儿童参与:克服新西兰家庭法院和庭外纠纷解决程序之间的差距

IF 1.1 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
N. Taylor
{"title":"儿童参与:克服新西兰家庭法院和庭外纠纷解决程序之间的差距","authors":"N. Taylor","doi":"10.1163/15718182-02503004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article considers children’s right to participate in the context of private law disputes concerning their post-separation, day-to-day care and contact arrangements. In New Zealand the approach to ascertaining children’s views has been both long-standing and systematic for contested proceedings within the Family Court (via children’s legal representatives and judicial meetings with children). However, major reform of the family justice system in 2014 shifted the emphasis to new out-of-court processes for resolving post-separation parenting arrangements. The reforms were disappointingly silent on the issue of children’s participation in the new Family Dispute Resolution services, particularly mediation. A disparity has thus arisen between opportunities for children’s engagement in New Zealand’s in-court and out-of-court dispute resolution processes. Research evidence and international developments in Australia and England and Wales are reviewed for the guidance they can offer in remedying this in New Zealand and elsewhere.","PeriodicalId":46399,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Childrens Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15718182-02503004","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Child Participation: Overcoming Disparity between New Zealand’s Family Court and Out-of-court Dispute Resolution Processes\",\"authors\":\"N. Taylor\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718182-02503004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article considers children’s right to participate in the context of private law disputes concerning their post-separation, day-to-day care and contact arrangements. In New Zealand the approach to ascertaining children’s views has been both long-standing and systematic for contested proceedings within the Family Court (via children’s legal representatives and judicial meetings with children). However, major reform of the family justice system in 2014 shifted the emphasis to new out-of-court processes for resolving post-separation parenting arrangements. The reforms were disappointingly silent on the issue of children’s participation in the new Family Dispute Resolution services, particularly mediation. A disparity has thus arisen between opportunities for children’s engagement in New Zealand’s in-court and out-of-court dispute resolution processes. Research evidence and international developments in Australia and England and Wales are reviewed for the guidance they can offer in remedying this in New Zealand and elsewhere.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46399,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Childrens Rights\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15718182-02503004\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Childrens Rights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02503004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Childrens Rights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02503004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

本条考虑了儿童在涉及其离职后、日常护理和联系安排的私法纠纷中的参与权。在新西兰,确定儿童意见的方法对于家庭法院内有争议的诉讼程序(通过儿童法律代表和与儿童的司法会议)来说是长期和系统的。然而,2014年对家庭司法系统的重大改革将重点转移到了解决分居后育儿安排的新的庭外程序上。令人失望的是,改革对儿童参与新的家庭纠纷解决服务,特别是调解的问题保持沉默。因此,儿童参与新西兰法庭内和法庭外争端解决程序的机会出现了差异。对澳大利亚、英格兰和威尔士的研究证据和国际发展进行了审查,以期为新西兰和其他地方的补救提供指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Child Participation: Overcoming Disparity between New Zealand’s Family Court and Out-of-court Dispute Resolution Processes
This article considers children’s right to participate in the context of private law disputes concerning their post-separation, day-to-day care and contact arrangements. In New Zealand the approach to ascertaining children’s views has been both long-standing and systematic for contested proceedings within the Family Court (via children’s legal representatives and judicial meetings with children). However, major reform of the family justice system in 2014 shifted the emphasis to new out-of-court processes for resolving post-separation parenting arrangements. The reforms were disappointingly silent on the issue of children’s participation in the new Family Dispute Resolution services, particularly mediation. A disparity has thus arisen between opportunities for children’s engagement in New Zealand’s in-court and out-of-court dispute resolution processes. Research evidence and international developments in Australia and England and Wales are reviewed for the guidance they can offer in remedying this in New Zealand and elsewhere.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Childrens Rights
International Journal of Childrens Rights SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
11.80%
发文量
39
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信