From Good Intentions to Ethical Outcomes: The Paramountcy of Children’s Interests in the Family Law Act

Jonathan Crowe, Lisa Toohey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The notion of the ‘best interests of the child’ plays a central role in Australian family law.Section 60CA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), as amended in 2006, reiterates the longstanding principle that, in making a parenting order, ‘a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration’. The Australian judiciary has adopted a strong interpretation of the paramountcy principle, according to which the interests of children prevail absolutely over the interests of all other parties. The authors argue that such a strong emphasis on children’s interests cannot be ethically justified; only a weak view of the paramountcy principle can be supported on ethical grounds.
Original languageUndefined
Pages (from-to)391-414
Number of pages24
JournalMelbourne University Law Review
Volume33
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2009
Externally publishedYes

Cite this

@article{9b3487e0375d4ee5b7c241a5aafa8f52,
title = "From Good Intentions to Ethical Outcomes: The Paramountcy of Children’s Interests in the Family Law Act",
abstract = "The notion of the ‘best interests of the child’ plays a central role in Australian family law.Section 60CA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), as amended in 2006, reiterates the longstanding principle that, in making a parenting order, ‘a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration’. The Australian judiciary has adopted a strong interpretation of the paramountcy principle, according to which the interests of children prevail absolutely over the interests of all other parties. The authors argue that such a strong emphasis on children’s interests cannot be ethically justified; only a weak view of the paramountcy principle can be supported on ethical grounds.",
author = "Jonathan Crowe and Lisa Toohey",
year = "2009",
language = "Undefined",
volume = "33",
pages = "391--414",
journal = "Melbourne University Law Review",
issn = "0025-8938",
publisher = "MELBOURNE UNIV LAW REVIEW ASSOC",
number = "2",

}

From Good Intentions to Ethical Outcomes: The Paramountcy of Children’s Interests in the Family Law Act. / Crowe, Jonathan; Toohey, Lisa.

In: Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2009, p. 391-414.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - From Good Intentions to Ethical Outcomes: The Paramountcy of Children’s Interests in the Family Law Act

AU - Crowe, Jonathan

AU - Toohey, Lisa

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - The notion of the ‘best interests of the child’ plays a central role in Australian family law.Section 60CA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), as amended in 2006, reiterates the longstanding principle that, in making a parenting order, ‘a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration’. The Australian judiciary has adopted a strong interpretation of the paramountcy principle, according to which the interests of children prevail absolutely over the interests of all other parties. The authors argue that such a strong emphasis on children’s interests cannot be ethically justified; only a weak view of the paramountcy principle can be supported on ethical grounds.

AB - The notion of the ‘best interests of the child’ plays a central role in Australian family law.Section 60CA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), as amended in 2006, reiterates the longstanding principle that, in making a parenting order, ‘a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration’. The Australian judiciary has adopted a strong interpretation of the paramountcy principle, according to which the interests of children prevail absolutely over the interests of all other parties. The authors argue that such a strong emphasis on children’s interests cannot be ethically justified; only a weak view of the paramountcy principle can be supported on ethical grounds.

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 391

EP - 414

JO - Melbourne University Law Review

JF - Melbourne University Law Review

SN - 0025-8938

IS - 2

ER -