Advanced search
Publication Cover
Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law Volume 36, 2014 - Issue 1
Journal homepage
5,722
Views
12
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
MAIN SECTION

The welfare principle and the children act: presumably it's about welfare?

Jonathan HerringCorrespondence[email protected]
Pages 14-25 | Published online: 07 Mar 2014

REFERENCES

  • Artis, J. (2004). Judging the best interests of the child: Judges' accounts of the tender years doctrine. Law and Society Review, 38, 769–792.
  • Bainham, A. (2010). Rowing back from Re G? Natural parents in the Supreme Court. Family Law, 40, 394–400.
  • Bartlett, K. (1999). Child custody in the 21st century. Willamette Law Review, 35, 467–497.
  • Braithwaite, J. (2002). Rules and principles: A theory of legal certainty. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 27, 47–64.
  • Collier, R. (2005). Fathers 4 Justice, law and the new politics of fatherhood. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 17, 511–533.
  • Everett, K., & Yeatman, L. (2010). Are some parents more natural than others?Child and Family Law Quarterly, 23, 290–311.
  • Fineman, M. (1994). The illusion of equality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Flu¨ckiger, A. (2008). The ambiguous principle of the clarity of law. In A.Wagner & S.Cacciaguidi-Fahy (Eds.), Obscurity and clarity in the law: prospects and challenges (pp. 9–24). Aldershot: Ashgate.
  • Fortin, J. (2011). A decade of the HRA and its impact on children's rights. Family Law, 41, 176–182.
  • Gilmore, S. (2006). Contact/shared residence and child well-being: Research evidence and its implications for legal decision-making. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 20, 344–371.
  • Gilmore, S. (2008). Disputing contact: Challenging some assumptions. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 20, 285–304.
  • Gilmore, S. (2012). ‘Why should they cite us?’: Lessons from an ‘uncommon’ family lawyer's influence on the common law. In R.Probert & C.Barton (Eds.), Fifty years in family law essays for Stephen Cretney (pp. 33–49). Cambridge: Intersentia.
  • Hale, B. (1999). The view from court 45. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 11, 377–397.
  • Herring, J. (1999). The Human Rights Act and the welfare principle in family law – conflicting or complementary?Child and Family Law Quarterly, 11, 223–245.
  • Herring, J. (2005). Farewell welfare. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 27, 159–171.
  • Herring, J. (2011). Family Law. Harlow: Pearson.
  • Herring, J., & Foster, C. (2012). Welfare means relationality, virtue and altruism. Legal Studies, 32, 480–499.
  • Herring, J., & Powell, O. (2013). The rise and fall of presumptions surrounding the welfare principle. Family Law, 44, 553–559.
  • King, M., & Piper, C. (1995). How the law thinks about children. Aldershot: Ashgate.
  • Krauss, D., & Sales, B. (2000). Legal standards, expertise, and experts in the resolution of contested child custody cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 843–854.
  • Kushner, M. (2006). Is ‘best interests’ a solution to filling potholes in child custody planning?Journal of Child Custody, 3, 71–90.
  • Moloney, L. (2008). The elusive pursuit of Solomon: Faltering steps toward the rights of the child. Family Court Review, 46, 39–61.
  • Norgrave, D. (2011). Family Justice Review. London: Ministry of Justice.
  • Piper, C. (2000). Assumptions about children's best interests. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 22, 261–282.
  • Reece, H. (1996). The paramountcy principle: Consensus or construct?Current Legal Problems, 49, 267–298.
  • Ruthus, Z. (2010). Social science or ‘Lego-science’? Presumptions, politics, parenting and the new family law. Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal, 10, 164–182.
  • Skivenes, M. (2010). ‘Judging the child's best interests: Rational reasoning or subjective presumptions?Acta Sociologica, 53, 339–353.
  • Trinder, L., Connolly, J., Kellett, J., Notley, C., & Swift, L. (2006). Making contact happen or making contact work? The process and outcomes of in-court conciliation. London: Department for Constitutional Affairs.
  • Trinder, L. (2010). Shared residence: A review of the recent research evidence. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 22, 475–491.
  • WilkinsonIII, J.(1992). Toward a jurisprudence of presumptions. New York University Law Review, 67, 907–924.
  • Zimmerman, M. (2002). Intrinsic v extrinsic value [online]. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Supercharge Your Next Research Paper: Research and write your next paper with Jenni AI.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.