Family law issues and schools : guidance for Australian educators

A substantial number of Australian children are now living in separated families, with many moving between their parents’ homes. This has led to educators being confronted with an increasing number of family law issues. This article discusses the key aspects of family law that involve children. It highlights the need for schools to be aware of all family law orders that relate to children in their care, including family court, domestic violence and child protection orders. It also provides guidance in relation to how schools can adopt child focused approaches in some common scenarios, where parents are in dispute. In particular, we will recommend that educators take a child-focused approach, consistent with the principal provision of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that ‘the best interests of the child’ be the paramount consideration. We will highlight how this contrasts starkly with what can be described as a ‘parental rights’ interpretation, which has unfortunately been taken by some since the 2006 amendments to the Family Law Act, and is, in our view, directly at odds with the intention of the legislation.

How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide?

The purpose of this paper is to provide a basis from which to start an informed and rational dialogue in Australia about voluntary euthanasia (VE) and assisted suicide (AS). It does this by seeking to chart the broad landscape of issues that can be raised as relevant to how this conduct should be regulated by the law. It is not our purpose to persuade. Rather, we have attempted to address the issues as neutrally as possible and to canvass both sides of the argument in an even-handed manner. We hope that this exercise places the reader in a position to consider the question posed by this paper: How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide? In line with the approach taken in the paper, this question does not take sides in the debate. It simply asks how VE and AS should be regulated, acknowledging that both prohibition and legalisation of such conduct involve regulation. We begin by considering the wider legal framework that governs end of life decision-making. Decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment that result in a person’s death can be lawful. This could be because, for example, a competent adult refuses such treatment. Alternatively, stopping or not providing treatment can be lawful when it is no longer in a person’s best interests to receive it. The law also recognises that appropriate palliative care should not attract criminal responsibility. By contrast, VE and AS are unlawful in Australia and could lead to prosecution for crimes such as murder, manslaughter or aiding and abetting suicide. But this is not to say that such conduct does not occur in practice. Indeed, there is a body of evidence that VE and AS occur in Australia, despite them being unlawful. There have been repeated efforts to change the law in this country, mainly by the minor political parties. However, apart from a brief period when VE and AS was lawful in the Northern Territory, these attempts to reform the law have been unsuccessful. The position is different in a small but increasing number of jurisdictions overseas where such conduct is lawful. The most well known is the Netherlands but there are also statutory regimes that regulate VE and/or AS in Belgium and Luxembourg in Europe, and Oregon and Washington in the United States. A feature of these legislative models is that they incorporate review or oversight processes that enable the collection of data about how the law is being used. As a result, there is a significant body of evidence that is available for consideration to assess the operation of the law in these jurisdictions and some of this is considered briefly here. Assisting a suicide, if done for selfless motives, is also legal in Switzerland, and this has resulted in what has been referred to as ‘euthanasia tourism’. This model is also considered. The paper also identifies the major arguments in favour of, and against, legalisation of VE and AS. Arguments often advanced in favour of law reform include respect for autonomy, that public opinion favours reform, and that the current law is incoherent and discriminatory. Key arguments against legalising VE and AS point to the sanctity of life, concerns about the adequacy and effectiveness of safeguards, and a ‘slippery slope’ that will allow euthanasia to occur for minors or for adults where it is not voluntary. We have also attempted to step beyond these well trodden and often rehearsed cases ‘for and against’. To this end, we have identified some ethical values that might span both sides of the debate and perhaps be the subject of wider consensus. We then outline a framework for considering the issue of how Australia should regulate VE and AS. We begin by asking whether such conduct should be criminal acts (as they presently are). If VE and AS should continue to attract criminal responsibility, the next step is to enquire whether the law should punish such conduct more or less than is presently the case, or whether the law should stay the same. If a change is favoured as to how the criminal law punishes VE and AS, options considered include sentencing reform, creating context-specific offences or developing prosecutorial guidelines for how the criminal justice system deals with these issues. If VE and AS should not be criminal acts, then questions arise as to how and when they should be permitted and regulated. Possible elements of any reform model include: ensuring decision-making is competent and voluntary; ascertaining a person’s eligibility to utilise the regime, for example, whether it depends on him or her having a terminal illness or experiencing pain and suffering; and setting out processes for how any decision must be made and evidenced. Options to bring about decriminalisation include challenging the validity of laws that make VE and AS unlawful, recognising a defence to criminal prosecution, or creating a statutory framework to regulate the practice. We conclude the paper where we started: with a call for rational and informed consideration of a difficult and sensitive issue. How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide?

Workable solutions : the intersubjective careers of women with families

This chapter considers to what degree the careers of women with young families, both in and out of paid employment, are lived as contingent, intersubjective projects pursued across time and space, in the social condition of growing biographical possibilities and uneven social/ideological change. Their resolutions of competing priorities by engaging in various permutations of home-work and paid work are termed ‘workable solutions’, with an intentional play on the double sense of ‘work’ – firstly as labour, thus being able to perform work, whether paid or not; secondly as in being able to make things work or function in the family unit’s best interests, however defined.

Double standards in special medical research : questioning the discrepancy between requirements for medical research involving incompetent adults and medical research involving children

Medical research represents a substantial departure from conventional medical care. Medical care is patient-orientated, with decisions based on the best interests and/or wishes of the person receiving the care. In contrast, medical research is future-directed. Primarily it aims to contribute new knowledge about illness or disease, or new knowledge about interventions, such as drugs, that impact upon some human condition. Current State and Territory laws and research ethics guidelines in Australia relating to the review of medical research appropriately acknowledge that the functions of medical care and medical research differ. Prior to a medical research project commencing, the study must be reviewed and approved by a Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). For medical research involving incompetent adults, some jurisdictions require an additional, independent safeguard by way of tribunal or court approval of medical research protocols. This extra review process reflects the uncertainty of medical research involvement, and the difficulties surrogate decision-makers of incompetent adults face in making decisions about others, and deliberating about the risks and benefits of research involvement. Parents of children also face the same difficulties when making decisions about their child’s research involvement. However, unlike the position concerning incompetent adults, there are no similar safeguards under Australian law in relation to the approval of medical research involving children. This column questions why this discrepancy exists with a view to generating further dialogue on the topic.

Health and guardianship law : the decision of X v the Sydney Children's Hospitals Network [2013] NSWCA 320 : mature minors and the refusal of blood products

This recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal considers the scope of the parens patriae jurisdiction in cases where the jurisdiction is invoked for the protection of a Gillick competent minor. As outlined below, in certain circumstances the law recognises that mature minors are able to make their own decisions concerning medical treatment. However, there have been a number of Commonwealth decisions which have addressed the issue of whether mature minors are able to refuse medical procedures in circumstances where refusal will result in the minor dying. Ultimately, this case confirms that the minor does not necessarily have a right to make autonomous decisions; the minor’s right to exercise his or her autonomous decision only exists when such decision accords with what is deemed to be in his or her best interests.

Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment

• At common law, a competent adult can refuse life-sustaining medical treatment, either contemporaneously or through an advance directive which will operate at a later time when the adult’s capacity is lost. • Legislation in most Australian jurisdictions also provides for a competent adult to complete an advance directive that refuses life-sustaining medical treatment. • At common law, a court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction can consent to, or authorise, the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining medical treatment from an adult or child who lacks capacity if that is in the best interests of the person. A court may also declare that the withholding or withdrawal of treatment is lawful. • Guardianship legislation in all jurisdictions allows a substitute decision-maker, in an appropriate case, to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment for an adult who lacks capacity. • In terms of children, a parent may refuse life-sustaining medical treatment for his or her child if it is in the child’s best interests. • While a refusal of life-sustaining medical treatment by a competent child may be valid, this decision can be overturned by a court. • At common law and generally under guardianship statutes, demand for futile treatment need not be complied with by doctors.

Equal shared parental responsibility and shared care post-return to Australia under the Hague Child Abduction Convention

This article explores the outcomes experienced by abducting primary carer mothers and their children post-return to Australia under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.1 The circumstances faced by families that experience international parental child abduction are examined by considering how part VII of the Australian Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is applied to resolve parenting disputes post-return. At present, the statutory criteria found in part VII encourage an equal shared parental responsibility and shared care parenting approach.2 This emphasis aligns children’s best interests with collaborative parenting3 and their parents living within close geographical proximity of each other to facilitate the practicalities of the approach.4 Arguably, these statutory criteria guide the exercise of judicial discretion to determine a child’s best interests towards a parenting arrangement that is incompatible with the lifestyle and functional characteristics of these families.

Community engagement or community conversation?: Boomtown, a large-scale regional, outdoor community theatrical event

On the 18th of July 2013, three hundred local members of Gladstone, Queensland erupted into song and dance performing the fraught history of their community harbourside through tug boat ballets, taiko drumming, German bell ringing and BMX bike riding. Over 17,500 people attended the four performances of Boomtown, a Queensland Music Festival event. This was the largest regional, outdoor community-engaged musical performance staged in Australia. The narrative moved beyond the dominant, pejorative view of Gladstone as an industrial town to include the community members’ sense of purpose and aspirations. It was a celebratory, contentious and ambitious project that sought to disrupt the traditional conventions of performance-making through working in artistically democratic ways. This article explores the potential for Australian Community Engaged Arts (CEA) projects such as Boomtown to democratically engage community members and co-create culturally meaningful work within a community. Research into CEA projects rarely consider how the often delicate conversations between practitioners and the community work. The complex processes of finding and co-writing the narrative, casting, and rehearsing Boomtown are discussed with reference to artistic director/dramaturge Sean Mee’s innovative approaches. Boomtown began with and concluded with community conversations. Skilful negotiation ensured congruence between the townspeople’s stories and the “community story” presented on stage, abrogating potential problems of narrative ownership. To supplement the research, twenty-one personal interviews were undertaken with Gladstone community members invested in the production before, during and after the project: performers, audience members and local professionals. The stories shared and emphasised in the theatricalised story were based on propitious, meaningful, local stories from lived experiences rather than preconceived, trivial or tokenistic matters, and were underpinned by a consensus formed on what was in the best interests of the majority of community members. Boomtown exposed hidden issues in the community and gave voice to thoughts, feelings and concerns which triggered not just engagement, but honest conversation within the community.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

La homoparentalidad en el proyecto de reforma del Código Civil

Resumen: Este artículo tiene por objeto analizar si el principio del interés superior del niño es preservado en el Proyecto de Reforma de Código Civil en el contexto homoparental, así como develar la verdadera implicancia del uso de términos tales como “homoparentalidad” y “parentalidad” en lugar de “maternidad/paternidad” y “filiación”.

A responsabilidade dos pais pelos atos dos filhos menores

Trata-se de estudo sobre a responsabilidade dos pais em caso de ato ilícito cometido pelo filho menor. Nos termos do artigo 932, I, do atual Código Civil brasileiro, os pais respondem pelos atos dos filhos que estiverem sob sua autoridade e em sua companhia. Nesse sentido, intenta-se esclarecer conceitos como paternidade, autoridade e companhia a fim de melhor compreender o alcance da norma. O exercício da autoridade parental e a garantia da vítima serão apresentados como fundamentos do dever dos pais de reparar os danos causados por seus filhos. Partindo-se desses fundamentos, busca-se também nova abordagem do instituto do poder familiar, levando em consideração a mudança na concepção das famílias nos últimos anos. O desempenho da autoridade por outras figuras, como os avós e os padrastos, permitem reflexões em torno da responsabilidade sobre os menores que estão sob seus cuidados, principalmente no que pertine ao dever de reparar os danos causados. Acerca do fenômeno da responsabilidade civil, atenta-se para a grande preocupação com a vítima, merecedora de indenização pelos prejuízos sofridos. A possibilidade de atingir o patrimônio de terceiros, independente da caracterização da culpa, sinaliza a garantia dada ao ofendido. A mesma importância merece o interesse do menor, seja no que diz respeito ao seu patrimônio, seja em suas relações existenciais. Em razão disso, o estudo também aborda o ato ilícito cometido por menores, partindo de uma releitura do regime das capacidades, a fim de considerar a análise da conduta culposa do ofensor a partir do seu possível discernimento. Os princípios constitucionais como melhor interesse da criança e do adolescente, dignidade da pessoa humana, solidariedade, igualdade e paternidade responsável figuram como diretrizes à compreensão do tema.

Revisioning assessment through a children’s rights approach: implications for policy, process and practice

The linkage between the impact of assessment and compliance with children’s rights is a connection, which although seemingly obvious, is nonetheless rarely made, particularly by governments, which, as signatories to the relevant human rights treaties, have the primary responsibility for ensuring that educational practice is compatible with international children’s rights standards. While some jurisdictions are explicit about an adherence to children’s rights frameworks in general policy documentation, such a commitment rarely features when the focus is on assessment and testing. Thus, in spite of significant public and academic attention given to the consequences of assessment for children and governments committed to working within children’s rights standards, the two are rarely considered together. This paper examines the implications for the policy, process and practice of assessment in light of international human rights standards. Three key children’s rights principles and standards are used as a critical lens to examine assessment policy and practice: (1) best interests; (2) non-discrimination; and (3) participation. The paper seeks new insights into the complexities of assessment practice from the critical perspective of children’s rights and argues that such standards not only provide a convenient benchmark for developing, implementing and evaluating assessment practices, but also acknowledge the significance of assessment in the delivery of children’s rights to, in and through education more generally.

Older People's Conceptualisation of Elder and neglect

Purpose

To be effective, definitions of elder abuse should be informed by the perspectives of older people themselves.

Methods

This qualitative study used data from eight focus groups involving 58 people aged over 65 years in both urban and rural settings across Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Following training, four older people assisted in facilitation and analysis as ‘peer-researchers'.

Findings

Increasing lack of respect within society was experienced as abusive. The vulnerability of older people to abuse was perceived as relating to the need for help and support, where standing up for themselves might have repercussions for the person's health or safety. Emotional abusiveness was viewed as underpinning all forms of abuse, and as influencing its experienced severity. Respondents' views as to whether an action was abusive required an understanding of intent; some actions that professionals might view as abusive were regarded as acceptable if they were in the older person's best interests.

Implications

Preventing abuse requires a wide-ranging approach including re-building respect for older people within society. Procedures to prevent elder abuse need to take into account the emotional impact of family relationships and intent, not just a description of behaviours that have occurred.

O depoimento da criança no processo civil e sua valoração probatória

O presente trabalho tem por objetivo examinar um dos meios de prova oral do processo civil, que é o depoimento da criança. Diante da existência de uma certa resistência quanto à utilização e validade deste meio de prova, foram destacados argumentos de direito probatório favoráveis à tomada do depoimento infantil, como o direito à prova no sistema da prova livre e na vertente do direito de ação e defesa, além da necessária comparação com o processo penal e o destaque aos princípios da proteção integral e do superior interesse da criança, os quais foram reforçados por outros de natureza médico-psicológica, que visaram a destacar a capacidade cognitiva da criança em recordar fatos e relatá-los. Após a desconstrução do modelo de exclusão prévia do depoimento infantil, a dissertação abordou os modelos de proteção para a audição judicial da criança, para se evitar a vitimização secundária da criança e exposição desnecessária às partes, advogados e juízes. Neste particular, foram revisados os modelos inglês do closed-circuit television - CCTV e argentino da Câmara de Gesell como paradigmas para vários outros países, inclusive o Brasil que tem incentivado o depoimento sem dano. Em derradeiro, foi examinada a valoração desse depoimento da criança, tomando-se por base a justificação lógico-racional da prova consubstanciada nos módulos de constatação, ocasião em que foi possível sublinhar que a utilização dos modelos e métodos de inquirição protetivos culminam em maior credibilidade ao depoimento da criança no processo civil e proporcionam a descoberta de falsidade voluntária ou não. Também no tópico da valoração da prova, o conteúdo do depoimento infantil vai trazer maior confiança quando conjugado com elementos intrínsecos, como a coerência do discurso e a ausência de contradições, e extrínsecos, realizado na modalidade protetiva.

Student Perceptions of Discretion in Discipline: Seeking Resolution and Restoration in a Punitive Culture

This study examined high school student perceptions of discretion utilized by educators in high school disciplinary proceedings. Using a sample of 6 high school students who had experienced differing levels of formal discipline, the study investigated the discretionary factors that influence an educator's decision making. The study was a generic qualitative study where the primary source of data collection was open-ended interviews to ensure the integrity of the research as a study of student voices and perceptions. Journaling was also employed to record observations and to identify researcher assumptions. The data were analyzed employing aspects of a grounded theory approach. The findings were coded to reveal 5 areas high school students identified in relation to discipline and discretion: punitive discipline versus problem resolution, effective processes, educator discretion, student discretion, and the student-educator relationship. The final discussion highlights the need for a community vision for high school discipline in order to channel discretion and to uphold students' best interests. Restorative justice is proposed as a feasible vision for high school discipline, whereby participants' responses are measured against a restorative paradigm.