children (age: M  = 12.05 SD  = 2.70) completed the BIC-S (quality of rearing environment) and value their life on a scale of 1 to 10 (well-being). Mokken Scale Analysis was applied to determine the construct validity, and a Pearson correlation coefficient between well-being and the quality of rearing environment was used to determine the convergent validity of the BIC-S. Results The results of the Mokken Scale Analysis reveal an invariant, strong, and reliable family scale (H = 0.60; Rho = 0.88) and an invariant, moderate, and reliable society scale (H = 0.45; Rho = 0.81). Two conditions (safe wider physical environment and adequate examples in society) should be viewed as separate items. Strong and significant correlations are observed between well-being, on the one hand, and the family and society scales on the other (respectively, r = 0.54 and 0.63). Implications Results of this study point to a reliable and valid BIC-S for measuring the quality of the rearing environment. This instrument can be used to bring policy, practice, and decision-making in line with Children’s Rights.