Parental Responsibility

Previous research indicates that people ascribe less responsibility to juvenile offenders than adult offenders for the crimes they have committed. Although assignment of responsibility to parents varies depending upon the youth’s age, we know little about the role of other factors. The current study used randomized factorial vignettes to examine whether the seriousness of the offense, peer involvement, and the offender's race, age, sex, and prior record influence support for parental responsibility. We found that participants in our study placed substantial responsibility on parents for dealing with juvenile offenders; however, support for punishing the parents was low, while the importance attached to enrolling parents in training was high. Views on parental responsibility were influenced by the age of the juvenile and the seriousness of the offense. The implications of these findings and how they fit in with previous work are discussed.

Background

The preventative paradigm of preconception care is receiving increasing attention, yet its boundaries remain vague in three respects: temporally; agentially; and instrumentally. Crucially, it remains unclear just who is to be considered a ‘potential parent’, how soon they should take up preconception responsibilities, and how weighty their responsibilities should be. 

Discussion

In this paper, we argue that a normal potential parent of reasonable prudence has a moral duty to adequately optimize the conditions under which she or his reproductive partner will conceive, though a proportionality calculus calls for toleration of several forms of preconception behavior that are non-ideal from the perspective of reproductive risk. We distinguish between five categories of potential parents to which different duties of preconception care should be ascribed. This framework is advanced to assign preconception care responsibilities with more precision than is often done in the current debate on preconception care. We conclude by applying our theoretical framework to three types of preconception care interventions: consumption of folic acid; keeping one’s weight under control; and engaging in preconception genetic screening. Our analysis shows that the literature on preconception care often glosses over crucial distinctions between different types of potential parents and uses a notion of preconception beneficence that may be overly demanding. Nevertheless, preconception moral duties will often be weighty and reluctance to accept such duties on account of the burden they impose do not warrant preconception insouciance.

Summary

To avoid misplaced responsibility ascriptions in the growing field of preconception care, distinctions must be made between different types of potential parents to whom different degrees of preconception responsibility apply. We present such a preliminary framework and bring it to bear on the cases of folic acid consumption, obesity and genetic testing.

This article considers the development and use of the law regulating the prosecution of parents under section 444 of the Education Act1996, in the broader context of legislation and policy initiatives concerned with the governance of parental responsibility. It explores the ways in which the power to prosecute parents has been used by local educational authorities (LEAs) and interpreted by the courts. The article critically analyses the manner in which the powers emphasise punishment and retribution in the context of the social moralisation of ‘flawed’ parents; pay insuffcient regard to the effects of parental responsibility laws on low-income, single parent families; represent an attempt to impose a simple solution on to a complex socio-economic problem; and amplify the scope for mothers to be made the subject of criminal justice interventions. It is argued that the prosecution of parents imposes an unfair burden on mothers and, in particular, single parent mothers.

Th e Chilean family legal system enshrines nowadays, the parental joint responsibility as one of the principles that guide the actions of the parents towards their children. Th is is a new fi gure that can positively transform the traditional structures of parent-child relationships in life apart from the parents. From there, the importance of understanding the meaning and scope of the principle and be aware of the challenges posed.

In recent decades, self-control has received increasing attention as it can safeguard child-development and human wellbeing. Researchers from various disciplines – philosophy, neuroscience and social psychology – have investigated what self-control is, how it is generated and how it can be stimulated. This chapter critically reflects on recent discussions of the concept and the science of self-control while investigating their bearings on the question of whether parents have a responsibility to raise self-controlled children and what that would entail. The argument put forth is that current social psychology and neuroscience largely investigates controlled behaviour but ignores the prefix self. Consequently, a more comprehensive understanding of the term that does justice to both aspects is required. This gives rise to two different sets of educational goals. Firstly, raising self-controlled children entails teaching them strategies to overcome temptation. Secondly, it requires that parents support children to develop a self that sets its own goals, reflects on these goals and considers them as reasons for action.

Resumen: En materia de responsabilidad parental, el Reglamento 2201/2003 tiene que aplicarse conjuntamente con el Convenio de La Haya de 1996, en el que la Unión Europea ha decidido participar. La coordinación de estos dos instrumentos internacionales ha resultado difícil, en relación particular-mente con las normas de competencia judicial internacional. Uno de los objetivos del nuevo Reglamento 2019/1111 ha sido solventar este problema, con la adición de un nuevo párrafo al precepto dedicado a regular las relaciones con el Convenio de La Haya del 96 (art. 61 del Reglamento 2201/2003, ahora art. 97 del Reglamento 2019/1111), que es objeto de análisis en el presente estudio. Palabras clave: Reglamento 2019/1111, Convenio Haya 1996, coordinación, normas de compe-tencia judicial internacional. Abstract: In parental responsibility issues, Regulation 2201/2203 has to be applied in conjunction with the 1996 Hague Convention, in which the European Unión has decided to participate. The coordination of these two bodies of international rules has shown to be difficult, particularly in relation with the jurisdiction rules. One of the objectives of new Regulation 2019/1111 is to solve this problem, with the addition of a new paragraph to the article dedicated to regulate the relations with the 1996 Hague Convention (art. 61 of Regulation 2201/2003, now art. 97 of Regulation 2019/1111), which is analysed in this study. Sumario: I. Introducción. II. La participación de la Unión Europea en el CH 96. III. El mar-co de relaciones entre el Reglamento (UE) 2019/1111 y el CH 96. 1. El Reglamento 2019/1111 y las relaciones con otros instrumentos internacionales. 2. Determinación del ámbito de coincidencia * Este trabajo se realiza en el marco de las actividades de la Cátedra Jean Monnet sobre derecho de familia y sucesiones en la Unión Europea (Reference number: 599094-EPP-1-ES-EPPJMO-CHAIR), de la que la autora es titular. Las opiniones y valoraciones que se realizan en el presente trabajo son de la exclusiva responsabilidad de la autora.

El art. 10 del Reglamento 2019/1111 supedita la elección de foro en materia de responsabilidad parental al cumplimiento de una serie de condiciones, que son objeto de análisis en este trabajo: el menor debe estar estrechamente relacionado con el Estados miembro, cuyos órganos jurisdiccionales son elegidos, en especial por alguna de las circunstancias que se enumeran en el propio precepto; es necesario el acuerdo de las partes, así como de cualquier otro titular de la responsabilidad parental, que debe hacerse cumpliendo unos determinados requisitos formales y temporales; y el ejercicio de la competencia debe responder al interés superior del menor. El trabajo toma como referencia el art. 12 del Reglamento 2201/2003 y la jurisprudencia del TJUE sobre este precepto, para explicar el sentido de los cambios que se introducen. Las relaciones entre las normas de competencia judicial internacional del Reglamento 2019/1111 y del Convenio de La Haya de 1996 también son objeto de análisis en este trabajo.

A brief argument in favor of responsible sexual intimacy and taking parental responsibility for the children that are produced. A one-time act of making life-just like a one-time act of taking life-can trigger a lifetime of responsibilities.

Legal terms contained in each Regulation have to be interpreted in an autonomous way. To this purpose Article 2 of Regulation Brussels IIbis contains a list of definitions covering most but not all of the legal terms used. However, procedural law cannot be completely dissociated from substantive law. This paper addresses the impact of substantive family law on the determination of the Regulation's scope of application. First of all, there is a relevance of the divide line between public and private law. As far as divorce issues are concerned, the new perception of marriage and the emergence of multicultural societies have to be carefully taken into account. The scope of application in relation to parental responsibility is to an important extent determined upon the basis of the new concept of family. Despite the interference of modern perceptions, it can be argued that determining the place of the child's habitual residence has led in the resurgence of traditionalist views.

In Switzerland family law is regulated in the Swiss Civil Code that came into force in 1912. The Swiss Civil Code remained almost untouched for sixty years. Since the 1970s, however, it has been amended and reformed step by step in many different areas. This article gives an overview on the current Swiss family law as well as the recent developments and reforms. Amongst others it addresses the Swiss legal rules on marriage and divorce, unmarried cohabitation and same-sex relationships as well as the legal rules concerning children, such as parentage, adoption, parental responsibility and child support. It further briefly describes the Swiss rules on names as well as change of legal gender and concludes with some remarks about the future of Swiss family law.

The aim of this article is to investigate whether techniques used for artificial reproduction safeguard or promote the future child’s welfare, and whether they are capable of offering potential future children the best possible chance for the best life, in keeping with guidelines derived from the Principle of Procreative Beneficence. This analysis will be important for discerning the parental responsibility of couples or single reproducers who plan to use or have used any of these techniques, and also for those who defend the Principle of Procreative Beneficence, which implicitly entails the use of techniques of assisted human reproduction. The paper concludes that prospective parents should be informed not only of the specific level of risk and potential damages associated with each IVF technique, but also of the fact that given the available evidence none of the standard IVF techniques can be considered to be risk free, there is reason to believe that none of these techniques can be reconciled with the responsibility of prospective parents to the promote welfare of future children and/or to offer them the best possible life