Assessing the Impact of Goldstein, Freud, and Solnit’s Proposals: An Introductory Overview
Introduction
The year 1973 saw the publication of a slim volume entitled Beyond the Best Interests of the Child. The book, by Goldstein, Freud, and Solnit proposed a set of simple guidelines for judicial decision-making in dispositions involving children. In 1979 a second book appeared entitled Before theBest Interests of the Child, in which these same authors further developed their views of the proper limits on state intervention in the family. Today, more than a decade after the appearance of the first book, it is evident that the authors have had an impact on the law governing child welfare decisions that would exceed any academician’s wildest expectations. As one commentator observed, every subsequent proposal for reform of the child welfare system has drawn its vocabulary and central ideas from Goldstein, Freud, and Solnit’s conceptual framework. On April 30, 1983, the Rutgers Law School, the Rutgers Institute for Research on Women, and the New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate convened a conference of scholars and practitioners in law, social work, psychology, history, anthropology, and related fields, in Newark, to examine critically the impact of the theoretical positions and proposals advanced by Goldstein, Freud, and Solnit on cases involving state intervention in parent-child relationships. The conference focused particularly on termination of parental rights.
Suggested Reading
My Twenty-Twos: Mentoring the Young Men Emerging Community
The kid’s name was Lil’ Yo—well, that’s what all his little buddies called him—and immediately his presence snagged my attention.
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
I understood death to be an essential part of life, but understanding this fact still didn’t make the experience of losing someone dear any easier.
#SayHerName: Racial Profiling and Police Violence Against Black Women
Andrea J. Ritchie{{Andrea J. Ritchie is a civil rights attorney who has led groundbreaking research, litigation, and advocacy efforts to challenge profiling, policing, and physical and sexual violence by law enforcement against women, girls and LGBTQ people of color for
Conservative Progressivism in Immigrant Habeas Court: Why Boumediene v. Bush is the Baseline Constitutional Minimum
Ever since Boumediene was decided federal judges have not applied the full force of all six of Boumediene’s holdings to immigrant habeas cases, and as a direct result immigration advocates lost their most important cases to date.