• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >'Parents act in the best interests of their children': An inquiry into the development of the Supreme Court parental presumption.
【24h】

'Parents act in the best interests of their children': An inquiry into the development of the Supreme Court parental presumption.

机译：“父母为子女的最大利益行事”：对最高法院父母推定的发展进行的调查。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Over a period of almost two centuries, the Supreme Court of the United States has developed a presumption regrading parents' actions on behalf of their children. The Court first introduced a parental presumption in 1838 in the case of Jenkins v. Pye, when it announced that in the "absence of all proof tending to a contrary conclusion," it is the natural and reasonable presumption that parents intend to benefit the child as part of their discharge of a moral and parental duty. In 1979, the Court revisited its parental presumption in the instrumental case of Parham v. J.R. ; this time however, the Court determined that absent evidence for neglect and abuse, "the traditional presumption that the parents act in the best interests of their child should apply." The Court's latest proclamation of the presumption appeared in the plurality opinion of Troxel v. Granville in the year 2000, when Justice O'Connor, writing for the Court, insisted on employing the presumption that "fit parents act in the best interests of their children."; This work follows the developments of the parental pressumption through a detailed analysis of these three Supreme Court decisions, and their articulation of the parental presumption. It argues the parental presumption's meaning, role, weight, and scope have been altogther transformed (Part I), a transformation that reflects a historical change in the way the Court conceives of the American family structure and relationships, the legal concept of parental authority over children, and children's interests and rights (Part II).; It then provides a critical review of the parental presumptions' development and implications in light of the changes in American family history and jurisprudence, and concludes the parental presumption has developed in a manner inconsistent with the changing realities of the American family (Part IIa) and irreconcilable with the evolution of the Supreme Court's concept of parental authority (Part IIb). Additionally, it reveals that the nature of the presumption's development reinforces a perception of childhood as a period of insignificance and irrelevance and excludes children and their unique experiences from legal discourse (Part IIc).; This work therefore offers to replace the parental presumption with a vocabulary that is more accommodating to the American family structure and relationships and the Supreme Court's legal tradition, and better protects children's interests and rights. Specifically, it proposes three different parental presumptions, evaluates their pro and cons, and applies each of them to the facts of the Jenkins, Parham, and Troxel cases to assess how they would have impacted the Court's final rulings (Part III).
机译：在近两个世纪的时间里，美国最高法院制定了一项推定，要求父母代其子女采取行动。法院在Jenkins诉Pye案中于1838年首次提出了父母的推定，当时法院宣布，在“缺乏所有证据而得出相反结论的情况下”，父母打算使子女受益是自然而合理的推定。作为他们履行道德和父母义务的一部分。 1979年，法院在Parham诉J.R.器案中重新审视了其父母的推定；然而，这一次，法院裁定，没有证据表明存在忽视和虐待行为，“父母为子女的最大利益行事的传统推定应适用。”法院在2000年的Troxel诉Granville案的复数意见中出现了法院的最新推定，当时奥康纳（O'Connor）法官为法院撰文坚持使用“健康的父母为子女的最大利益行事”的推定。 ”。通过对这三个最高法院判决的详细分析以及对父母推定的明确表达，这项工作遵循了父母推定的发展。它认为父母的推定的含义，作用，权重和范围已经完全改变了（第一部分），这种改变反映了法院对美国家庭结构和关系的看法的历史性变化，父母对父母的权力的法律概念。儿童，以及儿童的权益（第二部分）。然后，它根据美国家庭历史和判例的变化，对父母推定的发展和含义进行了批判性的审查，并得出结论，父母推定的发展方式与美国家庭的不断变化的现实相矛盾（第二部分）。与最高法院的父母权威概念的演变不符（第二部分b）。另外，它揭示了推定发展的性质加强了对童年的认识，认为童年是一个无关紧要和无关紧要的时期，并将儿童及其独特经历排除在法律论述之外（第二部分）。因此，这项工作可以用更适应美国家庭结构和人际关系以及最高法院法律传统的词汇来代替父母的推定，并更好地保护儿童的利益和权利。具体来说，它提出了三种不同的父母推定，评估了它们的优缺点，并将它们分别应用于詹金斯，帕拉姆和特罗克塞尔案的事实，以评估它们将如何影响法院的最终裁决（第三部分）。

著录项

  • 作者

    Koll, Adi.;

  • 作者单位

    Columbia University.;

  • 授予单位 Columbia University.;
  • 学科 History United States.; Law.
  • 学位 J.S.D.
  • 年度 2007
  • 页码 243 p.
  • 总页数 243
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 美洲史;法律;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号