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