Conversations between Judges and Children: an Argument in Favour of Judicial Conferences in Contested Children's Matters

Michelle Fernando

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article discusses the infrequent practice of judges speaking directly with children, or 'judicial conferencing'. It is argued that there are good reasons why judges should speak with children. Children have a right to be heard in proceedings affecting them, and many express they want to be involved. Judges, in making decisions, must take children's views into account. Judicial conferencing allows children's views to be presented without filtering by third parties, ensuring informed decisions are made on the best available evidence. The results will be to empower children in a situation where they otherwise have very little input and control, and to promote decisions which are truly in children's best interests. While the flexibility created by the Less Adversarial Trial is ideal for increased judicial interaction with children, any actual increase will require an attitudinal shift on the part of many judges who are reluctant to embrace the practice
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)48-70
Number of pages21
JournalAustralian Journal of Family Law
Volume23
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

conversation
speaking
flexibility
decision making
interaction
evidence

Cite this

@article{05d2051f92834874a635731f22c6a384,
title = "Conversations between Judges and Children: an Argument in Favour of Judicial Conferences in Contested Children's Matters",
abstract = "This article discusses the infrequent practice of judges speaking directly with children, or 'judicial conferencing'. It is argued that there are good reasons why judges should speak with children. Children have a right to be heard in proceedings affecting them, and many express they want to be involved. Judges, in making decisions, must take children's views into account. Judicial conferencing allows children's views to be presented without filtering by third parties, ensuring informed decisions are made on the best available evidence. The results will be to empower children in a situation where they otherwise have very little input and control, and to promote decisions which are truly in children's best interests. While the flexibility created by the Less Adversarial Trial is ideal for increased judicial interaction with children, any actual increase will require an attitudinal shift on the part of many judges who are reluctant to embrace the practice",
author = "Michelle Fernando",
year = "2009",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "48--70",
journal = "Australian Journal of Family Law",
issn = "0817-623X",
number = "1",

}

Conversations between Judges and Children: an Argument in Favour of Judicial Conferences in Contested Children's Matters. / Fernando, Michelle.

In: Australian Journal of Family Law, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2009, p. 48-70.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Conversations between Judges and Children: an Argument in Favour of Judicial Conferences in Contested Children's Matters

AU - Fernando, Michelle

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - This article discusses the infrequent practice of judges speaking directly with children, or 'judicial conferencing'. It is argued that there are good reasons why judges should speak with children. Children have a right to be heard in proceedings affecting them, and many express they want to be involved. Judges, in making decisions, must take children's views into account. Judicial conferencing allows children's views to be presented without filtering by third parties, ensuring informed decisions are made on the best available evidence. The results will be to empower children in a situation where they otherwise have very little input and control, and to promote decisions which are truly in children's best interests. While the flexibility created by the Less Adversarial Trial is ideal for increased judicial interaction with children, any actual increase will require an attitudinal shift on the part of many judges who are reluctant to embrace the practice

AB - This article discusses the infrequent practice of judges speaking directly with children, or 'judicial conferencing'. It is argued that there are good reasons why judges should speak with children. Children have a right to be heard in proceedings affecting them, and many express they want to be involved. Judges, in making decisions, must take children's views into account. Judicial conferencing allows children's views to be presented without filtering by third parties, ensuring informed decisions are made on the best available evidence. The results will be to empower children in a situation where they otherwise have very little input and control, and to promote decisions which are truly in children's best interests. While the flexibility created by the Less Adversarial Trial is ideal for increased judicial interaction with children, any actual increase will require an attitudinal shift on the part of many judges who are reluctant to embrace the practice

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 48

EP - 70

JO - Australian Journal of Family Law

JF - Australian Journal of Family Law

SN - 0817-623X

IS - 1

ER -