Parental Responsibility and the Duty to Consult - the public's view

This article considers the imposition, by the courts, of a parental duty to consult on matters of importance in a child’s life. The results of a survey of 2,300 respondents, who were asked to respond to a number of scenarios, are analysed and discussed. The survey provides some interesting reflections on the views of the general public as to who should be ‘in control’ over decision making for children.

Fairness in Ancillary Relief

This article stems from setting student projects. It describes in detail the outcome of a project designed to ascertain the views of the public in relation to ancillary relief and what they consider to be a 'fair' outcome. The rationale for undertaking student projects has been discussed at length in another article and is therefore only alluded to here. The discussion centres around the law, findings and outcome of the project. Students studying the Family Law course at Sheffield University were required to survey members of the public in order to gather their views on the division of assets on divorce and then to analyse the public's response in light of the seminal decision of the House of Lords in White v White [2001] 1 AC 596.

‘Stakeholders’ views of legal and advice services for people admitted to psychiatric hospital’

This paper describes a study that used a mixed method approach to elicit the views of a range of stakeholders about experiences of compulsory admission to psychiatric hospital, and the use of the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT). The paper begins with an introduction to the background of the study, one that took place in Northern Ireland, a region in the UK with its own mental health legislation and policy. A review of literature is then presented. This highlights some of the disadvantages that service users and carers face when dealing with professionals during and following compulsory admission to hospital. This section concludes with an overview of literature on the MHRT in the UK. A range of methods was used to gather data from the following stakeholders: five service user and carer focus group interviews (n = 44); interviews with four lawyers experienced in Tribunal work; an interview with a legal member of the Tribunal; a survey of solicitors who identified themselves as equipped to carry out Tribunal work; interviews with three managers of organisations that provided patient advocacy services; letters to hospital managers requesting information provided to patients and carers. The findings reveal a number of themes associated with these experiences of compulsory admission to hospital and subsequent use of the Tribunal. Service users and carers generally found it difficult to access relevant information about rights, information provided by hospital managers was uneven and lawyers were often not familiar with processes associated with compulsory admission. There was a range of views about the Tribunal. Most respondents felt that the Tribunal was necessary and mostly satisfactory in the way it carried out its functions, but stakeholders raised a number of issues. Carers in particular felt that they should be more involved in decision-making processes, whereas lawyers tended to be focused on more technical, legal issues. Problems of regrading prior to the Tribunal and in examining medical evidence were highlighted by lawyers. There was an appeal for better information and advice by service users and carers, and recognition of the need for better training and education for lawyers. The paper concludes with a brief discussion about current mental health law in the UK, arguing that, in this context, professionals should more proactively use information and advice that can enable service users and carers to defend their rights. Keywords: compulsory mental health; law; legal and advice services

‘Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2009—An attempt to arbitrate on a system’s logic.’

The Child Care (Amendment) Bill was passed by the Seanad on 6th May 2010 and will shortly be enacted as legislation as the Child Care (Amendment) Act, 2010. The Bill, consisting of six Parts amends existing legislation relating to secure or ‘special care’ and makes some further amendments to the Child Care Act, 1991. The Act also provides for the dissolution of the Children Acts Advisory Board, a statutory body established in 2003, whose function was to advise the Minister on policy relating to specialist residential services (specifically Special Care Units) . This article examines the provisions of the Child Care Bill (2009) setting these in the context of current policy and previous legislation. It outlines that while the legislation outlines a detailed process for the application and administration of Special Care Orders, the provisions are weakened by the removal of external oversight mechanisms and the limitations placed on the role of the Guardian ad Litem.