Search

Copyright of Simone de Beauvoir Studies is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Child protection court judges have broad authority and practically unchecked discretion to shape the everyday experiences and long‐term outcomes for children and families that come before them. For Black families, this broad power to dictate intimate details of family life ‐ including the power to legally terminate a child's parental and familial connections ‐ is exercised within the historical and social context of chattel slavery and anti‐Black racism. Judges wield their power to regulate the everyday lives and intergenerational outcomes of Black families charged with child maltreatment within a legal and practice framework characterized by indeterminacy and subjectivity that implicates the parent–child relationship and the constitutionally recognized rights of family privacy, autonomy, and integrity. Drawing on the authors' experiences and perspectives as Black women with personal lived expertise and professional practice with the so‐called child protection or child welfare system, and referencing the limited literature that examines parents' experiences in child protection courts, this Article explores how judges' exercise of discretion perpetuates anti‐Black racism in the family policing system and suggests ways child protection judges can consciously exercise their discretion to mitigate harm and maximize due process, accountability, and justice for Black children and families. The authors urge child protection judges to heed the expertise and wisdom of Black parents about their family's needs and desires, to hold child protection agencies and workers accountable to their legal obligations and duties, and to tightly constrain their own tendencies to silence, punish, and regulate Black parents. Key Points for the Family Court Community: Child protection court judges can promote due process, accountability, and justice for Black children and families through conscious and deliberative exercise of discretion in decision‐making.In exercising discretion in child protection cases, judges should work to mitigate the harms to Black children and families from the operation of bias and discrimination inherent in the legal and practice framework characterized by indeterminancy and subjectivity.Child protection judges should ensure that Black children and parents have the opportunity to be heard and that their input about their families' needs and desires are listened to and acted upon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

U.S. history is rooted in the rationalization of family separation to benefit white supremacy, capitalism and mainstream U.S. values. Because of this dark history, the U.S. history has become the world's leader of legal destruction of families through termination of parental rights. It is the only country in the world that routinely pays people to adopt children whose parents, often women, very much want to be their parent. The Adoption and Safe Families Act, enacted in 1997, wildly changed the legal landscape of the family regulation system. At that time 47% of the children in the system were Black, and the drug war had been targeting Black men for low level offenses, and labeling Black mothers as "crack moms". The result was an extreme attack on Black families, for which we have yet to recover. Abolition teaches us to unroot oppressive structures, disrupt and dismantle them while simultaneously supporting a praxis of imagination, healing, and building. In this paper, we encourage people not only to work to repeal ASFA, but to interrogate the imagination which entrenched the legitimacy of ASFA. Part I centers the discussion in our imaginations--the world we want to build, and the demands we are making. Part II moves into a discussion about the counter imagination, the ideas and mythology that created ASFA--the legal framework. In this section, we isolate ASFA as a target for abolition and organizing. Part III moves into a practical discussion about ethical ways to mobilize around ASFA. This section is intended to invite the reader to learn, and question, together. It invites questions, thinking, and problem solving in lieu of providing a recommendation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides information on 2016 Amnesty Freedom of Expression Award and Edinburgh International Festival.

The article discusses the policy of Scottish devolution as of August 2001. The article examines political and constitutional reform in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament, and the status of the Scottish political parties known as Scottish Labor and the Scottish National Party. The article discusses the history of the establishment of the Scottish parliament, particularly the role of public pressure, the British government's Consultative Steering Group (CSG), and legislation known as the Scotland Act.

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including Freedom of Expression Award ceremony and the Arts International Conference in Edinburgh, Scotland.