Question: To what extent and for what reasons would you agree with Goldstein, Freud and Solnit’s view that: ‘... to acknowledge that some parents, whether biological, adoptive or long-time foster may threaten the well-being of their children is not to suggest that state legislatures, courts, or administrative agencies can always offer such children something better and compensate them for what they have missed in their own home. By its intrusion the State may make a bad situation worse, indeed, it may turn a tolerable or even good situation into a bad one.’ (Before the Best Interests of the Child, 1990)
Answer: The extent to which the state can and should intervene into the workings of the family and particularly the nature of parenting and care children receive has been the focus of debate for some considerable time. For some, the right of parents to bring up their children as they see fit free from state interference represents a fundamental principle, whilst for others the well being and protection of children is of paramount concern. Respect for family privacy by the state is enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and debates surrounding the private functioning of the family and the roll of the state to intervene in its activities raged throughout the 1980\\\'s and were in fact central to the review of child and family law that resulted in the Children Act 1989. Par......(short extract)
To download the full answer, please Sign in or Register then make a payment or submit coursework.
Details: - Mark: 69% | Course: Family Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2024 | References: Yes | Date written: March, 2002 | Date submitted: February 20, 2009 | Coursework ID: 453
