Search

Vertical integration of health systems—the common ownership of different aspects of the health care system—continues to occur at increasing rates in the United States. This systematic review synthesizes recent evidence examining the association between two types of vertical integration—hospital-physician (n = 43 studies) and hospital-post-acute care (PAC; n = 10 studies)—and cost, quality, and health services utilization. Hospital-physician integration is associated with higher health care costs, but the effect on quality and health services utilization remains unclear. The effect of hospital-PAC integration on these three outcomes is ambiguous, particularly when focusing on hospital-SNF integration. These findings should raise some concern among policymakers about the trajectory of affordable, high-quality health care in the presence of increasing hospital-physician vertical integration but perhaps not hospital-PAC integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Psychiatry is the property of Sage Publications Inc. 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.)

The article discusses cases related to long-term accommodation and adoption decisions. Article discusses that the Court of Appeal clarifies that section 20 (s20) accommodation can be appropriate for children, and there is no restriction on the length of time a child can be accommodated, and which may reduce the need for care proceedings in cases where s20 accommodation is suitable and parents provide informed consent.

The article informs about the decision of High Court Family Division on Unlawful placement, inherent jurisdiction and residential family placements. Topics include authorization for placements in the unregistered residential unit with interim care orders; and local authority sought to regularize the situation by applying under the inherent jurisdiction of the court for orders authorizing the placements.

The article presents the discussion on the Great Britain Supreme Court's case of T, a 15-year-old girl. Topics include designing completely for preventing the use of the inherent jurisdiction where a child being the care of a local authority; and primary purpose the provision of care rather than providing secure containment of the child.

There is substantial and ongoing debate regarding the centrality of Fearless Dominance/Boldness (FD/B) to psychopathic personality due, in part, to its generally weak relations with externalizing behaviors. In response to these findings, proponents of FD/B have offered two hypotheses. First, FD/B may have nonlinear associations with externalizing outcomes such that FD/B may lead to resilience at moderate levels, but an overabundance of FD/B will yield maladaptive behavioral outcomes. Second, FD/B may be related to antisocial outcomes when paired with high scores on other psychopathic traits such as self-centered impulsivity, meanness, or disinhibition. The current study tests these two possibilities using two large samples (Study 1: 787 undergraduates; Study 2: 596 Amazon's Mechanical Turk participants). An item response theory scoring approach particularly sensitive to curvilinearity was used to maximize our ability to find a true curvilinear effect, if present. No evidence in favor of the curvilinearity hypothesis was found. Only a single significant interaction predicting substance use was observed between boldness and meanness. These findings contribute to a growing literature raising concerns regarding the relevance of FD/B to psychopathy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses two court cases on adoption in England and Wales. In Somerset County Council v. NHS Somerset Clinical Commissioning Group & Anor, the High Court of Justice found that the absence of a medical adviser's input into the decision of the Agency Decision Maker breached the Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005. In Re YP (Adoption of 18-year old), the High Court of Justice Family Division granted the application to adopt his ex-wife's son under the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

In this article the author talks about a seven year old child who had been the subject of private law proceedings before the local authority initiated care proceedings, and she had been in connected persons foster care for a year and hearing on subject of fabricated or induced illness was listed to start on 20 April, 2020. It mentions that local authority and children's guardian were both anxious for case to proceed as the child had experienced adjournment and needed a final decision.

The article reports about restriction of liberty where young person lacks capacity to consent to the arrangements. Topics include European Convention of Human Rights as the right not to be deprived of liberty and applies to children as much as it does adults; and behavioural difficulties placed in foster care or residential units with high levels of supervision and restrictions placed on their movements.

The article reports that the Court of Appeal considered the statutory scheme for secure accommodation under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 and Section 119 in the Social Services and Wellbeing (Wales) Act 2014. The case law on breaches of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights was considered. The Association of Lawyers for Children asked whether there is a disparity in the protections and safeguards given to children. Adoption without parental consent is discussed.

The article reports on court cases in England and Wales. It mentions its involvement of a prematurely-born boy placed into foster care after his parents suffered from mental health issues. An overview of care proceedings issued for an infant whose parents underwent residential drug treatment for mental illness and drug dependency is also presented.

The article discusses several court cases on adoption and fostering in England and Wales. The Civil Division of the Court of Appeal ruled on April 25, 2013 that the father being not aware of paternity has no relationship with the baby. A February 21, 2013 decision showed that the Court of Appeal uses the full extent of its power to protect children by refusing a father to contact his newborn baby due to significant concerns about violence from the father.

The article discusses several court cases regarding child adoption in England and Wales. In the first case, a child was placed under adoption by a local authority's adoption panel due to the mother's mental health problems and her inability to properly care for the child. The mother appealed but the judge ruled in favor of the local authority. Another case discussed whether jurisdiction over a child who had serious health problems was under the jurisdiction of the Orkney Island Council under the special guardianship provisions of the Children Act 1989.

The article discusses several court cases in England and Wales that are related to adoption and foster care. The High Court Family Division held that it is within the power of the court to make a special guardianship order that will place a child under the care of relatives under the section 38(6) of the Children Act 1989. In another case, the court claims that the responsibility of a local authority to a looked after child could be discharged by providing accommodation. One of the case is about the removal of children on an interim care.

The article discusses a court cases involving care of children in England and Wales. Parents of a 15-year-old boy with severe autism and attention deficit hyperactive disease (ADHD) who has been provided with full-time placement in a residential school filed for a appeal for the looked after status of the boy by the local authority. In another case, a single mother appealed to be given permission to apply to see her son who has been placed for open adoption.

The article discusses two court cases on adoption and foster care in England and Wales. They include fostering allowance being sought by a woman from the Knowsley Borough Council in caring for her son's girlfriend who is living with them and a couple who denied of their request to adopt the stepsister of their adopted son in Newham, London.

The article discusses several adoption court cases in England including N (A Child) [2012] Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Hallett & McFarlane LLC 31 October 2012 [2012] EWCA Civ 1563, Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Thorpe, Hallett and McFarlane LLJ [2012] EWCA Civ 1281, and Edinburgh Council, Petitioners, in respect of CC. The merits of the case are explained as well as the rulings.

The article describes the case of Re R (A Child) [2012] High Court Family Division Hedley J which involves a four-year old child named R who was born in India and a married couple living in England who wanted to adopt him. According to the author, the British immigration authorities did not recognise the Indian adoption in order to allow R to be brought to England. The British Court of Appeal ruled that the main question in the case is whether the child is cared for by a local authority.

The article discusses a court case involving a fourth child of a mother whose other siblings who were the subject of placement orders and have been placed for adoption. The local authority had found that the mother would not be able to take care of the child. Guidelines on the use of section 20 of the British Children Act of 1989 were set by the court.

The article discusses a court case wherein the British Court of Appeal held that it was an incorrect interpretation of Article 56 Council Regulation (EC) 2210/2003. The case involved a four-year-old Lithuanian child who was brought to Great Britain by her mother in 2010. The child was removed from her mother's care in May 2011 and the English courts wanted the child returned to Lithuania.

The article discusses a court case involving a child who had been removed from her family as a result of neglect prompting her aunt to put herself forward as a carer. The aunt and the local authority had a dispute about the appropriate legal framework under the child was placed. The court ruled that the local authority should not be expected to be a secondary source of funding where legal aid is not available.

The article discusses a court case wherein the High Court (Family Division) in England needed to decide whether several children were ordinarily resident in any local authority area. In Derbyshire County Council v HM and others, an agreement was signed by a foster mother to keep a two-year-old child and her brother in her care. The father of the children issued an application for a residence order when the foster mother refused to return the children to their father.

The article discusses a court case concerning a child who was born to a mother with significant mental health difficulties and substance misuse issues and was discharged to foster carers.

The article discusses a court case wherein the High Court Family Division in England ruled on the issue of parental order. In G v G, the biological father of a child applied for a parental order. The child war born as a result of surrogacy commissioned by a couple in January 2011. The court referred to a previous case where a step-parent adoption was set aside as the father has agreed to the adoption without knowing that the mother was terminally ill.

The article discusses a court case wherein the High Court (Family Division) in England found that both the local authority and the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) violated the rights of a 16-year-old boy and his younger brother. In A and S v Lancashire County Council, the court heard that the mother of the boys had applied to revoke the freeing orders in 2002 as the children had not been placed. It is noted that the case revealed deficiencies in the service provided by the IROs.

The article discusses a court case concerning adoption of an infant named "Q" that was opposed by his biological father. The case occurred when the judge obliged F, father of Q, not to reveal information concerning Q nor communicate the family of his wife M, which was opposed by F due to claims that he and his family cared for Q that needed protection. The judge decided that the care Q had by F & M needed adoption by the couple whom she was assigned by the court.

The article discusses a court case addressed to the British Court of Appeal Civil Division on the problems on the adoption of T from the mother M, who was charged of abusing the siblings of T.

The article discusses the court case PGO & FEO v Coventry City Council concerning adoption by foster carers. PGO and FEO applied to adopt two children in their care and they were found to have established a right to a family life with the children they adopted with which the court could only interfere if it would be proportionate to do so. It was decided by the court that it was in the children's best interests that they should be found a permanent adoptive placement elsewhere.

The article discusses the court case Suffolk CC v Nottinghamshire CC Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Thorpe & Black LJJ, Hedley J in which the Nottinghamshire County Council issued care proceedings and a child named CS was placed in foster care by consent in July 2010. The court ruled that it is important that proper consideration be given to whether a child placed out of area should remain looked after or be made the subject of a residence order.

The article discusses a court case wherein the High Court Queen's Bench Division ruled that LB Merton's special guardianship policy was illegal. In R (TT) v London Borough of Merton, TT was the special guardian of a four-year-old child, who sought judicial review of LB Merton's policy setting the maximum allowance payable to special guardians at two-thirds of the fostering rate. A comment on the ruling is also presented.

The article discusses a court case wherein the court held that the mother of twin boys born as the result of a surrogate pregnancy arranged through an Indian clinic could not be found. In D and L (Surrogacy), the twin boys were taken care of by a male couple. The court emphasized that commissioning parents should ensure that clear lines of communications are established to facilitate the giving of proper consent six weeks after the birth.

The article discusses a court case wherein the court discovered that the parents of a six-year-old child who had been placed with carers in England were strangers to the child. In An application for adoption was issued by the prospective adopters, which was opposed by the parents of the child. The focus of the mother's case was on criticism of the Scottish system.

The article shows a court case addressed to the British High Court Family Division concerning adoption of the orphan named "PW." The case happened when PW was seeking court approval to appeal the adoption order and extend it to 51 years when she was 23 years old since the demise of her adoptive mother. The High Court declined permission since the adoption order was made in compliance to the Adoption Act 1958.

The article discusses a court case of parents Mr. and Mrs. B appealing to provide foster care to a child named A. The case occurred when a social worker who was taking care of A would not suggest placement of the child through a special guardianship unless the couple were set to live at a home away from where they and their extended family lived. The British Court of Appeal granted Mr. and Mrs. B the right to foster the child due to lack of clarity by the court order on child placement.