What Is A Guardian Ad Litem?

Identify and investigate these contemporary issues relating to family law and evaluate the effectiveness of legal and non-legal responses to these issues

A state that undertakes custody of a child is declaring that it can do a better job providing protection. This system is a powerful agent of support, providing positive nurturing environments that enable a child to reach his or her potential. Nonetheless, when children suffer additional abuse in the system, this government intervention should be questioned.

     The purpose of this paper was to give some insight into the vicious battles that take place over child custody. It is important to mention that raising children is difficult even with two parents, now when there is only one parent the difficultly increases by leaps and bounds. The idea of joint custody seems to sound like a good solution however, Smith (2003) stated

Child custody have been an issue for many years but no clear rules have been established until approximately in the 1970’s. In the early colonial years, the arrangement was unappealing to children and their mothers and possibly doing psychologically damage. Luckily, history has evolved and children’s well-being has become a priority in divorce cases.

The aim of Australia’s family law while responding the ever changing values of society, is to achieve justice in any activity it undertakes. The success of this is valued and determined by whether any significant action has been taken as a result, and what the effects of such actions are on improving the situations of all parties involved. The effectiveness of family law on changing values cannot be determined when regarded as a whole. However, when broken down into certain values, such as in the topic of best interest of the child during separation and the issue of surrogacy, it can be seen that Australia’s family laws are not effective in levelling with the community’s changing values.

According to the 2010 Plan for the Future of the New York City Family Court, the main goal of family court relies on ensuring “the highest standard of justice for each and every litigant who enters the courthouse” (2010). This is done by executing a sequence of processes and by providing different resources to individuals involved in the case. There are three major organizations that serve an important role in Family Court. These organizations ensure justice for individuals entering the family court system by providing a variety of different services. These organizations include the Administration for Children’s Services, the Legal Aid Society and the Panel of 18b Attorneys. Each of the three organizations mentioned, work to ensure the welfare of children and service to families by providing a variety of different services.

Family law is the most complex aspect of the Australian legal system as it is constantly under review and reform pursuing to adopt society’s continual change in values and principles. The changing of laws in an attempt to be parallel with society is a strenuous process. Nevertheless, legislations are reflective of contemporary society’s values and ethics. Numerous legal issues arise in regards to family including, same sex relationships, domestic violence and divorce ideally on the best interest of the child, where family laws have been imposed to protect individuals and aim to achieve justice.

With fault based divorce in the 1960s, child custody depended primarily on the child’s age. If the child was under seven years old, also known as the ‘tender years,’ the mother would receive physical custody. This was because of the belief at the time that women are good caregivers and it was their job to take care of the children at home. However, if the children were older, custody would be granted to the parent of the same sex. Sometimes judges would also award custody of children dependent on martial or sexual conduct of the spouses. When custody was awarded in this way, the presiding judge could be more focused on the rights of the parents than what is best for the child in that situation. Either way, it was quite noticeable that child custody was based on the judge and their opinion, which could change from case to case.

But back in 1891, a bill was introduced in the Illinois General Assembly proposing a children’s court. The person most instrumental in introducing this bill was Timothy D. Hurley, president of the Catholic-controlled Chicago Visitation and Aid Society. The bill would give county courts the power to commit dependent children to any nonprofit child welfare organization incorporated under Illinois law (Tannenhaus, 2002). In addition, the bill proposed that county courts be empowered to commit to private child-saving organizations any child “being trained or allowed to be trained in vice and crime” (Platt, 2009, p. 123 – 124). Lucy Flower supported this bill because it would give judges more discretion in handling dependent cases (Tannenhaus, 2002).

The second account of a changing stance toward children’s rights was evolution alongside women’s rights. Before this time, women and children were seen as unimportant under the law, whereas a father was given almost total control over all matters regarding his wife and children. If a father was violent or neglectful, society simply turned their shoulder to it. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, laws pertaining to the family system began to change. A new law recognized the equal rights of fathers and mothers with the mother’s rights reigning over the fathers in regards to the children. Also, the legal system began viewing children as important to the future of society, therefore “appropriate objects of the court’s

In the 19th Century "children began to emerge as a readily distinguishable group with independent needs and interests." Poor Laws and Chancery Courts were used to care for children in need. Poor laws gave the court power to appoint overseers to place destitute and neglected children as servants in the homes of the affluent. Chancery Courts were established to appoint guardians of orphaned children and protect their property and inheritance rights until they became of age. Under the

The child-essentially good, as they saw it was made to feel that he is the object of the state's care and solicitude, not that he was under arrest or on trial” (In re Gault, 1967).

This dialogue will express the differences between traditional parental responsibility statues and vicarious liability. Parental responsibility statues are based on the parent’s actions and mistakes while vicarious liability statues are based off of the parent child relationship with each other.[1] Vicarious liability statues generate from the public anxiety, frustration, and rage over juvenile crime and parent’s failure to have paternal control over their children in our society.[1] Furthermore, there are only a few appellate courts cases regarding vicarious liability statues that held parents accountable for their children criminal behavior due to parent child relationship {Difonzo 2001}.[1] For example, in 1979 the State v. Akers, the

More than 40 years have passed since the Capacity and Guardianship Law was enacted in 1962. The law stated that the court

guardians can reach their children, their kids friends, or just a young person in their community and