|Appears in Collections:||Faculty of Social Sciences Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Contested views of expertise in children's care and permanence proceedings|
|Citation:||Hill M, Welch V & Gadda A (2017) Contested views of expertise in children's care and permanence proceedings. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 39 (1), pp. 42-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2016.1272781|
|Abstract:||In this article, we consider different perspectives on who is best able to provide relevant and helpful expertise in public law cases where the long-term care of children is under consideration. Opinions vary and sometimes conflict on the respective importance of legal, child development, and lay understandings. These opinions relate to views on rights, appropriate procedures, decision-making processes, and the effects of decisions on children. Firstly, we summarise literature relevant to the knowledge and skills of three key groups of decision-makers within the Scottish child care system: legal professionals, child care professionals and lay decision-makers, and outline literature about guardiansad litemand their counterparts. We then discuss issues of expertise emerging from a study exploring the reasons for, and impact of, the appointment of safeguarders (who, in Scotland, perform a similar role to guardians). We conclude that there may be an increasing tendency for disagreement and a lack of clarity about who brings the most relevant and helpful expertise to hearings; this may have negative effects for children.|
|Rights:||This item has been embargoed for a period. During the embargo please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis Group in Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law on 03 Feb 2017, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/09649069.2016.1272781|
|Contested views of expertise as accepted preproofing4928.pdf||Fulltext - Accepted Version||705.74 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.