Children's resiliency versus vulnerability to attachment trauma in guardianship cases

In recent New Jersey termination of parental rights cases, expert witnesses opined that children can be resilient, recovering from loss of their psychological parents by “rebonding” to biological parents. N.J. Supreme Court judges concluded that there is a scientific conflict between research on children's resiliency and research on bonding, a conflict that raises doubt regarding the likelihood that severe and enduring harm is caused by breaking bonds to psychological parents. This article reviews the scientific evidence upon which this testimony is based and provides a framework for questioning experts in such cases.

Download Full-text

United States Supreme Court Rules on Expert Testimony

PEDIATRICS ◽

10.1542/peds.95.6.934 ◽

1995 ◽

Vol 95 (6) ◽

pp. 934-936 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Gary N. McAbee

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Expert Testimony ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

United States Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

Federal Courts ◽

State Courts ◽

Expert Witnesses ◽

Us Supreme Court

Many medical and legal commentators have expressed concern about the validity of scientific evidence that is proffered by expert witnesses at depositions and in courts of law.1,2 The sparse research that is available on the testimony of medical expert witnesses suggests that it is frequently flawed and erroneous.3 On June 28, 1993, the United States (US) Supreme Court ruled on the proper standard for admissibility of scientific evidence in the courtroom.4 Although the ruling establishes guidelines that are binding only in federal courts, it is expected that many state courts will follow the Court's ruling. This commentary reviews the Court's guidelines for admissibility of expert testimony, and expresses concern about their applicability in future cases involving scientific testimony.

Download Full-text

Terminating Parental Rights through a Backdoor in the Virginia Code

10.31228/osf.io/z2srm ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Dale Margolin Cecka

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Constitutional Law ◽

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

Fourteenth Amendment ◽

Parental Rights ◽

Parent Child Relationship ◽

Termination Of Parental Rights ◽

Child Relationship ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Parent Child

This article explores deficits in the statute, in light of constitutional law, other Virginia adoption and termination of parental rights statutes, and other states' codes and jurisprudence. Part II describes the history and practice of the statute. Part III describes the flaws of the statute, including Fourteenth Amendment violations and inherent conflicts of interest. Part IV calls for the revision of section 1202(H) based on recent precedent in which the Supreme Court of Virginia recognized the sanctity of the parent-child relationship and the state's interest in preserving it.

Download Full-text

Indian Children and Termination of Parental Rights: Michigan Supreme Court Takes a Step in the Right Direction in In Re Lee

SSRN Electronic Journal ◽

10.2139/ssrn.1656504 ◽

2010 ◽

Author(s):

Angel Sorrells ◽

Thomas Myers ◽

Aaron Allen ◽

Cami Ann Fraser

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Parental Rights ◽

Indian Children ◽

Termination Of Parental Rights ◽

The Right

Download Full-text

Medical and Legal Issues Raised by the Protz Decision Issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2017.julaug03 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 22 (4) ◽

pp. 12-13

Author(s):

LuAnn Haley ◽

Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Workers Compensation ◽

Sixth Edition ◽

Complex Concept ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Compensation Claims ◽

Recent Edition ◽

Impairment Ratings ◽

Definition Of

Abstract Pennsylvania adopted the impairment rating provisions described in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) in 1996 as an exposure cap for employers seeking predictability and cost control in workers’ compensation claims. In 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down the Protz decision, which held that requiring physicians to apply the methodology set forth in the most recent edition of the AMA Guides reflected an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the American Medical Association. The decision eliminates the impairment-rating evaluation (IRE) mechanism under which claimants were assigned an impairment rating under the most recent edition of the AMA Guides. The AMA Guides periodically are revised to include the most recent scientific evidence regarding impairment ratings, and the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, acknowledges that impairment is a complex concept that is not yet defined in a way that readily permits an evidence-based definition of assessment. The AMA Guides should not be considered standards frozen in time simply to withstand future scrutiny by the courts; instead, workers’ compensation acts could state that when a new edition of the AMA Guides is published, the legislature shall review and consider adopting the new edition. It appears unlikely that the Protz decision will be followed in other jurisdictions: Challenges to using the AMA Guides in assessing workers’ compensation claims have been attempted in three states, and all attempts failed.

Download Full-text