Re B: when is it necessary to bring a case to the family court?

Mant, Jessica

doi:10.1080/09649069.2021.1880166

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There was evidence that mental illness is viewed broadly by judges. For example, one stated that “people only have custody trials if one or both of them is sufficiently mentally impaired that they don't understand what a devastating impact it's going to have on the family through this process.” There was no clear conception that the trial would be necessary for protection from further harm that can be worse than a custody trial (Burton, 2021; Mant, 2021). In relation to children, the emotional stability of the child has some relation to the mental capacity of that child (Harcourt, 2021).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, one stated that "people only have custody trials if one or both of them is sufficiently mentally impaired that they don't understand what a devastating impact it's going to have on the family through this process." There was no clear conception that the trial would be necessary for protection from further harm that can be worse than a custody trial (Burton, 2021;Mant, 2021).…”

Section: Mental Capacity and Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Between the law and itself: An examination of the best interests of the child standard in the New York city family court

Ingber

2023

Appl Psychoanal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article describes a pilot research study done by the author which focused on the judicial implementation of the “best interests of the child” standard, also known as Article 5, Section 70 of the New York State Domestic Relations Law. This is the statutory principle that guides determinations of child custody in the USA. The ambiguous nature of this law grants judges significant discretion when determining the custodial arrangements for children, as it does not explicitly define what constitutes the best interests of a child. The lack of consensus surrounding this law results in marked inconsistencies in its application. In the absence of external guidance, the author presumed that judges rely heavily on their individual knowledge and conceptualization of childhood when making custody decisions, especially those regarding facts relayed by or about children. Through in‐depth interviews conducted with seven judges from the City of New York, this study sheds light on this complex and essential issue. By incorporating insights from sociological theories of law and childhood, this study provides further insight into how judges arrive at their rulings and can be used to assist in improving the lives of families who must interact with the legal system.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mental Capacity and Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%