Father In Blixt Analysis

Article 3 states that, in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration;

     According to many the custody of a child should be determined with the best interest of the child in mind. However, it is not easy for a

But children are a special case they cannot always stand up for themselves. They therefore need a special set of rights which take in to consideration their vulnerability and which ensures the adults that surround them take responsibly for their welfare, protection and development.

As a group, (each group member representing a person in the dilemma) we examined eight steps in the ERC. Throughout each phase, the child’s primary best interests were considered by all parties. As the director progressed through the ERC, it became clear that both the parents and Michael have legal rights that need to be addressed.

The integral part of this act is to maintain the child is at the forefront of decisions; the best option in relation to the child’s welfare will be taken into account when deciding the best course of action for the child/young person’s upbringing – creating a partnership between parents and multi-agencies.

The historical strict limitations regarding family visitation have relaxed in the past couple decades, but some resistance is still felt. There is a recognition of the emotional need of children for their parents. Visitation reduces parental and child stress. Visitation by parents should be permitted 24 hours a day and siblings should be permitted with doctor approval according to The American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM). Obvious limitations to visitation are physical structure and family dynamics.

In Attorney General v. Sheriff of Suffolk County, 394 Mass. 624 (1985); Guardianship of Anthony, 402 Mass. 723 (1988), “The Court cannot exercise the function of the executive branch of the government by ordering the agency to fulfill certain obligations in a specific manner”. However, if an agency has failed to act in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory imperatives, the court may find that said agency has abused its discretion, as measured by the arbitrary or capricious test. Care and Protection of Isaac, 419 Mass. 602, 614 (1985). The most important and apparent DCF’s abuses of discretion in this case is by removing the child away from her best comfort place, where she has been nursed by her natural mother. DCF possessed the legal custody of the child in this case, and decided to entrust the child to be housed at the prison facility, where the child’s mother is also housed. DCF considered that, according to its rules, regulation and professional practices, it was its best decision, best placement and best interest of the child.

(4) Before making any decision with respect to a child whom they are looking after, or proposing to look after, a local authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, ascertain the wishes and feelings of –

* To decide if the child is in need ( Section 17(1) of the Children Act 1989 states that it shall be the

* Parents should continue to be involved with their children and any legal proceedings that may concern them, and that legal

adhere to in order to improve a child’s health and protect them from harmful effects of family life,

In Reel v. Harrison, 118 Nev. 881; 60 P.3d 480; 2002 Nev., “First Judicial District Court affirmed the trial court’s determination that § 125C.200 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by restricting a custodial parent's fundamental right to travel. The trial court also concluded that even if § 125C.200 was constitutional, the mother was still permitted to relocate the minor child to New Jersey, based on the career and educational opportunities available... and the ability to maintain reasonable visitation with the father”.

As mentioned above, for a proper assessment of what promotes a child’s best interests cannot be restrictive, and it requires flexible and wide judicial discretion. The primary considerations operate at a level of general principle. In almost all cases, the additional considerations will operate to amplify the primary considerations where appropriate through detailed examination. However, if the additional considerations are simply understood as amplifying the primary considerations, then much of the difficulty in the relationship between primary and additional considerations would disappear. Children’s views, for example, may be a highly relevant factor in choosing who should be the primary caregiver and how much time they should spend with

Massachusetts courts have also worked to extend the right to counsel. In Guardianship of V.V., the Massachusetts Supreme Court unanimously found that it is the constitutional right of parents to have counsel in guardianship proceedings under the Massachusetts Constitution. The court explained that a parent’s rights in a guardianship proceeding are just as convincing as those in a termination case because no matter how the displacement of rights is, it still greatly affects the parent’s liberty interest.

For the most part, parents have the best interest of their children at heart. However, there are unfortunately many cases throughout the United States where parents are unable to, for one reason or another, take care of their children. Sometimes, this can be seen as a health issue of the parents. Sometimes, parents are unable to raise their children well due to physical, financial, and/or emotional issues. Other times, parents do not have the best interests of their children in mind and can be neglectful or abusive to them. In these circumstances, the state may become involved and step into