(1) Children’s Welfare and Children’s Well-Being

PROVISIONS
Children’s Act 1989	Section 1	When a court determines any question with respect to— (a) the upbringing of a child; the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration. J v C (Lord MacDermott): Paramountcy principle: “A process whereby, when all the relevant facts, relationships, claims and wishes of parents, risks, choices, and other circumstances are taken into account and weighed, the course to be followed will be that which is most in the interests of the child’s welfare”

Children’s Act 1989

Section 1

When a court determines any question with respect to— (a) the upbringing of a child; the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.

J v C (Lord MacDermott): Paramountcy principle: “A process whereby, when all the relevant facts, relationships, claims and wishes of parents, risks, choices, and other circumstances are taken into account and weighed, the course to be followed will be that which is most in the interests of the child’s welfare”

	WELFARE-BASED APPROACH	RIGHTS -BASED APPROACH
Motivation / Rationale	To protect children and promote their best interests — concern that children’s interests often overlooked Emphasises vulnerability of children and dependence on adults	To reject paternalism (assumption that adults know what is best for children) Emphasises capacity of children for self-determination and independence
Differences: Conceptual	(1) As articulated under section 1 Children Act: child’s interests are the sole consideration Welfare-based approach capable of restricting parental or other rights or interests in order to maximise welfare of the child, no matter how small increase in welfare HOWEVER: Mitigated by Herring (relational well-being) (2) Requires courts or parents (or other guardians ) to determine what the child’s interests are (3) Imposes no obligations (4) Potential danger of allowing parents’ interests to be smuggled in indirectly behind the “smokescreen” of welfare (5) Expressive function of welfare message: “You have a responsibility for your child’s welfare”	(1) Child’s rights and interests are not sole consideration Rights-based approach involves identifying and balancing different rights Interests of child may, but will not always, override those of parent or others Requires explicit articulation of all relevant interests at stake — court likely to consider other interests and, even if outcome the same, allows other pries to leave court feeling that case has been looked at from their perspective/rights considered (2) Seeks to promote interests of child as child sees them (or would see them were they capable) — when child is competent, primary decision-maker is the child (3) Existence of rights implies the existence of concomitant duties (ie. child can make claims against court or parents) (4) Explicitly and openly knowledges that parents have rights and requires reasoned consideration as to why these rights are either upheld or interfered with (5) Expressive function of rights message: “You have rights” (6) Rights that cannot necessarily be demonstrated to promote welfare (eg. right to know about genetic origins)

Motivation / Rationale

To protect children and promote their best interests — concern that children’s interests often overlooked

Emphasises vulnerability of children and dependence on adults

To reject paternalism (assumption that adults know what is best for children)

Emphasises capacity of children for self-determination and independence

Differences: Conceptual

(1) As articulated under section 1 Children Act: child’s interests are the sole consideration

Welfare-based approach capable of restricting parental or other rights or interests in order to maximise welfare of the child, no matter how small increase in welfare
HOWEVER: Mitigated by Herring (relational well-being)

(2) Requires courts or parents (or other guardians ) to determine what the child’s interests are

(3) Imposes no obligations

(4) Potential danger of allowing parents’ interests to be smuggled in indirectly behind the “smokescreen” of welfare

(5) Expressive function of welfare message: “You have a responsibility for your child’s welfare”

(1) Child’s rights and interests are not sole consideration

Rights-based approach involves identifying and balancing different rights
Interests of child may, but will not always, override those of parent or others
Requires explicit articulation of all relevant interests at stake — court likely to consider other interests and, even if outcome the same, allows other pries to leave court feeling that case has been looked at from their perspective/rights considered

(2) Seeks to promote interests of child as child sees them (or would see them were they capable) — when child is competent, primary decision-maker is the child

(3) Existence of rights implies the existence of concomitant duties (ie. child can make claims against court or parents)

(4) Explicitly and openly knowledges that parents have rights and requires reasoned consideration as to why these rights are either upheld or interfered with

(5) Expressive function of rights message: “You have rights”

(6) Rights that cannot necessarily be demonstrated to promote welfare (eg. right to know about genetic origins)

Theoretical Perspectives on Children’s Welfare — Academic Commentary
*Reece 1996	Argument: Attack on paramountcy principle illustrated through caselaw on presumption against same-sex parenting (1) Rejects key justifications given for the paramountcy principle: (a) “Children have the right to have their welfare prioritised” HOWEVER: Rests of two assumptions: children have special rights (over and above human rights); and among these special rights is the right to have their welfare prioritised circular: “assumes what is to be justified, namely the special position for children” (b) “Children are more vulnerable” HOWEVER: (i) Child not necessarily the most vulnerable individual in a given case and (ii) Fallacy of equating protection with priority (c) “Children must be given the opportunity to become successful adults” HOWEVER: Self-defeating argument – makes importance of childhood contingent on/subordinate to importance of adulthood (2) Emphasises narrowness of principle: focuses on welfare of a particular child(ren) directly in the court’s view (3) Application of principle potentially harmful — allows other policies/principles to smuggle themselves into children’s cases Eg: Case law regarding presumption against homosexual parenting on the basis of welfare Smothering of debate “the very purpose of the paramountcy principle” — strength in its “apparent neutrality” – incl. promoting nuclear family (4) Principle contributes to the creation of a more repressive society: (a) Reinforces individual parental responsibility for child’s welfare and negates social responsibility: Individualised focus — not concerned with social responsibility for welfare Eg: Effect of stigmatisation argument in relation to same-sex parents harmful to welfare of children as a group: (a) Self-perpetuating – increases stigma suffered by children brought up by gay parents (b) Increases prejudice, leading to ‘more gay parents remaining closeted’ detrimental effect on children Instead, solution lies with society (to eliminate prejudice against homosexual parents) (b) Endorses status quo: Children’s cases can never be used to counteract/compensate for social injustice (c) Allows adults’ rights to be subordinated to children’s needs
*Herring and Foster (2005) (2012)	NOTING that: Children Act 1989 includes checklist of factors but no guidance as to how factors to be weighed; welfare principle commonly presented in individualistic terms, requiring court to promote interests of child without reference to interest of others: Argument: Defence of welfare principle based on a relationship-based approach — best interests should be understood to recognise importance of relational interests, performance of obligations, and virtue of altruism to human flourishing, and thus well-being (1) Behind judicial determinations of ‘welfare’ lies an Aristotelian notion of the ‘good life’ Essential component of the ‘good life’ is that humans are quintessentially relational beings — must consider network of relationships within which a person lives (relational creatures) Within this, best way of promoting welfare is to ensure that child raised in healthy relationships Healthy relationships...

*Reece

1996

Argument: Attack on paramountcy principle illustrated through caselaw on presumption against same-sex parenting

(1) Rejects key justifications given for the paramountcy principle:

(a) “Children have the right to have their welfare prioritised”
- HOWEVER: Rests of two assumptions: children have special rights (over and above human rights); and among these special rights is the right to have their welfare prioritised circular: “assumes what is to be justified, namely the special position for children”
(b) “Children are more vulnerable”
- HOWEVER: (i) Child not necessarily the most vulnerable individual in a given case and (ii) Fallacy of equating protection with priority
(c) “Children must be given the opportunity to become successful adults”
- HOWEVER: Self-defeating argument – makes importance of childhood contingent on/subordinate to importance of adulthood

(2) Emphasises narrowness of principle: focuses on welfare of a particular child(ren) directly in the court’s view

(3) Application of principle potentially harmful — allows other policies/principles to smuggle themselves into children’s cases

Eg: Case law regarding presumption against homosexual parenting on the basis of welfare
- Smothering of debate “the very purpose of the paramountcy principle” — strength in its “apparent neutrality” – incl. promoting nuclear family

(4) Principle contributes to the creation of a more repressive society:

(a) Reinforces individual parental responsibility for child’s welfare and negates social responsibility:
- Individualised focus — not concerned with social responsibility for welfare
- Eg: Effect of stigmatisation argument in relation to same-sex parents harmful to welfare of children as a group:
  - (a) Self-perpetuating – increases stigma suffered by children brought up by gay parents
  - (b) Increases prejudice, leading to ‘more gay parents remaining closeted’ detrimental effect on children
  - Instead, solution lies with society (to eliminate prejudice against homosexual parents)
(b) Endorses status quo: Children’s cases can never be used to counteract/compensate for social injustice
(c) Allows adults’ rights to be subordinated to children’s needs

*Herring and Foster

(2005) (2012)

NOTING that:

Children Act 1989 includes checklist of factors but no guidance as to how factors to be weighed;
welfare principle commonly presented in individualistic terms, requiring court to promote interests of child without reference to interest of others:

Argument: Defence of welfare principle based on a relationship-based approach — best interests should be understood to recognise importance of relational interests, performance of obligations, and virtue of altruism to human flourishing, and thus well-being

(1) Behind judicial determinations of ‘welfare’ lies an Aristotelian notion of the ‘good life’

Essential component of the ‘good life’ is that humans are quintessentially relational beings — must consider network of relationships within which a person lives (relational creatures)
- Within this, best way of promoting welfare is to ensure that child raised in healthy relationships
  - Healthy relationships...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Children, Families & the State Notes.

Children's Welfare And Well Being Notes

Updated Children's Welfare And Well Being Notes

Children, Families & the State

(1) Children’s Welfare and Children’s Well-Being

Children's Welfare And Well Being

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

More Children, Families & The State Samples