Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Roles of parents in child upbringing
The role of parents in child development
Parent child rearing theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Roles of parents in child upbringing
Ms. Colson is likely to be classified as in loco parentis and therefore, is likely to have a complete defense of parental privilege. To use parental privilege as a complete defense to battery, when the accused does not have legal authority to so, the accused must be classified as in loco parentis. Marriage of Snow v. England, 862 N.E.2D 664, 666 (Ind. 2007). In loco parentis means “in the place of a parent” and is a doctrine refers to a person who, without formal legal adoption, voluntarily assumes and discharges parental duties as a lawful parent. (quoting black law dictionary) Marriage of Snow, 862 N.E.2D at 666; McReynolds v. State, 973 N.E. 2d. 1153 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). In loco parentis is voluntary and “generally may be terminated at …show more content…
Hunt, 973 N.E.2d at 1. In Hunt, Hunt was dating Reynolds, who lived with her three children, for four and a half months. Id. at 1. Reynolds disciplined her children by spanking them lightly and allowed Hunt to do the same. Id. Reynolds took her child J.M. to the hospital because of bruising on J.M. body as a result of Hunt’s conduct. Id. at 2. The court held that the trial court did not err by omitting the jury instruction to classify Hunt as in loco parentis. Id. at 5. The court reasoned that because several people assisted Reynolds with her children, the children were enrolled in daycare, and the relationship was brief, Hunt is classified as an “occasional babysitter”. Id. at …show more content…
Colson will be able to use parental privilege as a defense. Unlike in Hunt and McReynolds where the accused were briefly in the child’s like, in this case, Ms. Colson has been living with her significant other, Ms. McCoy and her children, Brandy and Michael, for six years. Hunt, 973 N.E.2d. at 1; McReynolds, 973 N.E. 2d at 1154. Ms. Colson and Ms. McCoy treat their committed relationship as a marriage, this includes but is not limited to sharing household responsibilities and parental duties. Therefore, because Ms. Colson is not the “occasional babysitter” rather a parental figure, she is likely to have parental privilege. McReynolds, 973 N.E. 2d at 1154. However, like in Snow, where England, who was not the natural parent of J.H. classified as in loco parentis because of his voluntary parental obligation to J.H., here, Ms. Colson, also not the natural parent, voluntarily agreed to share the parental obligation to Ms. McCoy’s children. Marriage of Snow, 862 N.E.2D at 666. Therefore, because Ms. Colson can be classified as in loco parentis, she may use parental privilege as a complete defense. In this case, Ms. Colson gripped Bradley arm while she was trying to leave, leaving a handprint and bruises. Accordingly, Ms. Colson either knowingly or intentionally, just as the accused in Hunt and McReynolds, touched someone who is less than fourteen years old in a rude, insolating or in an angry manner. Hunt, 973 N.E.2d. at 3; McReynolds, 973 N.E. 2d at 1152. Therefore, Ms.
Case citation: Awkerman v. Tri-County Orthopedic Group, 373 N.W.2d 204 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). (Child abuse reporting)
City of Pinellas Park v. Brown was a case brought to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District by the plaintiff Brown. In this case, the Brown family sued the City of Pinellas Sheriff Department on the grounds of negligence that resulted in the tragic death of two Brown sisters during a police pursuit of a fleeing traffic violator Mr. Deady. The facts in this case are straight forward, and I shall brief them as logical as possible.
For the purpose of the paper, I will summarize the facts and leading events of the case of Elenita L and Romer N. Fajota. As reading through this trial I discovered that judges don’t always make the right decision for families or individuals. Likely in this case it is presentably true. Elenita and Romer got married in June 2005 and have three minor children together. As their marriage progressed, in the beginning of the year 2006, Romero became physically violent against Elenita. Romer committed various acts of violence against her and stated in court that it continued “even while pregnant with their second child”. But however, from 2006 to 2008 the violence continued against Elenita and her children. As the domestic violence continued, Elenita filed a
Procedural History The Supreme Court, Appellate, second division modified the the judgment and ordered that the custody of the youngest child remain with the mother. Husband appealed. The Court of Appeals, Jasen,J; held that after the custody of the two older children had been awarded to the husband, it was appropriate for special term to award of the youngest child to the husband in the light of the younger child’s ambivalence as to which of her parents she would prefer to live with and her strong preference to live with two older
I. Facts: 15-year-old delinquent, Gerald Gault and a friend were arrested after being accused of making a lewd phone call to a neighbor. Gerald’s parents were not notified of the situation. After a hearing, the juvenile court judge ordered Gerald to surrender to the State Industrial School until he reached the age of minority (21). Gerald's attorney petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the state of Arizona for violating the juvenile’s 14th Amendment due process rights. The Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona State Supreme Court both dismissed the writ affirmatively deciding that the juvenile’s due process rights were not violated.
This case is about a 15 year old kid, along with a friend, who made an erotic call to a neighbor's house. The alleged incident took place on June 8, 1964 by Gerald Gault and Ronald Lewis. Mrs. Cook, the neighbor, filed a complaint which resulted in Gerald Gault’s arrest. Gerald was indeed on probation for something he had done prior to this incident. The officer who made the arrest did not leave notice for the juvenile's parents and did not endeavor to advise them of their child's arrest, however, they found out about the arrest from Ronald Lewis later.. “After arresting a juvenile, an officer must notify the juvenile's parent or legal guardian regarding: the whereabouts of the child, the nature of the charges, and the police department's planned course of action” (O'Neil, 2010). Gerald’s mother was giving information on when the hearing for her son was after arriving where he was
The areas in which these reforms should occur are twofold. One argument that Judge Ross raises repeatedly is that measures should be taken to insure the sustainability of Family Court employees through more manageable caseloads. The necessity of this change is evident in countless examples of children suffering as a result of constantly changing, thin-spread, staff. In one particular instance, a six month child abuse case is adjourned because they “don’t have the medical records” in time (128). The second argument that can be implicitly made based off of Judge Ross’s expressed frustrations is that, if given the proper time for consideration, there should be more room for consideration of circumstance in Family Court. From a legal standpoint, there is substantial evidence for the validity of a common law approach to Family Court over the traditional civil law. Judge Ross establishes that ideally “In each case to protect children, to assure due process, to remain neutral until the facts are established, to apply common sense and sound judgment within the framework of the law in making decisions—the Family Court judge’s charge lies quite outside the arena of public policy, comment, and debate” (104). However, as seen in many of his cases, the combination of the overflowing workload and an inability to apply proper consideration to any given circumstance makes it impossible for the pre-existing
Rule: 1. Justice White, speaking for the majority believes that the decision in this case is similar to Bell v. Burson, in which held that the state could not deprive a person of there drivers license pertaining to a speeding violation without a hearing. He stated: "The states interest in caring for Stanley’s children is de minimis if Stanley is shown to be a fit father. It insists on presuming rather than proving Stanley’s unfitness solely because it is more convenient to presume than to prove. 2. They concluded that all Illinois parents are constitutionally entitled to a hearing on their fitness before their children are removed from their custody. Denying such a hearing to Stanley and those like him while granting it to other Illinois parents is inescapably contrary to the Equal Protection Clause. 3. The rule of law that justifies the holding of the case is: "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state may neither supply nor hinder" (Prince v. Mass.). 4. "The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment.
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.
According to many the custody of a child should be determined with the best interest of the child in mind. However, it is not easy for a judge to make such an important decision in such a short amount of time with limited information. Smith (2004) stated that, the simple fact of being a mother does not indicate a willingness or capacity to render a quality of care different than that which a father can provide. Some might argue that what Reynolds (2004) calls deadbeat dads, or in other words fathers who refuse to pay their child support, are often times confused with Turnips, who are ex-spouses who can not afford to pay child support. One example of a turnip is a father who is in prison; he is obviously not making money while he is on the inside. Now an example of a deadbeat dad is when the father is enjoying all the finer things in life and he cannot reach far enough into his...
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
...d, ‘so far as the threshold conditions are concerned, the factor which seems to me to outweigh all others is the prospect than an unidentified, and unidentifiable, carer may inflict further injury on a child he or she has already severely damaged’. This approach was later applied in Merton LBC v K .
More than one in three women in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime (The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2012). Thirty to sixty percent of perpetrators tend to also abuse children in the household (Edelson, 1999). Witnessing violence between parents or caretakers is considered the strongest risk factor for transmitting violent behavior from one generation to the next (Break the Cycle, 2006). State legislatures are increasingly passing statues that encourage participants in the Criminal Justice System to attack the issue of domestic violence more aggressively. Some states still fail to realize that IPV involving a woman that is pregnant should be considered a felony because it affects the well-being of the unborn child.
This case is about Ethan Couch, a sixteen year old boy who killed four people and injured 10 people and did not serve any jail time because they said he was suffering from Affluenza. Doctor Miller says that Affluenza is the reason to this crime because he was a child of privilege and his parents never said no. Ethan was driving while intoxicated and the car lost control, swerve into a ditch, swipe a car, ran over 4 people crashing into another car and both cars flipped over leaving 10 people injured. His blood content was 3 times higher the legal limit of an adult. I believe the parents should be blame. Ethan is a rich kid who was given anything he wanted from driving at age 13 to living in a ranch house by himself. Ethan wasn’t given any limitations. He has fast forward into adulthood. The night of the incident, Tonya knew that the kids in the house were drinking because Ethan told his mom and she said do not drink too much and do not drink and drive. His mother was aware that the kids were drinking, and she probably knew he was capable of drinking while intoxicated because she said“don 't drink and drive.” As a parent, she should have went over to the ranch house and bring the kids home. The Couch’s neglect Ethan because they separated themselves from him and gave him his own place. Plus they were aware of his drinking habits, Star T says, that his mom Tonya, saw them drinking alcohol and saw Ethan drunk before. It is very obvious that Couch’s parenting skills were not the best because it lead to this tragic
There is a couple named Bruce and Janet Marshall; they have an eight-year-old son named Brandon Marshall. Lately the couple has been fighting over finances and small issues, the two cannot seem to stop arguing in front of Brandon. Every night the fights get worst. From the fighting and the screaming there is no end to it. Brandon feels that he is the blame for all there arguing because playing sports at his age in expensive. Months go by while Bruce has been sleeping on the couch and Janet upstairs with Brandon. Finally Bruce could not take it anymore, he told Janet that it was best for them to get a divorce and things went downhill from there. Two years later Janet and Bruce are still fighting in court over who gets what and fighting over whom gets full custody of Brandon. Through this process they never questioned how Brandon would deal with his family separating and if he understood what was going on. After their divorce was final Brandon was twelve-years-old and living with his father, he never saw his mother again.