Embracing Children’s Right to Decisional Privacy in Proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): In Children’s Best Interests or a Source of Conflict?

Georgina Dimopoulos

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3303395

Abstract

Privacy and family law are both dynamic, subjects of passionate debate, and constantly changing with developments in society, policy and technology. This paper develops a normative understanding of the meaning and value of privacy in the context of proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (Family Law Act) that embraces children’s decision-making autonomy. The focus is privacy’s decisional dimension, which has received scant scholarly attention in the Australian family law context. Recognising and respecting children’s (as distinct from their parents’) decision-making autonomy, and children’s right to make decisions that might conflict with their parents’ (and the state’s) wishes, remain significant, and unresolved, challenges for the Australian family courts. This paper explores these issues using court authorisation of special medical procedures for children diagnosed with gender dysphoria as a case study. This paper argues that the construction of children as vulnerable to harm and the hierarchical nature of the parent-child relationship under the Family Law Act, coupled with judicial approaches to determining the ‘best interests of the child’ as the paramount consideration, have inhibited the Family Court of Australia from embracing children’s decisional privacy. This paper addresses concerns about the perceived conflictual consequences of doing so. It emphasises the relationality of children’s rights, the significance of the family unit, and the public interest in promoting children as active participants in proceedings as a policy goal of family law.

Highlights

The preface to the 2016 edition of the UK Corporate Governance Code stated that one of the board’s key roles is establishing their company’s culture (FRC, 2016a, preface para 4). The 2018 edition of the UK Code states that the board should assess and monitor culture (FRC 2018, provision 2)
By 2016 boards of UK companies were devoting an increasing amount of time to discussing their companies’ cultures and the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) had initiated the work of its “Culture Coalition.”
It is worth noting that the lag of our dependent variable is significant and positive in all cases, with this, we can assume that past expenditures on private R&D are related with present expenditures, this is, countries in which in the past firms invest in higher proportion on R&D tend to remain on this condition

Summary

Introduction

The preface to the 2016 edition of the UK Corporate Governance Code (the UK Code) stated that one of the board’s key roles is establishing their company’s culture (FRC, 2016a, preface para 4). The 2018 edition of the UK Code states that the board should assess and monitor culture (FRC 2018, provision 2). Developments in genetics, artificial intelligence, robotics, nanotechnology, 3D printing, biology, and other fields are all building on each other (World Economic Forum 2016) with impacts all over the globe While these developments have brought about innumerable positive changes, they are creating complex business, political, technological, health and environmental challenges (Partnership for 21st Century Skills 2008), leading to complicated problems that include global warming, pollution, financial crises, and new epidemics (Lau, John, and Sons 2015). Such complicated and varied matters in our rapidly changing surroundings demand creative, adoptable solutions. Self-efficacy is influenced by several factors (Bandura et al 2001), researchers have found that self-efficacy can be enhanced and regulated and follows students throughout their educational career (Caprara et al 2008)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion