Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of promoting children's rights
Importance of promoting children's rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Importance of promoting children's rights
The co-existing relationship between parents and their children build up the ‘basic unit of society’ a family. Australian law in s.63F the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwlth) is the source of source of parental statutory authority. This legislation provides a variety of legal rights and obligations for parents to act decisively in the best interest of their ‘under-developed’ and ‘legally disabled’ children. However, governments have shown a greater concern with reconignising and protecting the rights of children, limiting parental control as Chief Justice Nicholson approved, saying “The care and protection of children are no longer simply matters to be left to parents to decide”. Parents being contracted as their child’s legal guardian have the right to make decisions that relate to the child; in their religious upbringing and …show more content…
Parents are responsible for disciplining their children. However, the discipline must be moderate and appropriate to the age of the child. A punch should never be used and a cupped hand may be appropriate for necessary correction of young children. Parents are obliged to care for the well being of their children under the Family Law amendment (shared parental responsibility) Act 2006 (Cwlth) as Professor Alan Hayes of the Australian institute of family studies said “It is important to maintain the primacy of focusing on the best interests of children” (“Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law reform finds mixed results”, 28th of January 2010). For example in R v BW &SW a 7 year old boy, diagnosed with autism, died in November 2007 as a result of starvation and negligence. After a five week trial, the girl’s mother and father were found guilty of manslaughter in failing their duty to care. The Supreme Court judge who handled the case said “Preserving life is at its highest with respect to children” inherently referring to the right of the children to be cared
No matter what age an individual is, society automatically deems a person to be an adult once they have a child. Unfortunately, Renee dealt with a lot of isolation, neglect, lack of emotional, physical, psychological support that would have helped her successfully transition into a new chapter in her life. Renee was treated like an independent and competent adult when in reality, she was in serious need of many support systems to educate and support her. As a social worker, Angie Martin’s actions within her practice created an ethical dilemma when she failed to maintain the best interest of her client, Jordan. Angie was expected to fulfill her role as a social worker by playing a vital role in coaching and educating Renee on how to care for Jordan. If there were frequent scheduled appointment in place, there would be enough evidence from Angie’s file on Jordan and Renee alone to decipher who should have been responsible for the death of Jordan. Frequent visits to the young mother and her child would have given Angie the opportunity to provide the courts with enough documentation to understand the case thoroughly to make a conviction, in needed, without dropping charges and dismissing the
During the court case the judge said that lead social worker Gunn Wahlstrom was “naïve beyond belief”. This report brought over 68 recommendations to make sure cases like this did not happen again. The recommendations included putting the child first and the parent’s second. “Jasmines’ fate illustrates all too clearly the disastrous consequences of the misguides attitude of the social workers having treated Morris Beckford and Beverley Lorrington as the clients first and foremost” (London Borough of Brent, 1985,p295). The social workers in Jasmine’s c...
How it relates to healthcare: The child’s injuries proved severe, and Bedner faced a long prison sentence if convicted,but he didn’t face murder charges.As his critically ill daughter,C.B. remained on life support the hospital sought to exclude Bender from decisions regarding from life support. The girl eventually did die, but the case generated considerable public debate and stimulated a controversy among bioethics scholars .
Smacking has become a controversial debate in today’s society as a group of doctors tried to make a smacking of children illegal (Browne 2013). Similarly, smacking caused numerous deaths of children (Browne 2013). Smacking is a physical punishment which was a typical way that parents used to guide their children in past. Moreover, they believe that smacking is more effective and it is acceptable. Physical punishment is illegal in 33 countries, whereas in some states and territories physical punishment by parents is legal as long as it is “reasonable” such as Australia, United State, Britain and Canada (Why smacking should be regarded as a crime 2013). There are several reasons that smacking should be illegal in Australia. Physical punishment leads to aggressive and antisocial behaviour. Furthermore, Australian children have right of protection from violation. Finally, smacking children may lead to death.
The love that a parent feels for a child is the most indescribable feeling in the world. Most parents would do anything and everything to protect their children, but not all parents are aware of the danger their child faces. In the short story "Killings," by Andre Dubus, a mother and father are faced with the tragic death of their son. Both parents, although both may not admit to it, believe that the murderer deserves the same consequences their son suffered. Matthew Fowler takes matters into his own hands, and along with his friend, Willis Trottier, kills Richard Strout. The death of Richard Strout should not be tried as a murder, but as a justifiable homicide. Matthew Fowler, the father of Frank Fowler, had every reason to reciprocate Strout's actions. A child should not be taken from a parent in the way that Frank was taken from his.
The merits of both the adversarial and inquisitorial system will be explored throughout this paper. The Australian rule of law best describes as all law should be applied equally and fairly. The five vital operations of the rule of law includes fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency, and impartially. The adversarial system adopts these operations by having a jury decide on the verdict and the judge being an impartial decision maker. In contrast, the inquisitorial system relies heavily on the judge. This can result in abusive power and bias of the judge when hearing evidence and delivering verdicts. The operations of the rule of law determine why the rule of law is best served by the adversarial system in Australia.
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.
In this day and age there are many variations of what constitutes a couple or family in comparison to many years ago. Long ago the idea of a ‘nuclear family’ was considered the norm; it consisted of the conventional husband, wife and children . But as our society progressed through the years this definition became less conventional and criticisms were made, this definition of ‘family’ did not account for gay unions, soul parents nor did it acknowledge the prevalence of extended family. The definition of family has changed over time, as have the socially defined roles of mothers and fathers. Within these varied family units, situations occur in which divorces and separations take place and a lot of the times these tricky situations may involve children, which can make an already tricky situation even more problematic. There are pieces of legislation which are in place which aim to protect the best interests of a child during the time their parents are going through divorce but sometimes these avenues can be more problematic and ultimately destroy unions whereas other avenues of dispute resolution such as mediation, albeit with its own criticisms, helps to keep relationships afoot in that it provides an opportunity for peaceful and mutual agreements to be made in a more laid back environment.
Swan, Rita. 2010. “Equal rights for children under the law” Children’s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty, Inc
This essay will first address the statute used and interpretation of the threshold test by the courts, and then focus on cases involving vulnerable children to assess whether the statute in The Children Act 1989 is sufficient in protecting these children from harm. I will look at the argument in favour of the current approach taken by the courts, and the counter-argument in favour of changing the current approach. The arguments are delicately balanced and the law is always developing, so it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court resolves this issue in future.
Family Law (Law Express) 2th edition, by Jonathon Herring, published by Pearson Education Limited 2009
The physical abuse of children covers a wide range of actions from what some might term ‘justifiable chastisement’ such as slapping or spanning to the sort of actions which most would agree constitute deliberate, sadistic cruelty against children.
A parent should have no fear of losing a child like this. Under Rawl’s system, tragedies such as this are virtually impossible. Under the first principle that states, the rights of all are equal. Rawl’s principles were found justified by visualizing real people forming a system of laws including the ramifications of a “justified complaint”. A justified complaint is an accusation by a member of society against another member of society.
Therefore, this scenario exemplifies that there is no distinction between the morality of letting the child die and killing the child, because of the intention of ending the child’s
While most are aware that custody and visitation are not synonymous, many parents begin legal proceedings without realizing that custody is broken into two halves by the court: legal custody and physical custody. Legal custody refers to the ability to make decisions regarding the child’s upbringing and development, meaning a parent who obtains legal custody will have a say in matters such as their child’s education, hobbies, and religion. Physical custody, as the name suggests, refers to the actual guardianship of the child and will often be awarded to one parent - usually referred to as the “primary physical custodian” - while the secondary physical custodian will receive visitation. It is the goal of The Law Firm of Caryn S. Fennell to help