LSN: Children最新文献

{"title":"(Не)знакомое детство глазами детей, родителей, исследователей ((Not) Familiar Childhood through the Eyes of Children, Parents, Researchers)","authors":"A. Beschasnaya","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3731544","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3731544","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Russian Abstract:</b> Статья посвящена обзору секции по проблемам социологического осмысления детства, проходившей 1 июня 2020 года в рамках X Грушинской социологической конференции. В работе секции приняли участие российские и белорусские специалисты, занимающиеся изучения различных аспектов современного детства. Выступающими были сделаны акценты на вопросах благополучия ребенка в дошкольном учреждении, проанализировано отношение к дистанционному образованию у школьников и детей, проживающих в интернатах, восприятия пространственной среды, окружающей ребенка, его реальное и ожидаемое на примере проведения каникул. На основе вторичного анализа данных и интервью с родителями обсуждались проблемы трансформации детско-родительских отношений, факторов, оказывающих наибольшее влияние на это. Значительное внимание уделено методическим особенностям проведения исследований и доступа к полю в ситуациях, когда дети до 18 лет являются информантами. Показано многообразие и особенности использования методов при изучении детей – индивидуальные интервью, фокус-группы, интервью-игры, он-лайн интервьюирование и анкетирование, анализ документов, таких как детские сочинения, рисунки, анализ фотографий. Ряд выступлений основывался на результатах исследования восприятия детства с помощью ретроспективных интервью с молодежью. Этот метод позволил выделить системообразующие элементы взросления в современном обществе, а также провести сравнительный анализ трансформаций детства у разных поколений. Представлены рекомендации по специфики проведения социологических исследований в сфере детства.<br><br><b>English Abstract:</b> The article is devoted to the review of the section on the problems of sociological understanding of childhood, held on June 1, 2020 in the framework of the X Grushinsky sociological conference. The section was attended by Russian and Belarusian specialists who study various aspects of modern childhood. The speakers focused on the issues of child welfare in preschool institutions, analyzed the attitude to distance education among schoolchildren and children living in boarding schools, perception of the spatial environment surrounding the child, its real and expected on the example of holidays. Based on secondary data analysis and interviews with parents, the problems of transformation of child-parent relations and the factors that have the greatest impact on this were discussed. Considerable attention is paid to the methodological features of research and access to the field in situations where children under 18 are informants. It shows the variety and features of using methods for studying children – individual interviews, focus groups, interview games, online interviewing and questionnaires, analysis of documents such as children's essays, drawings, and photo analysis. A number of presentations were based on the results of research on the perception of childhood through retrospective interviews with young people. This method allowed us to identify ","PeriodicalId":294024,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Children","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129344435","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Effects of the Joint Custody Law in Italy","authors":"G. de Blasio, Daniela Vuri","doi":"10.1111/jels.12225","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12225","url":null,"abstract":"We study the effect of a 2006 reform to Italian family law that made joint custody the default for separating couples. The reform boosted joint legal custody by about 75 percentage points. Our research design uses difference&#8208;in&#8208;differences to estimate reform effects on the likelihood of a contested settlement, length of trial, and transfers between separating parents. The analysis is based on Italian individual&#8208;level administrative data, which cover the entire population. The joint custody default appears to have increased dispute rates and length of trial markedly, without affecting transfers. There is no evidence that mothers buy custody rights back through reduced support. Our findings are consistent with the excessive discretion given to judges on some aspects of law implementation, which resulted in a partial application of the reform.","PeriodicalId":294024,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Children","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127784204","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Planned Parenthood: Adult Adoption and the Right of Adoptees to Inherit","authors":"Richard C. Ausness","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2880616","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2880616","url":null,"abstract":"This Article is concerned with the effect of adult adoptions on the inheritance rights (in the broad sense of that term) of adult adoptees. The Article contends many adult adoption statutes assume the existence of a parent-child relationship in which the adopter is the “parent” and the adoptee is a “child” even though this is not true of all adult adoption cases. In addition, legislatures and courts frequently fail to differentiate between “quasi-familial” adoptions and “strategic” adoptions, particularly where inheritance rights are concerned.","PeriodicalId":294024,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Children","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131027719","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Public Sentiments About the Parenting Time Adjustment in Child Support Awards","authors":"S. Braver, I. M. Ellman, W. Fabricius","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2628455","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2628455","url":null,"abstract":"The states differ substantially among themselves as to what their guideline systems specify about reducing child support awards as a function of the division of parenting time after divorce. Most adopt a “cliff-model”, whereby no reductions are accorded until the parenting time to the noncustodial parent reaches some “shared parenting” threshold, generally about 35% of the total parenting time. As another in a series of experimental investigations about the sentiments of lay citizens pertaining to family law issues, the current investigation probed this issue, as well as the allied issue of whether the reason for nonvisitation might influence the child support adjustment. Results showed that the public’s judgments displayed continuous visitation adjustments to child support (as opposed to the cliff-model system instituted by most states), and that the amount of the adjustment reflected the amount the custodial parent saved due to visitation, rather than the amount the noncustodial parent spent. Of the reasons for non-visitation, only the father’s move (not the mother’s move nor her refusal to permit visitation) significantly affected the respondent’s child support judgments.","PeriodicalId":294024,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Children","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131426233","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Illegitimacy in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Nova Scotia: A Legislative History","authors":"Susan B. Boyd, Jennifer Flood","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2636513","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2636513","url":null,"abstract":"Over time, provincial legislation in Canada modified the common law position on the “illegitimacy” of children born outside marriage. They first imposed liability on parents for the support of illegitimate children. Second, they provided for the legitimation of children whose parents subsequently married. Finally, they abolished the concept of illegitimacy. This article describes and compares the legislative histories in four Canadian provinces, which all took somewhat different approaches: British Columbia (BC), Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Saskatchewan. Part II traces the complex history of the legislation dealing with the financial support of illegitimate children; Part III addresses the legislation dealing with legitimation; and Part IV reviews the short history of the abolition of distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate children in all Canadian provinces and territories, except for Nova Scotia. We take a chronological approach within each Part. The article is co-authored with Jennifer Flood.","PeriodicalId":294024,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Children","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130265099","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Legal Strategies to Address Child Support Obligations for Nonresident Fathers in the Child Welfare System","authors":"D. Hatcher","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2516362","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2516362","url":null,"abstract":"The legal and practical issues surrounding child support obligations have enormous impact on families in the child welfare system. Unfortunately, these issues are often ignored, overlooked, or misunderstood. A much-needed effort to engage nonresident fathers in the child welfare system is underway, but those efforts will often be derailed if child support is not properly addressed. This article sheds light on the legal and policy concerns regarding child support enforcement in child protection cases and provides legal strategies for advocates to address those concerns. While primarily aimed at advocates for nonresident fathers, this article should also benefit advocates for custodial parents and for children as child support issues affect all parties in the child welfare system.","PeriodicalId":294024,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Children","volume":"137 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127343372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Story of Mary Sue and Junior Davis","authors":"M. Brinig","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.899104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.899104","url":null,"abstract":"Davis v. Davis appears in many property books as well as some casebooks about family law. It features property rights in unique goods, and stimulates discussion about whether embryos should be the subject of court decisions, much less market transactions. Davis touches on ideas of commensurability, self, and dignity. The story of Junior and Mary Sue Davis can also be seen as a cautionary tale about a family destroyed by lost pregnancies and the havoc this causes in a marriage. Once the centripetal forces reach gale strength, Davis turns into a power struggle at an elemental level, one in which middle class former spouses are willing to pay huge sums to litigate, and publicly vent their plight and their disaffection. What is most intimate and private becomes the subject of mainstream television programming, editorial commentary and continued fame, even 15 years later. This piece will address the question about why having a genetic child first became so important that Junior and Mary Sue would spend more than their combined yearly salaries on IVF and the even more experimental cryopreservation technique. It will discuss why bearing a child might ultimately have become less meaningful than possessing the right to disposal of the frozen embryos, and thus why first Junior and then Mary Sue changed their minds.","PeriodicalId":294024,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Children","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133022474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}