Grandparent Visitation

The case being discussed is Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service v Q [2016] QSC 89. The applicant for this case is the Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service. The first respondent is Q, a 12-year-old girl who is nine weeks pregnant. Q was referred to the Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service after visiting a general practitioner to terminate her pregnancy. The Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service, the applicant for this case, then applied to the court in the parens patriae jurisdiction for authorisation to terminate Q’s pregnancy. The parens patriae jurisidiction refers to the power of the court to impose a decision about a child on the basis it is for the child’s best interest. The second respondent is Q’s Father and the third respondent is Q’s Mother. The amicus curiae Ms

Mr. Simpson, a minor resident of California, is seeking to inherit from the estate of Mrs. Sweeney, decedent and resident of California at time of death, under the doctrine of equitable adoption. Mrs. Sweeney is the widow of Sam Sweeney (hereinafter called “Mr. Sweeney”), and the mother of Hannah Sweeney (hereinafter referred to as “Hannah”), the biological daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Sweeney (hereinafter referred to jointly as “the Sweeney’s”). Simpson interview, pg 3. In 2008, the Sweeney’s obtained formal custody of Mr. Simpson from the San Diego, Superior Court in California. Id. at 7. Mr. Simpson was eight at the time of obtaining custody. Id. at 4. The custody agreement awarded sole custody of Mr. Simpson to the Sweeney’s. During the time Mr. Sweeney was alive, Mrs. Sweeney attempted to talk Mr. Sweeney into formal adoption of Mr. Sweeney numerous time to no avail. Id. at 4. Mr. Sweeney did not believe in formal adoption of children, but nevertheless he continued to care for Mr. Simpson as he was his own child. Id. Mrs. Sweeney also spoke with an attorney about adoption while Mr. Sweeney was still alive. Id. at 5. During this time the Sweeney’s fed, clothed, and provided a home for Mr. Simpson without the financial support of others. Id. at 6. Mr. Simpson also went on vacations and took part in events, such as family pictures, that would form a familial relationship, and Mrs. Sweeney wore a “mothers ring” with Hannah’s and Mr.

     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

According to Encyclopedia: Child Custody (2003), “ Application of the best interests of the child criterion implies that the court's decision will provide the very best possible solution for the child.”

A report was received on 06/05/2017 alleging that the mother (Hermionne) left Ashante (C-V 17) with a non-relative since 02/2017 without any legal rights. According to the report, the mother refuses to take her child back home and will not engage with Ms. Aarons (caretaker) to provide legal documentation for the child to be enroll in school and taken to a Primary Care Physician. Ashante has not been is school for the past 4 months and are unable to enroll in school without paperwork. According to the report, Ashante self mutilates her arms, and the mother refuses to get counseling. The report indicates Ashante was to follow-up with a Cardiologist for a chest pain and the mother refuses to take her to the doctor.

The facts in this case are regarding the petitioner, Joshua DeShaney and the respondent, the county department of social services. In 1979, Joshua DeShaney was born and in 1980, a Wyoming court granted his parents a divorce and awarded custody to his father, Randy DeShaney. In January of 1982, Randy DeShaney’s second wife complained that he had previously “hit the boy, causing marks, and was a prime case for child abuse” (DeShaney v. Winnebago County). This would turn out to be the first of many complaints against Randy DeShaney regarding the abuse of Joshua DeShaney. Winnebago County Department of Social Services interviewed the father, and when asked if he abused his son, he denied such accusations and they did not pursue him any further. In January 1983, one year later, Joshua was admitted to a local hospital with bruises and abrasions, because of which, the physician suspected child abuse and notified the DSS. The DSS subsequently placed Joshua in temporary custody of the hospital but decided there was insufficient evidence of child abuse. They then recommended that Randy DeShaney enroll his son in preschool, provided Joshua’s father with counselling, and encouraged

The Court reasoned that the Washington statute violated parents’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because it stripped them of the autonomy to make best care decisions for their young.

This amicus brief reflects the balance between psychology and law by applying them both to decide which is the best option for child placement. The law states that the child should be place with a relative when possible. However, the attorneys are also reaching out to see what effect this could have on the child psychologically. They are using them together to decide what location would be the best for Arnes. The law does state that they should place with a relative when available, while also referring to the fact that a preexisting attachment to a family could also be the same. They refer to what type of damage could occur, if it is short term or would cause long term complications. The law itself is written to allow for interpretation

The following case analysis seeks to examine the Supreme Court’s decisions in Racine v. Woods, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 173, in regard to the legal questions, basis of reasoning, as well as the cultural implications.

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 –

Decisions about the circumstances under which children may be removed from their parents and placed in state-supervised foster care raise constitutional as well as policy questions. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall “deprive life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”The Supreme Court has long established that the Due Process Clause provides “heightened protection” against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests, the oldest of which is the fundamental liberty interest of parents “in the care, custody, and control of their

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”.

The following project, will address the case of Rita and Christiana C . after concern was provided by a neighbor, who reported that 2 years-old, Christina, seemed underweight, neglected and presented facial bruises. She is cared by her currently unemployed single 19 year old mother, Rita C., in a one bedroom apartment in a lower-income neighborhood of Pleasantville, CA. Under these circumstances, a caseworker was assigned by Child Protective Services to visit the home in order to identify the potential impacts and implications for the developmental growth of Christina C. In order to advise Judge Thompson, this project will focus on providing careful explanations that describe the familial and parental characteristics of the socio-cultural environment that favor the removal of Christina from Rita 's custody, followed by the explanation of why the attachment between the parent and child provide reasons that are against the removal of Rita 's custody of Christina, to end on a recommendation on which course of action will best benefit the child.

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