5,722
Views
12
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
MAIN SECTION

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

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:

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:

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.