About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


36 J. Soc. Welfare & Fam. L. 1 (2014)

handle is hein.journals/jnlosclwl36 and id is 1 raw text is: Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law, 2014 3 Rtedge Vol. 36, No. 1, 1-2, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2014.886874 EDITORIAL We start 2014 with the usual rich collection of papers, but with some notable changes to the content and format of the specialist sections. First, the journal no longer includes a Current Developments Section. While, for many years this section has provided useful information on the most up-to-date developments in family and social welfare law, particularly where such information was not readily accessible, the proliferation of good quality, online sources of information means that this is no longer the case. Moreover, we have been fortunate to present detailed, critical perspectives on the most recent and dramatic developments in family law through a number of dedicated special issues. We are immensely grateful to lain MacDonald for his efforts in editing this section and for the many valued contributions he made to the development of the journal over the years. The second important change relates to the Cases Section. The editors, Robert George and Leanne Smith, have adopted a shorter format (1200 to 1500 words) to allow for the inclusion of three or four cases in each issue. We trust that the cases featured in this issue will be evidence enough that this change has not been implemented to the detriment of the high quality and usefulness of this section. In the process, the aim is to capture a broader range of cases, attracting a more diverse range of commentators (including PhD students), and achieving a faster turnover of material. In this issue, we go back to basics, with Jonathan Herring's analysis of the use of presumptions in family cases. Specifically, he interrogates whether the use of presumptions is truly congruent with a rigorous assessment of the best interests of the child. One might argue that the evident retreat from the use of presumptions in favour of a simple, fact-based consideration of the welfare of the child raises questions as to the wisdom and potential impact of the Children and Families Bill which codifies a presumption in favour of both parents caring for the child post separation. Brenda Hale's contribution extends consideration of best interests assessments to 'new' families, specifically those in which the genetic parentage of the child does not coincide with his or her social or psychological parentage. The discussion highlights the highly selective, 'messy' application of the welfare principle in a context that has so far been dominated by discussions around the 'right' to parent, and calls for more robust regulation of arrangements that take place outside the confines of the licensed clinic. Many of these issues are evidenced in the linked cases of Re G (A Minor); Re Z (A Minor) [2013] EWHC 134 (Fam) which are the subject of Philip Bremner's commentary in the Cases section. Nell Munro explores the best interests principle in a different context: that relating to decisions made on behalf of those who are deemed to lack mental capacity. She exposes the inconsistent and incoherent approach to conducting this assessment, and particularly the reluctance to take into account the wishes and feelings of the individual. This, the author argues, presents a fundamental challenge to upholding human dignity. On a similar note, Fenge et al. consider the quality and accessibility of support for those with mental health conditions who are involved in the criminal justice system. While links between mental health and criminal offending are widely acknowledged, the authors point to © 2014 Taylor & Francis