Let's Confront Child Welfare Law Buzzwords
In the world of child welfare law, three of the best-known culprits are "best interest of the child," "neglect," and "Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD)."
June 18, 2021 at 10:00 AM
5 minute read
Buzzwords are words or phrases that seemingly are very meaningful but in truth are open to great interpretation. While politicians are probably best known for their overuse of buzzwords, legislators, courts, attorneys and policymakers must also plead guilty. In the world of child welfare law, three of the best-known culprits are "best interest of the child," "neglect," and "Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD)."
Depending on the situation, "best interest of the child" usually refers to taking into account a number of factors. To name just a few:
|- The child's current housing arrangement;
- The presence or availability of drugs and alcohol;
- The mental stability of the child's caretakers;
- Whether there is a history of domestic or child abuse;
- The financial stability of the caretakers;
- The caretakers' plans for the child now and in the future;
- The unique health, mental health and education needs of the child.
The NYCourts.gov website acknowledges the inexactness of the "best interest" phrase: "When there is a court case that affects a child, like custody, parental rights, or adoption, the court will consider the "best interest" of the child when making its decision. There is no standard definition of "best interest" of the child. In general, it refers to the factors that the judge considers when deciding what will best serve the child and who is best suited to take care of the child. In New York, the "child's health and safety shall be the paramount concerns" when making a decision."
Regarding "neglect," New York Consolidated Laws, Social Services Law-SOS §371, states that "Neglected child" means a child less than 18 years of age:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
4 minute read
Benjamin West and John Singleton Copley: American Painters in London
8 minute read
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
