Editorial

This issue, the third in our 40^th Anniversary year, my second as co-editor, and my first editorial, provides me with the perfect opportunity to consider and reflect upon the broad range of material offered in each section, and in particular, the work of the section editors in providing this wide-ranging copy. This work and its value within the journal is particularly significant to me as I was the case note editor between 2004 and 2010. We are fortunate to have a dedicated team of section editors who provide a consistent range of fascinating and contemporary pieces which reflect the broad and important range of family and social welfare work that is being undertaken across the field. In this issue, our cases, European and review sections, draw out a wide-range of material: from child-related leave and women’s labour market outcomes in the European section to three very different pieces in the book review section. We are particularly pleased to include Rae Kaspiew’s review of the Children in Family Justice Data Share Project and its first product, the Public Law Applications Tool. This Project brings together key databases for the first time (from the Ministry of Justice, Cafcass and the Department for Education), and provides external researchers with an unparalleled opportunity to access a data set which covers over 700,000 children who interacted with public or private law Children Act proceedings between 2000 and 2016.

We begin our articles section in this issue with Renu Barton-Hanson’s discussion of the application of the best interests test in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 focusing on the extent to which an individual’s wishes and feelings are taken into account as part of the test. Following the comments made by Lady Hale in the Supreme Court case of Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James [2013] UKSC 67 and the recommendations made by the Law Commission in its recent report, Barton-Hanson explores these developments against a background of international frameworks including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Our next two articles explore both domestic and international issues associated with children at risk of being removed from their birth families. Drawing on a mixed methods evaluation of a pilot service offering attachment-based intervention for families living on the edge-of-care, Susan McPherson and colleagues examined 55 families referred to the Norfolk Parent Infant Mental Health Attachment Project in its first year of operation. The findings presented in the article provide an illuminating insight into the outcomes of a therapeutically-led, attachment-based intervention service. Therese Wisso and Helena Johannson add an international perspective to long-term placement issues for children by examining legal, relational and practical issues surrounding custody transfers of children from birth parents to foster parents in Sweden, including existing contact between children and birth parents and the extent to which children’s views are considered.

Our fourth article by Rachael Treloar is an important examination of parents’ experiences of ‘high-conflict’ divorce disputes. In this article, Treloar uses the theoretical lens of relational autonomy to analyse interviews with 25 parents in British Columbia, Canada. By framing the research within a life-course perspective, she suggests that many of these parents later come to see their experience as transformative and goes on to argue that positive personal change occurs over time when parents are supported with appropriate and adequate personal and social resources that address their particular needs.

Finally, we are pleased to include three case comments on a range of recent social welfare and family law issues. In a period where ‘legal myths’ about the prevalence of the ‘meal ticket for life’ periodical payment order dominates the popular discourse, the first case comment in this issue focuses on the Court of Appeal decision in Waggott v Waggott [2018] EWCA Civ 727. Our second comment focuses on another Court of Appeal decision, this time examining human rights issues flowing from the underlying regulations from the ‘bedroom tax’. We end the cases section with an incisive commentary from Helen Stalford about the case of R (on the application of HC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and others [2017] UKSC 73, where the Supreme Court reinforced the exceptional and restrictive nature of the Zambrano carer status. We are delighted to include this piece, not only as it provides a fitting springboard for me to thank Helen for all her work for the journal over the past 9 years, but also to thank both Helen and Mavis Maclean for such a smooth introduction and handover to the co-editorship of the journal. Mavis and I also wish to welcome Mr Justice MacDonald as a new member of our Advisory Board.