Child care proceedings in non-specialist courts: the experience in Ireland

It is widely accepted that court proceedings concerning child protection are a particularly sensitive type of court proceedings that warrant a different approach to other types of proceedings. Consequently, the use of specialized family or children’s judges or courts is commonplace across Europe and in common law jurisdictions. By contrast, in Ireland, proceedings under the Child Care Act 1991 are heard in the general courts system by judges who mostly do not specialize in child or family law. In principle, the Act itself and the associated case law accept that the vulnerability of the parties and the sensitivity of the issues involved are such that they need to be singled out for a different approach to other court proceedings. However, it is questionable whether this aspiration has been realized in a system where child care proceedings are mostly heard in a general District Court, using the same judges and the same physical facilities used for proceedings such as minor crime and traffic offences. This article draws on the first major qualitative analysis of professional perspectives on child care proceedings in the Irish District Court. It examines evidence from judges, lawyers, social workers, and guardians ad litem and asks whether non-specialist courts are an appropriate venue for proceedings on an issue as complex and sensitive as child protection, or whether the establishment of specialist family courts with dedicated staff and facilities provides a better solution.

Athletic groin pain (part 2): a prospective cohort study on the biomechanical evaluation of change of direction identifies three clusters of movement patterns

Background: Athletic groin pain (AGP) is prevalent in sports involving repeated accelerations, decelerations, kicking and change-of-direction movements. Clinical and radiological examinations lack the ability to assess pathomechanics of AGP, but three-dimensional biomechanical movement analysis may be an important innovation. Aim: The primary aim was to describe and analyse movements used by patients with AGP during a maximum effort change-of-direction task. The secondary aim was to determine if specific anatomical diagnoses were related to a distinct movement strategy. Methods: 322 athletes with a current symptom of chronic AGP participated. Structured and standardised clinical assessments and radiological examinations were performed on all participants. Additionally, each participant performed multiple repetitions of a planned maximum effort change-of-direction task during which whole body kinematics were recorded. Kinematic and kinetic data were examined using continuous waveform analysis techniques in combination with a subgroup design that used gap statistic and hierarchical clustering. Results: Three subgroups (clusters) were identified. Kinematic and kinetic measures of the clusters differed strongly in patterns observed in thorax, pelvis, hip, knee and ankle. Cluster 1 (40%) was characterised by increased ankle eversion, external rotation and knee internal rotation and greater knee work. Cluster 2 (15%) was characterised by increased hip flexion, pelvis contralateral drop, thorax tilt and increased hip work. Cluster 3 (45%) was characterised by high ankle dorsiflexion, thorax contralateral drop, ankle work and prolonged ground contact time. No correlation was observed between movement clusters and clinically palpated location of the participant's pain. Conclusions: We identified three distinct movement strategies among athletes with long-standing groin pain during a maximum effort change-of-direction task. These movement strategies were not related to clinical assessment findings but highlighted targets for rehabilitation in response to possible propagative mechanisms. Trial registration number NCT02437942, pre results.