In Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Parent and children enjoy a fundamental, constitutionally-protected right to family integrity.” And in Custody of a Minor, 377 Mass. 876 (1979), the SJC held that “Loss of a child custody may be as onerous a penalty as the deprivation of the parent’s freedom.” Most importantly, it is the public policy of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that a child’s welfare is best served in the care and custody of her parent. See Petition of Department of Public Welfare to Dispense with Consent to Adoption, 383 Mass. 573, 587 (1981). Moreover, in a Care and Protection case, the ‘integrity of the family is threatened by government intervention’; in order to protect the rights at issue, the requirements of due process must be throughout the proceedings. See Department of Public Welfare v. J.K.B., 379 Mass. 1, 3 (1979). Based on these mentioned rationale, reasons and decision, DCF has created rules and regulations to guide its conducts operation and above all, its decision to protection children in need. …show more content…
To gain custody of a child, 110 CMR 7.101(1) states: “All out-of-home placement decisions shall be made in the ‘best interests of the child’, based upon safety, well-being and permanency of the child and the child's individual
In Family Court there are steps in gaining certainty that the placement of a child is right for him/her. Whether it be non-kinship foster care or kinship foster care the agency will provide understanding to the family in placing the child in a safer environment would be the child best interest. This is determine by Family Court Act article 7 “Person in need of supervision” which concern the child 18 years of age in care. Under the act there are categories to determine if the child brought into care falling into the category of detention, secure detention facility,
... to fairly enforce such a program. This objection was backed by multiple scenarios which demonstrated that most punishments are implausible. In response to this objection, I discussed Lafollette’s idea of removing children and putting them up for adoption. This plan involved orphanages or third party adoption indefinitely or until their biological parents became licensed. I also formulated an enforcement plan consisting of heavy fines and jail time for unauthorized children. Although this plan is harsh, it is fair and enforceable, thereby refuting the objection that there is no way to enforce parent certification. This paper discussed objections and responses to Lafollette’s argument which concluded in the reaffirmation that parent licensing is a possibility.
“Under New York’s Family Court Act, treatment was the legal justification for taking troubled children in...
This law requires states to have a process established for conducting criminal background checks for foster and adoptive parents in order to care for children. It is said that provisions in the law have had an impact on the process of being approved for foster care and adoption. It has slowed down the process for children to be placed with relatives as well. Under the new provisions states are required to conduct ...
There are many times when a care order has to be put in place and it happens because the authorities believe that it is the best thing to do for the child’s overall wellbeing. When the care order is put in place it will mean that the
According to the Department of Human Services Online Directives Information System, in order for children to obtain permanency and grow up to be healthy, self-sufficient adults, they need to experience stability and continuity in a lifetime relationship with a parent and if that is not possible, with a parent substitute which may include adoption, guardianship, or placement in another planned, permanent setting (2016).
Copyright (c) 2005 Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, 2005, 12 Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L. 371, 13986 words, SYMPOSIUM: THE STATE CONSTRUCTION OF FAMILIES: FOSTER CARE, TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS, AND ADOPTION: FROM ANTICIPATION TO EVIDENCE: RESEARCH ON THE ADOPTION
Before people decide if they want to adopt, they can become a foster parent. When children are not able to safely live with their biological family, Child Protective Services may become involved and place the child in foster care. Foster care is only a temporary living arrangement for the child, while the children's parents work to remedy the unsafe situation (Security,2014). When it is possible that a child may not be able to return home his/her situation turns into a case plan; which then the child is able to be adopted by another person.
The grounds for making a supervision or care order can be found in in s.31 of The Children Act 1989. Before a supervision or care order can be made, there are four areas that must be established. The court must show that ‘the child concerned is suffering or likely to suffer, significant harm’. Under s.31(2)(b) it states that, ‘The harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to: (i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give him; or (ii) the child’s being beyond parental control’. The last two criteria are that the making of the order would promote the welfare of the child, and it is better for the child than making no order at all. A care order was explained in Hunt’s major study on care proceedings as a “last resort” and should only be used if all other options have been explored .
In the United States there are approximately 397,000 children in out-of home care, within the last year there was about 640,000 children which spent at least some time in out-of-home care. More than 58,000 children living in foster care have had their biological parental rights permanently terminated (Children’s Rights, 2014). Due to the rising number of children in foster care and the growing concerns of the safety, permanency, and well-being of children and families, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 was signed into law. On November 19, 1997, President Bill Clinton signed the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, to improve the safety of children, to promote adoption and other permanent homes for children who need them, and to support families (Child Welfare League of America). The Adoption and Safe Families Act also promotes adoption by offering incentive payments for States. During the FY of 1999-2003 the payment to states which had exceeded the average number of adoptions received $20 million (Child Welfare League of America). The ASFA improved the existing federal child welfare law to require that the child’s health and safety be a “paramount” concern in any efforts made by the state to preserve or reunify the child’s family, and to provide new assurances that children in foster care are safe (Shuman, 2004).
Up until the past year or so I was sure that I was going to pursue the path of Family Law once I became an attorney. As a result, I spent a great deal of my time reading over the Maine Revised Statutes to get a better understanding as to what a Family Law attorney would deal with day in and day out. While reading, I immediately became very interested in 19-A M.R.S. §1803; I was unaware that such a law existed, and I was quite surprised that it was in existence. After spending a considerable amount of time analyzing the pros and cons it carries with it, I eventually found that 19-A M.R.S. §1803 is an excellent law as a whole. I came to this conclusion based upon my personal opinion that it is very important for a child to have a relationship with it’s immediate family members while growing up, as long as it does not put the child in harms way.
When a court is dealing with proceedings relating to a child, section 1 of the Children Act 1989 (CA 1989) governs that the court’s paramount consideration shall lie with the child’s welfare. The term paramount was explained by Lord Macdermott in J v C which means ‘that the child’s welfare is to be treated as the top item in a list of items relevant to the matter of question’. His Lordship went on to explain that when all the relevant facts and circumstances are taken into account and weighed, the outcome chosen by the court is based on the interests of the relevant child. Therefore any other party’s interest is only considered as far as it contributes to promote the child’s best interest.
A state that undertakes custody of a child is declaring that it can do a better job providing protection. This system is a powerful agent of support, providing positive nurturing environments that enable a child to reach his or her potential. Nonetheless, when children suffer additional abuse in the system, this government intervention should be questioned.
Civil Courts prefer to remain impartial towards parental religious beliefs and practices when determining what is in the best interest of a child. Yet, case law makes it clear that the religious practices of the parents and the proposed course of religious education may become relevant factors for the court to consider in determining custody or visitation. Recent statistics indicate that the divorce rate in the United States has reached fifty percent and shows no sign of decline. Polls show that Americans are become more religious and that bi-religious marriages are on the rise. When the parent informs the attorney that the opposing party will attempt to use his or her religious beliefs, practices, or affiliation to discredit the case, the practioner would state that there is no place for marriage in a best interest hearing and that judge would not tolerate such irrelevant evidence. However, the reality is that religious practice may become a relevant factor and to simply dismiss the possibility of religious attack may be detrimental to the parent in any effort to obtain custody or unrestricted visitation. Religious freedom is a sacred ideal in the United States and the protection of those rights is crucial. Amendment 1 of the Constitution of the United States provides that the “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Every parent is entitled to an objective and bias-free custody or visitation trial. When the opposition’s pleading are filed with critics of the parent’s religion, negative comparisons to cults and other pejorative and conclusory statements, the parents involved will not be able to get a fair hearing. As one court succinctly states “intervention in the matters of religion is a perilous adventure upon which the judiciary should be loath to embark.”
In America, it is becoming a more common for parents to become stuck in a vicious cycle of catch 22 of the government to stepping in on family affairs. Laws monitoring the care and treatment of children are prohibiting the ability of parents to discipline their children without interference from the government. These laws are much-needed in some cases, such a neglect, sexual, psychological, and physical abuse. While this is necessary, there are some cases in which these laws more are hurtful than helpful to the family. While abuse is the result of negative parenting styles, other parenting styles that accommodate the strict laws often result in cases of child neglect and/or juvenile delinquency.