The use and abuse of social science research evidence in children’s cases
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12434732 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Judy Cashmore (0000-0001-8747-9541, The University of Sydney, corresponding author), Patrick Parkinson (0000-0001-9429-9768, The University of Sydney) |
| Year | 2014 |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 239-250 |
| Publication date | 2014-05-19 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Psychology Public Policy and Law (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1076-8971 • E-ISSN: 1939-1528 |
| Publisher | American Psychological Association (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1037/law0000010 |
| OpenAlex | W1976142677 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 15 |
| References cited | 19 |
In parenting cases, judges are asked to resolve the dispute by reference to the best interests of the child. In many cases, they have the benefit of expert witnesses who are trained in a social science and who draw upon the available research, directly or implicitly, in making recommendations concerning the child's best interests. Lawyers and judges may also be exposed to social science research in other ways, including conferences and educational programs. While the contribution of social science has been valuable, and many core propositions from that body of research have passed into generally accepted knowledge among family law professionals, the use of social science research in resolving individual cases remains, in some respects, problematic. This article, written particularly for lawyers and judges, outlines the issues involved in evaluating research findings, some of the dangers of using social science research in courts dealing with families and children, and measures that might help ensure the more appropriate use of such research in judicial decision-making. Giving lawyers and judges the tools to assess the reliability of social science evidence is arguably as important as exposure to evidence about particular issues that arise in the family law context
Criminology · Developmental psychology · Child Abuse and Trauma · Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare · Family Dynamics and Relationships · Psychology
Re-examining the research on parental conflict, coparenting, and custody arrangements
The Child's Right to Development
Pop Goes the Woozle
Developing the Right to Development
Lydia Bracken, Same-Sex Parenting and the Best Interests Principle
Empirical research in law
Mapping the use of social science in Australian courts
What do we know about children’s representation in child protection decisions? A scoping review
Enthusiast or sceptic? Social science consciousness among legal practitioners
Introducing Social Science Evidence in Family Court Decision-Making and Adjudication
Evidence in Norwegian child protection interventions – Analysing cases of familial violence
The Role of Children's Voices and Feedback Mechanisms in Family Justice
Court Child Experts' Experiences in Assessing Parenting Cases Involving Parental Mental Illness
Experts and migrants – A survey experiment on public acceptance of violence and child protection interventions
Boundary Crossing Between Academia and Law
Law as an autopoietic system
Assessing Attachment Security With the Attachment Q Sort
Families Experiencing Divorce
The Role of Social Science in Australian Family Law
Violence in the Family
Bringing psychology to the legal system
Exploring A New Family Form - The Shared Time Family
Effects of practicing episodic versus scripted recall on children's subsequent narratives of a repeated event
Cumulative research knowledge and social policy formulation
Woozles
Reforming the Law
Children's adjustment in joint and sole physical custody families
Developmental Cascades
The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research
Social science and parenting plans for young children
Parental divorce and the well-being of children
Nonresident Fathers and Children's Well-Being
Overnight Custody Arrangements, Attachment, and Adjustment Among Very Young Children
Marriage and Child Well-Being
| Unique citing works | 15 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,36 |
| Citation span | 2015 - 2026 (12) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 14 |