http://hdl.handle.net/10468/230 2017-09-02T16:41:32Z 2017-09-02T16:41:32Z Burns, Kenneth O'Mahony, Conor Parkes, Aisling http://hdl.handle.net/10468/4247 2017-07-25T18:00:45Z 2017-07-17T00:00:00Z

What social workers talk about when they talk about child care proceedings in the District Court in Ireland Burns, Kenneth; O'Mahony, Conor; Parkes, Aisling Court proceedings are a fundamental and increasingly time-consuming aspect of social work practice. However, to date, there is a relatively modest body of literature considering the experiences of social workers in instituting child care proceedings and giving evidence in court. This paper draws on data gathered as part of an in-depth qualitative study of professional experiences of District Court child care proceedings in Ireland and presents findings regarding the experiences of social workers in bringing court applications for child protection orders. It seeks to answer 2 key questions: First, how do child protection and welfare social workers experience the adversarial nature of child care proceedings in the District Court? Second, what are the views of child protection and welfare social workers on the strengths and weaknesses of child care proceedings as a decision-making model for children and young people? The main findings are that social workers expressed significant reservations about the predominantly adversarial model that currently operates in Irish child care proceedings and about the level of respect that social workers are afforded within the operation of the system.

2017-07-17T00:00:00Z Donnelly, Mary http://hdl.handle.net/10468/3914 2017-05-04T18:00:16Z 2016-12-22T00:00:00Z

Best interests in the Mental Capacity Act: time to say goodbye? Donnelly, Mary Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as interpreted by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in General Comment No. 1, offers a vision for law’s response to capacity impairments which differs in crucial ways from that contained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Committee rejects the functional test for capacity and requires that a ‘will and preferences’ paradigm must replace the ‘best interests’ paradigm and that all substitute decision-making regimes must be abolished. This article draws on the position adopted in General Comment No. 1 in evaluating the best interests standard in the Mental Capacity Act. It sets out the normative case for a stronger legislative endorsement of will and preferences and the inclusion of greater support mechanisms but rejects the contention that all substitute decision-making can, or should, be abolished. It also argues that the best interests standard in the Mental Capacity Act retains some revolutionary potential and that, pending legislative reform, this can be further developed through the courts.

2016-12-22T00:00:00Z McIntyre, Owen http://hdl.handle.net/10468/3021 2017-09-01T08:19:08Z 2016-10-31T00:00:00Z

The emergence of the 'common management' approach to international watercourse governance and its significance for environmental protection McIntyre, Owen

2016-10-31T00:00:00Z Burns, Kenneth O'Mahony, Conor Shore, Caroline Parkes, Aisling http://hdl.handle.net/10468/4248 2017-07-25T18:00:43Z 2016-10-20T00:00:00Z

Child removal decision-making systems in Ireland: Law, policy and practice Burns, Kenneth; O'Mahony, Conor; Shore, Caroline; Parkes, Aisling Burns, Kenneth; Pösö, Tarja; Skivenes, Marit

2016-10-20T00:00:00Z