Legal Theory Essay Example

not take action until after the appellant left her baby with a babysitter on December 31, 1983 and contacted requesting foster care before returning home.

Upon analyzing the case's initial facts, it is evident that the respondents placed a high value on both the child and appellant's well-being. To guarantee optimal results for the child, they contemplated the potential ramifications of leaving them with the appellant as their morality and welfare were at risk.

Utilitarianism can act as a mechanism to monitor legislators by emphasizing society's greater good. In Re K D's context, it might contend that keeping a child with their biological parents is in society's best interest.

The main argument presented is that as long as a child is not in danger, they should remain with their biological parent regardless of socioeconomic status, as it aligns with natural processes. The reinforcement of this idea comes from Templeman LJ's statement within the context of the case. However, Rawls' critique of utilitarianism points out that individuality should not be overlooked and ignoring it could result in harm to minority groups. In summary, while following the majority may have advantages, it may not necessarily be ideal for all individuals.

While intuition-based decisions may appear accurate, they don't ensure the correct choice. The hedonistic philosophy prioritizes pleasure-seeking; however, personal experiences can differ significantly. An activity that provides maximum enjoyment and minimum discomfort for one individual could result in entirely opposite emotions for another. Local authorities may have to intervene and take custody of a child if their biological parents cannot provide them with a secure and stable home environment. Moreover, terminating parental access involves considering rights.

The emphasis is on individuals rather

than the community when it comes to rights. In all situations, priority should be given to the rights of both the mother and child. Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms stresses that preserving a parent-child relationship is essential unless it is not in the best interest of the child.

Public entities are not allowed to violate an individual's right to privacy in regards to their personal and familial life, as well as their correspondence, unless legal requirements have been met.

Being a convention party, the United Kingdom must maintain specific essential rights such as safeguarding health and morals and showing consideration for the freedoms and liberties of others. The function of public authorities regarding family life is supervisory, not controlling. While it remains within a mother's prerogative to nurture and cherish her offspring, ensuring a stable upbringing holds equal importance. M v M [1973] stated by Latey J maintains that withholding access from a parent should only happen in extraordinary situations since it can impede the child's emotional and material growth in the future.

The fundamental principle states that a child is best placed with their biological parent due to the inherent bond of affection between them. Local authorities can only intervene when the child's physical and emotional welfare is in danger. In Re K D, even though social services arranged for an hour-long weekly visit in their housing, the natural mother still had custody of her child. Hollis J conducted a thorough four-day investigation and concluded that the appellant was an immature and irresponsible parent who entrusted their child to short-term foster parents incapable of providing long-term

care.

After reasonable efforts to keep the mother and child together, a case conference determined that it was not possible. The local authority considered the child's right to a stable family life, leading to the decision to place Kenneth with long-term foster parents. He quickly blended in with the family and adapted well. A report only a month later revealed the respondents' intentions to petition for instant wardship, which would terminate the appellant's access to the child.

Although Stephen Brown LJ acknowledged the difficulties encountered by the local authority in meeting their obligation to establish enduring welfare arrangements for a child, he underscored the importance of prioritizing the mother's rights and suggested that discontinuing access is not presently a feasible resolution.

According to the court, it cannot be assumed that severing the bond between a young mother and her child is irreversible as this could have harmful effects on both parties. The court also recognizes that despite being young, the mother desires to maintain a relationship with her child but may not have fully considered what is best for them. These circumstances are similar to those of the 2000 G v United Kingdom (Minors: Right of contact) case.

The case dealt with a divorced father's right to access his children. Despite complex arguments, the court recognized the father's rights while also taking into consideration the children's well-being. This is because parents often use their children during divorce hearings, causing them stress. The House of Lords heard the appeal after the child had already been in the foster care of bonded foster parents for 2 1/2 years. At the age of 3, as stated by Templemen LJ (579 (b)),

the child could not handle having two competing mothers.

The child found the concept of having two mothers overwhelming and distressing during visits with the appellant, as noted by a consultant psychiatrist who observed that the child's level of distress surpassed typical separation anxiety associated with going to school. Additionally, Dr Place's investigation uncovered that removing the child from their foster parents would sever their emotional support system. The primary concern was determining whether the mother's needs or rights outweighed those of the child. After all attempts to rehabilitate the relationship between mother and child failed, prioritizing the best interests and needs of the child became necessary.

The respondents expressed concern for the child's distress during access visits and desired a stable and loving environment. They believed the foster parents were providing such an environment and wished to maintain a relationship with them. Seeking an order of wardship, their main goal was to prioritize the well-being of the child by allowing the foster parents to adopt rather than prioritizing the appellant's rights.