"The question of whether and how decisions are made in respect of a child's medical treatment has become a matter of significant public controversy following the highly publicised cases of Charlie Gard (Great Ormond Street Hospital v Yates [2017]) and Alfie Evans (Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust v Evans et al [2018]). In light of this background, this timely collection brings together commentators from law, medical ethics and clinical medicine, actively drawing on the view from the clinic as well as philosophical, legal and sociological perspectives on the crucial question of who should decide about the fate of a child suffering from a serious illness. In particular, the collection looks at whether the current 'best interests' threshold is the appropriate boundary for legal intervention, or whether it is appropriate to adopt the 'risk of significant harm' approach proposed in Yates. Moreover, it explores the respective roles of parents, doctors and the courts and the possible risks of inappropriate state intrusion in parental decision-making, and how we might address them"--

This timely collection brings together philosophical, legal and sociological perspectives on the crucial question of who should make decisions about the fate of a child suffering from a serious illness. In particular, the collection looks at whether the current 'best interests' threshold is the appropriate boundary for legal intervention, or whether it would be more appropriate to adopt the 'risk of significant harm' approach proposed in Gard. It explores the roles of parents, doctors and the courts in making decisions on behalf of children, actively drawing on perspectives from the clinic as well as academia and practice. In doing so, it teases out the potential risks of inappropriate state intrusion in parental decision-making, and considers how we might address them.

You Can Protect Your Children in Divorce You can stop the divorce court from invading your privacy You can stop the illegal family studies You can limit the judges authority to rip your life apart You can stop the personal attacks on your parenting style You can stop the system from hurting your child You can stop the system from making you broke You can learn to protect those you love most The Divorce Industry takes BILLIONS of dollars from our children every single year! STOP THEM NOW! This book will give you the arguments, the legal framework for stopping the divorce custody machine dead in its tracks. This book will show you how to stop giving up your rights to your children. Your children need you in their lives. The most important thing you can do to give your child a future is to remain a full parent in their lives. To retain equal time to show them love and to teach them through your daily example. Children do best in life when they have two fit parents active in their lives. Your right to the care, custody and control over your child is a Fundamental Liberty, just as your right to free speech is, or your right to freedom of religion is a Fundamental Liberty. Your child has the right to associate with you and to have you as a parent, not a visitor, in their life. You and your child have privacy rights in your family life that are between you and your child as individuals. They do NOT come from the marriage, and, if you are a natural parent, they do NOT come from the Government. If you let them, the State will take your rights adn do with them what they please. Knowledge is Power! Know your Rights! Protect Your Children

"Children's rights": the phrase has been a legal battle cry for twenty-five years. But as this provocative book by a nationally renowned expert on children's legal standing argues, it is neither possible nor desirable to isolate children from the interests of their parents, or those of society as a whole. From foster care to adoption to visitation rights and beyond, Martin Guggenheim offers a trenchant analysis of the most significant debates in the children's rights movement, particularly those that treat children's interests as antagonistic to those of their parents. Guggenheim argues that "children's rights" can serve as a screen for the interests of adults, who may have more to gain than the children for whom they claim to speak. More important, this book suggests that children's interests are not the only ones or the primary ones to which adults should attend, and that a "best interests of the child" standard often fails as a meaningful test for determining how best to decide disputes about children.

The high profile cases of Charlie Gard, Alfie Evans, and Tafida Raqeeb raised the questions as to why the state intrudes into the exercise of parental responsibility concerning the medical treatment of children and why parents may not be permitted to decide what is in the best interests of their child. This book answers these questions. It argues for a reframing of the law concerned with the medical treatment of children to one which better protects the welfare of the individual child, within the context of family relationships recognising the duties which professionals have to care for the child and that the welfare of children is a matter of public interest, protected through the intervention of the state. This book undertakes a rigorous critical analysis of the case law concerned with the provision of medical treatment to children since the first reported cases over forty years ago. It argues that understanding of the cases only as disputes over the best interests of the child, and judicial resolution thereof, fails to recognise professional duties and public responsibilities for the welfare and protection of children that exist alongside parental responsibilities and which justify public, or state, intervention into family life and parental decision-making. Whilst the principles and approach of the court established in the early cases endure, the nature and balance of these responsibilities to children in their care need to be understood in the changing social, legal, and political context in which they are exercised and enforced by the court. The book will be a valuable resource for academics, students, and practitioners of Medical Law, Healthcare Law, Family Law, Social Work, Medicine, Nursing, and Bioethics.

"The least detrimental alternative", the authors' seminal principle for safeguarding a child's growth and development by minimizing intrusions of the law, has been cited in more than 1,000 child custody cases since 1973.

In the wake of the Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans cases, a wide-ranging international conversation was started regarding alternative thresholds for intervention and the different balances that can be made in weighing up the rights and interests of the child, the parent's rights and responsibilities and the role of medical professionals and the courts. This collection provides a comparative perspective on these issues by bringing together analysis from a range of jurisdictions across Europe, North and South America, Africa and Asia. Contextualising the differences and similarities, and drawing out the cultural and social values that inform the approach in different countries, this volume is highly valuable to scholars across jurisdictions, not only to inform their own local debate on how best to navigate such cases, but also to foster inter-jurisdictional debate on the issues. The book brings together commentators from the fields of law, medical ethics, and clinical medicine across the world, actively drawing on the view from the clinic as well as philosophical, legal and sociological perspectives on the crucial question of who should decide about the fate of a child suffering from a serious illness. In doing so, the collection offers comprehensive treatment of the key questions around whether the current best interests approach is still appropriate, and if not, what the alternatives are. It engages head-on with the concerns seen in both the academic and popular literature that there is a need to reconsider the orthodoxy in this area.