NCJ Number
187904
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 25 Issue: 1 Dated: February 2001 Pages: 3-12
Editor(s)
Jeffrey J. Haugaard
Date Published
February 2001
Length
10 pages
Annotation
This article reviews the evolution of juvenile and family law and the movement from a realist approach to psychological jurisprudence and the establishment of children’s law.
Abstract
The realist approach that has dominated American jurisprudence has long had great acceptance in regard to children’s issues. However, decision making on topics related to children has seemed to be particularly unlikely to be informed by careful assessments of social reality. Symbolism has prevailed over pragmatism. The tendency to frame children’s issues in symbolic terms has often resulted in deflection of attention from the practical policy questions that must be addressed if problems of child development and family life are to be resolved. The quality of lawmaking about child and family issues has rarely matched the seriousness of the interests at stake. Psycholegal research on children’s issues has also often been misdirected. Opinions presented by psychologists and other experts in juvenile and family proceedings are likely to based on a weak scientific foundation and address moral and legal matters beyond their expertise. The study addresses the belief that a thoughtful and fruitful foundation for research on children and law lies in psychological jurisprudence. Psychological jurisprudence combines an empirical attitude and a psychological mindedness. Psychological jurisprudence is shown to be remarkably compatible to a major international legal instrument on children’s rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). In summary, the study looks at the movement to this new approach, children’s law, as taking children seriously resulting in a substantially more coherent and reliable legal policy and richer psycholegal research.