DOCSLIB.ORG

Initial Structure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Initial Structure Ethics of Security and Surveillance Technologies Brussels, 20 May 2014 Jim Dratwa Chief Editor Head of the EGE Secretariat 28 Opinion N° 1 2 OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN GROUP ON ETHICS IN SCIENCE AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION Ethics of Security and Surveillance Technologies No 28 20/05/2014 Reference: Request from President Barroso Rapporteurs: Inez de Beaufort, Linda Nielsen, Siobhán O'Sullivan THE EUROPEAN GROUP ON ETHICS IN SCIENCE AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES (EGE), Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 6 of the common provisions concerning respect for fundamental rights, Having regard to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 16 concerning the right to the protection of personal data, Having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular Article 1 (Human dignity), Article 3 (Right to the integrity of the person), Article 6 (Right to liberty and security), Article 7 (Respect for private and family life), Article 8 (Protection of personal data), Article 10 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion) Article 11 (Freedom of expression and information), Article 20 (Equality before the law), Article 21 (Non- discrimination), Article 42 (Right of access to documents), Article 47 (Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial), Article 48 (Presumption of innocence and right of defence) and 52 (Scope of guaranteed rights) thereof1, Having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular Articles 7,8,10, 11, 12 and 142, Having regard to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), in particular Article 5 'Right to liberty and security' and Article 8 'Right to respect for private and family life'3, Having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular Articles 14, 17, 18 and 194, Having regard to Article 6 of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), which states that 'All the research activities carried out under the Seventh Framework Programme shall be carried out in compliance with fundamental ethical principles', 1 Official Journal C 364 of November 2000, pp. 1- 22 2 http://www.worldservice.org/udhr.html#12 3 http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf 4 http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx 3 Having regard to the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, signed on 4 April 1997 in Oviedo5, Having regard to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime signed on 23 November 2001 which provides for modern and flexible means of international co-operation, 6 Having regard to the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems, signed on 28 January 20037, Having regard to Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services8 (Framework Directive), Having regard to Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities9 (Access Directive), Having regard to Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services10 (Authorisation Directive), Having regard to Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services11 (Universal Service Directive), Having regard to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 213 U.N.T.S. 222, entered into force Sept. 3, 1953, as amended by Protocols Nos 3,5,8 and 11 which entered into force on 21 September 1970, 20 December 1971, 1 January 1990 and 1 November 1998 respectively, especially Article 8- Right to respect for private and family life12, Having regard to Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of July12, 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, 5 http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/164.htm 6 http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/185.htm 7 http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/189.htm 8 OJ L 108, 24.4.2002. 9 OJ L 108, 24.04.2002. 10 OJ L 108, 24.04.2002 11 OJ L 108, 24.04.2002. 12 http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/z17euroco.html 4 Having regard to the Council Regulation (EC) 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States13, Having regard to the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short stay-visas COM (2004) 835 final, Having regard to Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of March 15, 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/ECV, Having regard to the 'Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council- An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizens' (Stockholm programme) COM (2009) 262/4, Having regard to the European Council (March 2010) Internal security strategy for the EU. Towards a European security model14, Having regard to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, Having regard to the Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce (notified under document number C(2000) 244115 , Having regard to the Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data16, 13 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:385:0001:0006:EN:PDF 14 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/librairie/PDF/QC3010313ENC.pdf 15 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML 16 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:008:0001:0022:en:PDF 5 Having regard to the Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters17, Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Functioning of the Safe Harbour from the Perspective of EU Citizens and Companies Established in the EU, COM (2013) 847, 27.11.201318, Having regard to the Directive 2013/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 on attacks against information systems and replacing Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA19, Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data, Having regard to the Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register entry and exit data of third country national crossing the external borders of the Member States of the European Union COM (2013) 9520, Having regard to the Proposal COM(2013) 107 final 2013/2014 (COD) for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a space surveillance and tracking support programme21, Having regard to Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation for all citizens22, Having regard to the European Parliament Resolution (2010/2154(INI)) of 6 July 2011 on aviation security, with a special focus on security scanners23, Having regard to the Council Resolution of 17 January 1995 on the lawful interception of telecommunications (96/C329/01)24, 17 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:350:0060:01:EN:HTML 18 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_847_en.pdf 19 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:218:0008:0014:EN:PDF 20 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/doc_centre/borders/docs/1_en_act_part1_v12.pdf 21 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0107:FIN:EN:PDF 22 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:350:0060:0071:en:PDF 23 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2013:033E:0125:0134:EN:PDF 24 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31996G1104:EN:HTML 6 Having regard to the European Parliament Resolution of 23 October 2008 on the impact of aviation security measures and body
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Forensic Experts and Family Courts: Science Or Privilege-By-License? by Dana E
    \\jciprod01\productn\M\MAT\28-2\MAT207.txt unknown Seq: 1 15-MAR-16 13:33 Vol. 28, 2016 Forensic Experts and Family Courts 521 Forensic Experts and Family Courts: Science or Privilege-by-License? by Dana E. Prescott* I. Introduction More than a century ago, the renowned federal judge, Learned Hand (perhaps the most famous appellate judge never appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court) wrote that “[n]o one will deny that the law should in some way effectively use expert knowledge wherever it will aid in settling disputes. The only question is as to how it can do so best.”1 In this sense, the consti- tutionally-empowered duty and responsibility of American courts, to provide litigants with a judgment at a point in time in a case, has awkwardly coexisted for generations with the organic nature of expert knowledge derived from all forms of science.2 The debate about “how to do it best” requires courts, as the Law’s ventilator, to balance disciplines and sub-disciplines of ex- perts-in-science with forensic evidentiary policies expressed as ju- dicial rules of inclusion and exclusion. For the reasons explored in this article, use of the precise term forensic matters here. The ordinary tension between accept- able science and expert opinion occurs when a quantitative and * Dana E. Prescott, Esq. is a member of Prescott, Jamieson, & Murphy Law Group LLC, Saco, Maine. The views expressed in this article are his alone and may not reflect the viewpoints of the Journal Board or the AAML. Dr. Prescott may be contacted at [email protected] 1 Learned Hand, Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Ex- pert Testimony, 15 HARV.
    [Show full text]
  • June 6, 2019 Speaking Notes and Reference Materials Presentation To
    June 6, 2019 Speaking Notes and Reference Materials Presentation to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Re: Bill C-78 (An Act to Amend the Divorce Act, et al) on behalf of: CAFE Canadian Association for Equality L4SP Lawyers for Shared Parenting ANCQ Action des Nouvelles Conjointes et des Nouveaux Conjoints du Quebec CEPC Canadian Equal Parenting Council LW4SP Leading Women for Shared Parenting R.E.A.L. Real Women of Canada Presented by Brian Ludmer, B.COMM., LLB. Page 1 of 3 Index 1. Myths and Facts about Divorce Act Reform - updated version 2. Text of Brian Ludmer’s remarks to the House of Commons – Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (November 26, 2018) 3. Joint Brief of these organizations submitted to the House of Commons – Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights – November 2018 (English and French versions) 4. Public Opinion Polls a. Nanos 2017 Equal Parenting Summary Poll b. Nanos 2009 Poll results 5. Text of Proposed Rebuttable Presumption of Equal Parenting as Contained in Bill C-560 (2014) 6. Summary of Applicable Social Science a. Professor William V. Fabricius,Ph.D, Associate Professor of Psychology, Arizona State University Presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, House of Commons – November 26, 2018 b. Survey of Leading Research by Professor William V. Fabricius,Ph.D, Associate Professor of Psychology, Arizona State University dated April 19, 2018 c. Linda Nielsen, “Joint Versus Sole Physical Custody: Children’s Outcomes Independent of Parent-Child Relationships, Income and Conflict in 60 Studies” (2018) Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, DOI: 10.1080/10502556.2018.1454204 Page 2 of 3 d.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Teachers at the Middle Level
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-2000 Effective teachers at the middle level. Amy R. Gelinas University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Gelinas, Amy R., "Effective teachers at the middle level." (2000). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 5388. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/5388 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EFFECTIVE TEACHERS AT THE MIDDLE LEVEL A Dissertation Presented by AMY R. GELINAS Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION September 2000 School of Education © Copyright by Amy R.Gelinas 2000 All Rights Reserved EFFECTIVE TEACHERS AT THE MIDDLE LEVEL A Dissertation Presented by AMY R. GELINAS Approved as to style and content by: Kenneth Parker, Member 0 JX ailey W. Jackson, De hool of Education DEDICATION This project would not have been accomplished without the love and support of my family. My husband, Al, my best friend and biggest fan for 25 years. Your unwavering confidence in me made all the difference. I would not have done this without you. I love you. My children, who have had take-out for more nights then I could count, and have urged me to do my ‘homework’ while they did theirs.
    [Show full text]
  • Grundprincipper I Rådgivningen
    Corporate Social Responsibility • Danish Fathers Association • Founded 1977 • 200.000+ web visitors per month • 300 cities and 50 countries • 50% men / 50% women • National call center • 20 free counselling centers • 24/7 Social media groups • 0m Euro state funding © Jesper Lohse, 2018 Harvard Case Analysis The Danish Family System from a Leaderships perspective What is the user satisfaction and expert opinion about the family system? What can be done to increase the quality, flexibility and equality and to decrease time and cost in the family system? What is the recommendation for the Minister? - Predictable surprises - Prof. Dr. Amy C. Edmondson Prof. Dr. Amy C. Edmondson Prof. Dr. Amy C. Edmondson The Challenger Disater Mining Accident in Chile Children Hospitals Harvard Business School 9.612-095 Harvard Business School 9-612-046 Harvard Business School 9-302-050 © Jesper Lohse, 2018 Follow the Child CRITICAL: Change of hands create process time, loss of knowledge and human mistakes. Lack of equality by law and too many ministries without coordination and change management. Politisk Politiske Politisk Politiske Politisk Politiske Politisk Politiske BevidstgørelseMinistry 1 LovændringerMinistry 2 ImplementeringMinistry 3 PraktiseringMinistry X Bevidstgørelse Lovændringer Implementering Praktisering - Dialog - Lovforslag - Bekendtgørelser - Struktur - Dialog - Lovforslag - Awareness - Struktur 12 Ministries - Cases- Awareness - Høring- Awareness - Vejledninger- Awareness - Kultur- Awareness - Cases - Høring - Coordination - Kultur
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Parenting: Review of Research Dr. Linda Nielsen
    SHARED PARENTING: REVIEW OF RESEARCH DR. LINDA NIELSEN WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY [email protected] PLEASE HAND IN THIS COPY AS YOU LEAVE. “Shared parenting” (joint physical custody) as used throughout this presentation & on this quiz means the children are living 35%-50% of the time with their fathers Which of the following do you believe are generally true for the majority of divorced parents and their children? The Parents ____1 Shared parenting only succeeds when the parents are friendly, cooperative & relatively conflict free. ____2. Angry, uncooperative couples usually become even angrier when they have a shared parenting plan. ____3. Most divorced couples cannot be taught how to make shared parenting work. ____4. Shared parenting only benefits kids when both parents are equally enthusiastic about it from the outset. ____5. Shared parenting generally only works well for college educated, upper income parents. ____6. Court ordered or mediated shared parenting plans generally fail. ____7. If there is any history of physical abuse between the parents, shared parenting will increase the violence. The majority of children living in shared parenting families…. ____8. are no better off than children who see their fathers regularly but live with their mothers in terms of their emotional, academic, psychological & social wellbeing. ____9. want to live with one parent instead of having two homes ___ 10.only benefit from this lifestyle if their parents have similar parenting styles & similar values ____11. end up living with their mother anyway because shared parenting usually fails ___ 12. have no better relationships with their fathers than children who see their dads every other weekend ____13.
    [Show full text]
  • [This Chapter Will Be Published in Jacqueline Heaton and Barbara Stark (Eds), Routledge Handbook of International Family Law (Routledge 2019)]
    [This chapter will be published in Jacqueline Heaton and Barbara Stark (eds), Routledge Handbook of International Family Law (Routledge 2019)] Child Custody and Cognate Concepts: The Challenges Elaine E. Sutherland Professor of Child and Family Law, Stirling Law School, University of Stirling ([email protected]) and Distinguished Professor of Law, Lewis and Clark Law School, Portland, Oregon ([email protected]). Abstract: Decision-making authority in respect of a child in an intact family is allocated using the concepts variously known in different jurisdictions as custody, parental responsibility (or responsibilities) or guardianship, with visitation, contact and parenting time acquiring significance where the parents separate or have never lived together with their child. Set in the context of international norms and using selective, comparative examples, this chapter addresses the evolution and contemporary application of these concepts. The child’s participation rights, historically-marginalised parents and the challenge posed by the intersection of continuing parental involvement and domestic abuse receive particular attention. Key terms: child; parent; multiple parents; best interests; participation rights; custody; parental responsibility, shared parenting; parenting time; domestic abuse; parental alienation. Introduction Many legal systems have long used the term “custody” to denote having overall responsibility for a child, sometimes distinguishing legal custody, the right to make decisions about the child’s life, from physical custody, the right to have the child in one’s care. The word has unmistakable possessory overtones and reflects an adult- centred approach to family relationships. In disputed cases, it is burdened by the historical baggage of commodifying children as a prize to be fought over, with parents being cast in the role of winners and losers, something that does nothing to encourage co-operative parenting in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Father-Daughter Relationships: Contemporary Research and Issues
    Father–Daughter Relationships Contemporary Research and Issues http://www.psypress.com/fatherdaughter-relationships-9781848729346 Textbooks in Family Studies Series The Textbooks in Family Studies Series is an interdisciplinary series that offers cutting edge textbooks in family studies and family psychology. Volumes can be complete textbooks and/or supplementary texts for the undergraduate and/or graduate markets. Both authored and edited vol- umes are welcome. Please contact the series editor, Robert Milardo, at [email protected] for details in preparing a proposal that should include the goal of the book, table of contents, an overview of competing texts, the intended market including course name(s) and level, and suggested reviewers. These are the books currently in the series: Serving Military Families in the 21st Century, written by Karen Blaisure, Tara Saathoff-Wells, Angela Pereira, Shelley MacDermid Wadsworth, and Amy Laura Dombro (2012) Father–Daughter Relationships: Contemporary Research and Issues, written by Linda Nielsen (2012) http://www.psypress.com/fatherdaughter-relationships-9781848729346 Father–Daughter Relationships Contemporary Research and Issues Linda Nielsen Wake Forest University http://www.psypress.com/fatherdaughter-relationships-9781848729346 Routledge Routledge Taylor & Francis Group Taylor & Francis Group 711 Third Avenue 27 Church Road New York, NY 10017 Hove, East Sussex BN3 2FA © 2012 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper Version Date: 20120104 International Standard Book Number: 978-1-84872-933-9 (Hardback) 978-1-84872-934-6 (Paperback) For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioethics and the Law EDITORIAL ADVISORS
    Bioethics and the Law EDITORIAL ADVISORS Vicki Been Elihu Root Professor of Law New York University School of Law Erwin Chemerinsky Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law University of California, Irvine, School of Law Richard A. Epstein James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law University of Chicago Law School Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow The Hoover Institution Stanford University Ronald J. Gilson Charles J. Meyers Professor of Law and Business Stanford University Marc and Eva Stern Professor of Law and Business Columbia Law School James E. Krier Earl Warren DeLano Professor of Law The University of Michigan Law School Richard K. Neumann, Jr. Professor of Law Hofstra University School of Law Robert H. Sitkoff John L. Gray Professor of Law Harvard Law School David Alan Sklansky Professor of Law University of California at Berkeley School of Law Kent D. Syverud Dean and Ethan A. H. Shepley University Professor Washington University School of Law Elizabeth Warren Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law Harvard Law School Bioethics and the Law Second Edition Janet L. Dolgin Jack and Freda Dicker Distinguished Professor of Health Care Law Hofstra University School of Law Lois L. Shepherd Center for Biomedical Ethics and Humanities Professor of Law Associate Professor, Public Health Sciences University of Virginia Law & Business AUSTIN BOSTON CHICAGO NEW YORK THE NETHERLANDS # 2009 Aspen Publishers. All rights reserved. http://lawschool.aspenpublishers.com No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview: Linda Nielsen on Fathers and Daughters 05.03.14 20:28
    Interview: Linda Nielsen on Fathers and Daughters 05.03.14 20:28 English Home Articles Issues Video Blogs Books DVD About Us Press Video Archives Search The Lost Relationship: Fathers and Daughters Print Friendly Email Article Email Author Like 25 Send Like this article Family & Relationships Linda Nielsen, interviewed recently by Vision’s Gina Stepp, is a psychologist and professor of adolescent psychology and women’s studies at Wake Forest University in North Carolina. Author of Embracing Your Father: How to Build The Lost the Relationship You Always Wanted with Your Dad (2004), Nielsen also Relationship: Fathers teaches a “Fathers and Daughters” course, the only one of its kind in the United States for nearly 20 years. and Daughters Fall 2007 Issue GS In researching the importance of fathers to daughters, I was able to find long lists of articles on father-daughter incest, but very little on any impact Finn oss på Facebook that positive father-daughter relationships may have on the lives of women. Why do you suppose that is? Vision--Insights and New Horizons LN Your experience gets exactly to the root of the problem. This is what I’ve Liker been harping at for 20 years, to the point that I feel I’m just a voice in the Liker 1385 wilderness. First of all, do you realize how rare incest is between a biological father and daughter? It is extremely rare. To psychologists and sociologists, Vision-- the term incest covers sexual abuse by cousins, uncles, stepfathers, Insights stepbrothers, brothers, half-brothers, men who live with your mother who and New are not related—that all goes into the category of incest.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children: a Consensus Report
    Psychology, Public Policy, and Law © 2014 American Psychological Association 2014, Vol. 20, No. 1, 46–67 1076-8971/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/law0000005 Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children: A Consensus Report Richard A. Warshak University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, with the endorsement of the researchers and practitioners listed in the Appendix Two central issues addressed in this article are the extent to which young children’s time should be spent predominantly in the care of the same parent or divided more evenly between both parents, and whether children under the age of 4 should sleep in the same home every night or spend overnights in both parents’ homes. A broad consensus of accomplished researchers and practitioners agree that, in normal circumstances, the evidence supports shared residential arrangements for children under 4 years of age whose parents live apart from each other. Because of the well-documented vulnerability of father–child relationships among never-married and divorced parents, the studies that identify overnights as a protective factor associated with increased father commitment to child rearing and reduced incidence of father drop-out, and the absence of studies that demonstrate any net risk of overnights, policymakers and decision makers should recognize that depriving young children of overnights with their fathers could compromise the quality of developing father-child relationships. Sufficient evidence does not exist to support postponing the introduction of regular and frequent involvement, including overnights, of both parents with their babies and toddlers. The theoretical and practical considerations favoring overnights for most young children are more compelling than concerns that overnights might jeopardize children’s development.
    [Show full text]
  • LINDA NIELSEN (2018), Joint Versus Sole Physical Custody: Outcomes For
    LINDA NIELSEN (2018), Joint versus sole physical custody: Outcomes for children independent of family income or parental conflict, Journal of Child Custody, https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2017.1422414, Table 1, p. 6 ff. (60 studies) Factors Number of children in … Ages Academic & Depression, anxiety Peer Behavior Health & Parent-child or other Family Included … Joint JPC … Sole SPC Cognitive overall satisfaction, Substance use psycho relationships in Study development self esteem Hyperactivity somatic problems Bastaits(2016) 138 238 10–18 Better self esteem Better Equal life satisfaction Bastaits (2014) 139 227 Equal Bergstrom(2015) $* 15,633 29,468 12 & 15 Equal Better Better Bergstrom (2013) 17,350 43,452 12–15 Equal Better Better Better Buchanan = C = $ 51 355 mom/100 dad 13–16 Better Better Better Better Better Brotsky C+ 45 10 1–10 Better Better Breivik $* 41 483 12–16 Better Barumazadeh C * 91 328 mom/34 dad 11–12 Better Bergstrom (2014) $* 129 176 4–18 Better Better Bergstrom (2017) $* 136 151 3–5 Better Bjarnason 2,206 25,578 11–15 Better life satisfaction Bjarnason 2,206 25,578 11–15 Better Carlsund (2013) $* 888 2,019 11–15 Better Better Better Better Carlsund (2012) $* 270 801 11–15 Better Better Cashmore (gov) =C+ 84 473 0–17 Better Better Better Cashmore (gov) =C+ = $ 90 411 0–17 Better Cashmore 26 110 Teenage Equal Campana 207 272 10–18 Better Better Dissing $* 3,222 3,032 11–12 Better Donnelly = C 12 88 6–18 Equal affection Better boundaries Drapeau = C $ * 37 75 8–12 Equal to better Equal Fabricius (2012) C* 152 871 College
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Physical Custody: Does It Benefit Most Children? by Linda Nielsen*
    \\jciprod01\productn\M\MAT\28-1\MAT111.txt unknown Seq: 1 16-OCT-15 15:12 Vol. 28, 2015 Shared Physical Custody 79 Shared Physical Custody: Does It Benefit Most Children? by Linda Nielsen* I. Introduction ....................................... 80 R A. Definition of social science terminology ....... 80 R B. How popular is shared parenting? ............. 81 R C. Have you been “woozled” by the research? . 84 R II. Low conflict and cooperative co-parenting: A prerequisite for shared parenting? ................. 86 R A. High Conflict: Can these children benefit from a shared parenting plan? ....................... 91 R B. The conflict over conflict: The tail that wags the dog? ....................................... 94 R C. Shared parenting: only for the well-to-do and college educated? .............................. 99 R III. How trustworthy and reliable are the forty studies? ............................................ 101 R A. Overall description of the forty studies ........ 101 R B. Limitations of the forty studies ................ 102 R C. The outcomes that were measured ............. 103 R IV. Does shared parenting benefit most children? ..... 103 R A. The American studies.......................... 103 R B. The international studies ....................... 107 R C. Do girls benefit more than boys? .............. 112 R V. What plans are in the best interests of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers? ........................ 113 R A. Woozle warning: What does “attachment” mean? ......................................... 113 R B. The six “baby” studies: data vs. woozles ....... 114 R C. Woozling the baby data: Why is it so common? ...................................... 123 R VI. When is shared parenting not beneficial for children? ........................................... 127 R * Professor of Adolescent and Educational Psychology, Wake Forest University. \\jciprod01\productn\M\MAT\28-1\MAT111.txt unknown Seq: 2 16-OCT-15 15:12 80 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers VII.
    [Show full text]