000 03533nab a2200409Ia 4500
001 113186
005 20250625151142.0
008 110331s2007 eng
022 _a1746-8000
040 _aWSS
_dAFV
100 _aJohnston, Hannah
_91440
245 _aThe experiences of parents with an intellectual disability within the New Zealand Family Court system
_cJohnston, Hannah; Henaghan, Mark; Mirfin-Veitch, Brigit
260 _aWellington
_bLexis Nexis
_c2007
365 _a00
_b0
520 _aThis article discusses the concerns that arise when the state intervenes in cases of inadequate parental care involving parents with an intellectual disability. A number of cases are drawn on in examining whether these parents are treated differently to other parents by the Family Courts when Care and Protection proceedings arise under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act (1989). The article is based on a three year study that relates to parenting by adults with an intellectual disability. Some of the cases involve adoption and termination proceedings. The author does not aim to criticise the decisions reached by the Family Courts, but highlights some of the inconsistencies and barriers that these parents face when they have interactions with the Family Court. The discussion traverses how intellectual disability is described by the Courts and the involvement of parents in the legal system; the Court's lack of understanding about intellectual disability (and the lack of understanding by parents of Court processes); and the wider social concerns impacting on parenting ability. Also discussed is: maintaining relationships once the parent loses primary care, assessment of risk factors, reaction to change initiated by parents, need for support, use of expert evidence, and using the law to build up a network of support for parents. It is concluded that Judges face a difficult task in assessing the parenting abilities of parents with an intellectual disability. The diversity of this group of parents and their increased vulnerability mean that it is crucial that a careful and individual assessment, in accordance with the statutory framework, is conducted on a case by case basis. Judges need to be cautious of displaying a bias towards rejecting the evidence of parties who support the parenting capabilities of people with an intellectual disability. The authors argue that further education of the judiciary about intellectual disability, including behavioural manifestations and responses caused by the disability, would provide a wider awareness and more individually tailored responses to proceedings with these people.
650 2 7 _2FVC
_aADOPTION
_944
650 2 7 _2FVC
_aCARE AND PROTECTION
_997
650 2 7 _2FVC
_aCASE STUDIES
_9101
650 2 7 _2FVC
_aFAMILIES
_9238
650 2 7 _2FVC
_aFAMILY COURT
_9241
650 2 7 _2FVC
_aFAMILY LAW
_9244
650 2 4 _aOUT OF HOME CARE
_9260
650 2 7 _2FVC
_aINTERVENTION
_9326
650 2 7 _2FVC
_aJUSTICE
_9333
650 2 7 _2FVC
_aMENTAL HEALTH
_9377
650 2 7 _2FVC
_aNEGLECT
_9401
650 2 7 _2FVC
_aPARENTS
_9430
651 4 _aNEW ZEALAND
_92588
650 2 7 _9196
_aDISABLED PEOPLE
650 2 7 _9317
_aPEOPLE WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
_2FVC
650 2 4 _aCONTACT (ACCESS)
_929
700 1 _aHenaghan, Mark
_91333
700 1 _aMirfin-Veitch, Brigit
_91733
500 _aNew Zealand Family Law Journal 5(9) March 2007 : 226-236
773 0 _tNew Zealand Family Law Journal 5(9) March 2007 : 226-236
942 _2ddc
_cARTICLE
999 _c1886
_d1886