Bao-Er, The Blue Mountains Legal Research Centre, Do We Care for Our Children? It’s Time to Incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Australian Law, Law Society Journal, Vol. 46, No. 5, pp. 66-68, June 2008

The care and protection of children in Australia has now become a topic of concern for all governments in Australia today. The past year has seen a frenzy of activity with the intervention of the Federal Government into the Northern Territory to provide care and protection to aboriginal children and the proposed extension of this intervention into aboriginal communities in Queensland, the current Wood Inquiry in New South Wales into the significant failures of the child protection system, the findings by the South Australian Mullighan Inquiry into the sexual abuse of children in state care and its implications for all other state and territory jurisdictions, the National Youth Commission’s Report into the horrendous level of Youth Homelessness, and numerous other instances of serious concern regarding the inadequate standards of care and protection being provided to children and young people throughout Australia. What has become very clear is that Australia does not have a coherent national child protection policy and law to address many of these very serious issues. This absence of policy stems largely from Australia’s failure to incorporate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into law.

David B. Thronson, William S. Boyd School of Law, UNLV, You Can’t Get Here from Here: Toward a More Child-Centered Immigration Law, Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, Vol. 14, p. 58, 2006

This article analyzes a serious conceptual flaw in immigration law related to its treatment of children. The extensive integration of immigrants into the broader population of families in the United States contrasts with several characteristics of the legal framework of immigration that create significant barriers to legal immigration for immigrant families. The article reveals how immigration law systemically devalues children and gives rise to a narrow, parent-centered conception of family. The article also uncovers the manner in which the excruciating complexity of immigration law can mask the ways in which seemingly innocuous immigration provisions work together to severely curtail immigration options for families in the United States. It examines the serious social consequences that result when families are unable to regularize the immigration status of all family members. Not only are immigrants and immigrant families marginalized, but citizen children in mixed status families are denied the full social benefits of citizenship as a variety of formal and informal barriers assimilate them to the status of noncitizen. Finally, the article discusses the underlying motivations for the current family immigration system and envisions a more child-centered approach.

David S. Rosettenstein, Choice of Law in International Child Support Obligations: Hague or Vague, and Does it Matter?- an American Perspective, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, Vol. 22, Issue 1, pp. 122-134, 2008.

This article explores, through American eyes, the choice of law rules associated with the child support aspects of the proposed Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. It considers the role these rules play in capturing the construct that is the family for the purposes of child support by implicitly determining who is an acceptable claimant and who is an appropriate obligor. In addition, the rules determine which jurisdiction’s law will establish the amount of support and thus, implicitly, they determine which jurisdiction sets the standards for family performance . American constitutional law demands a connection between the individual to be burdened and the jurisdiction imposing that burden. The proposed rules seem designed to take this into account, but doing so requires the scheme to abandon a preference for relying on the law of the creditor’s habitual residence. American child support proceedings use pre-established guidelines to determine the amount of any child support award. These guidelines, which are premised on economic conditions in the individual states, are not suited to dealing with international disputes. The cases suggest that American courts are reluctant to abandon the efficiency of the guidelines in favor of detailed fact based analysis, even if the result is an inappropriate order - certainty comes at a price.

According to USA Today, children on average are significantly healthier in certain states as opposed to others. Overall, when factoring in 13 measures of children’s health care, children are best off in the state of Iowa and worst off in the state of Oklahoma. In addition, some states have significantly higher percentages of children who are vaccinated (Massachusetts having the highest percentage and Nevada having the lowest), percentages of children who are uninsured (Michigan having the lowest percentage and Texas having the highest), and costs (Utah being the cheapest and the District of Columbia being the most expensive).

Only 46% of kids visit the doctor and dentist at least once a year in Idaho, but 75% of Massachusetts children do. Infant mortality rates are 2.5 times higher in the District of Columbia than in Maine. And South Carolina kids are 5.7 times as likely to wind up in the hospital for asthma as those in Vermont.

These measures of children’s health are part of a report out today by The Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that studies health issues and supports efforts to cover more people. The report found that top-performing states tend to have lower rates of uninsured children than those ranked at the bottom but also have higher health costs.

While other studies have considered how children fare, this is the first to compile an array of 13 measures relating to access to medical care, quality and cost for children in each state. Overall, Iowa ranked first and Oklahoma ranked last. Among the findings:

•Vaccinations. The percentage of children who received five recommended vaccinations from ages 19 months to 35 months ranges from 94% in Massachusetts to 67% in Nevada.

•Uninsured. The percentage of uninsured children ranges from 5% in Michigan to 20% in Texas.

•Costs. Utah has the lowest spending per person at $3,972. The District of Columbia has the highest at $8,295.

The report uses data from government agencies as well as private groups, such as the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-partisan research group. It concludes that all states fall short in one area or another and could improve.

If all states performed as well as the top state in each category, the report says, an additional 4.6 million children nationwide would have health insurance, 11.8 million more would visit the doctor and dentist at least once a year, and nearly 800,000 more would be current on their vaccinations.

Karen Davis, president of The Commonwealth Fund, says the low rate of immunizations in some states could be remedied by upgrading systems to track them and notify parents and providers.

“If we had a modern information system, we would be reminding patients and primary care physicians that (the children) are overdue for their shots,” Davis says.

The report comes amid efforts by many states to bolster insurance programs aimed at families.

President Bush in December signed an extension of funding for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program after twice vetoing Congress’ attempts to expand it. The program, which sends federal money to the states through March 2009, has cut the percentage of uninsured low-income children by 25% from 1996 to 2006, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Top-ranked Iowa attributes its success in part to providing a range of services and coordinating care among doctors, hospitals and clinics.

“We focus on coverage to be sure, but also access to social, emotional and mental health services, dental services and prenatal care,” says Christopher Atchison, associate dean of the College of Public Health at the University of Iowa.

Matthew Davis, an associate professor of pediatrics and public policy at the University of Michigan, disagrees with researchers’ decision to mark down states for having higher spending levels.

Yet overall, he says, the report is useful and shows that “states can learn from each other.”

The Soros organization is beginning to set up programs in Alameda County, California for juvenile offenders to participate in restorative justice, allowing offenders to come to terms with their actions and to give them the needed support to move on with their lives.

As reported by Inside Bay Area:

Oakland attorney Sujatha Baliga says the juvenile justice system in Alameda County isn’t working for most youths. Too many young offenders are locked up, and far too many re-offend, she said.

Baliga, 36, is one of just 18 people nationwide who have received prestigious Soros Justice Fellowships to put their ideas for criminal justice reform into practice.

In April, the Soros organization began to fund Baliga’s work with Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth, which is seeking nonprofit status to set up new programs for young offenders in Alameda County.

Restorative justice is a philosophy concerned with repairing harm to crime victims, holding offenders accountable to help right their wrongs, and involving victims, communities and offenders in the rehabilitation process.

Baliga, a Harvard graduate who grew up in an Indian-American family in Pennsylvania, said she learned of restorative justice more than a decade ago in Dharamsala, India.

For years, she’d worked with victims of domestic violence and childhood sexual abuse at city-run shelters in New York and with private Bay Area nonprofits. She eventually found herself becoming enraged at abusers and people who otherwise victimize others.

By contrast, she saw that the Dalai Lama and many ordinary Tibetans, who’d suffered devastating losses, seemed serene and content. She learned that prior to Chinese occupation, the Tibetan government’s justice system was essentially based on restorative justice principles, because it focused on reconciliation and reducing anger on both sides of any dispute.”I knew he’d lost his nation and, like, a sixth of his population to slaughter,” Baliga said. “I was really amazed at this concept. Here’s somebody who has something to be angry about — and isn’t.”

Baliga said she had a chance to meet the Dalai Lama, who advised her to ally herself with her enemies as much as possible. She thought that would be difficult advice to follow because she was considering becoming a prosecuting attorney to help put abusers behind bars.But after graduating from the University of Pennsylvania’s law school, Baliga switched sides. She appealed criminal convictions for public defender’s offices in New York and New Mexico. She loved the work, but her heart was still in restorative justice.

Baliga recalls one client who wanted to make things right with his victims. He’d stepped into a family brawl, and unintentionally killed a family member. He was serving 15 years to life, and while his case was on appeal he told Baliga that he wanted to apologize.

It would have been healing for her client to own up to what he’d done and for the victim’s family to know he was remorseful. But with his freedom at stake, she couldn’t let him talk.

“We had really good appellate issues and there was a chance we could get it overturned, so it was, ‘Shhh, don’t tell anybody anything. We’re not talking about it,’ and I’m sorry I did it.”

Most of Baliga’s adult clients also had been juvenile offenders. In California, 75 percent of youths who serve time in state detention re-offend. Baliga wants to break the cycle by helping youths come to terms with their offenses and giving them support to stay out of trouble.

Her first project will help young offenders leaving juvenile detention camp transition to life outside. She plans to create “circles of support and accountability” that would include family or trusted adults who would help a young person comply with the terms of probation, and perhaps even deal with the underlying reasons for breaking the law.

“Sometimes the thing the kid offended for is not the root problem,” Baliga said. “The root problem is abuse in the family, or severe poverty that is not being taken care of.”

Deborah Swanson, chief of juvenile services at the Alameda County Probation Department, said she likes the idea of involving community members.

“It could be as simple as helping a minor get to a court hearing or helping a family navigate the system,” she said.

Swanson has joined Juvenile Court Presiding Judge Gail Bereola and other officials on a restorative justice task force, and hopes to help RJOY launch additional programs, including one that would offer alternatives to traditional sentences.

Restorative justice isn’t new. A patchwork of programs has been established in California and the U.S. for more than 20 years.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Kurt Kumli, who used restorative approaches with juvenile felony offenders for six years as his county’s chief deputy district attorney, said they work.

“Those kids were graduating (from the program) with an unheard-of 98 percent compliance rate,” he said.

Still, it’s been tough to implement restorative programs widely in California, Sonoma Superior Court Judge Arnold Rosenfield said. Part of the problem is what he calls “political propaganda” for tough-on-crime policies.

“The public gets the idea that there’s this crazed band of kids running around, and the system is weak,” Rosenfield said.

In fact, juvenile arrests in California were down 28 percent from 1995 to 2005, the most recent year for which figures are available, according to statistics provided by the state attorney general’s office. In Alameda County, there was a 24 percent decline in juvenile arrests during the same period, records show.

Additionally, Rosenfield said those who work in the juvenile justice system are loath to listen to outsiders who tell them to change the way they do business.

That’s not likely to be a problem in Alameda County, where top officials have been working closely with RJOY. But Rosenfield cautioned that the public also has to get behind restorative justice programs if they are to become effective.

“If it’s top-down, it’s never going to fly,” he said.