In issue 45(2) of this Journal, Mavis and I were delighted to launch the new ‘Debates in Social Welfare’ section, where it was noted that it would appear in the Journal twice a year. The aims of the new section are to provide an opportunity for authors to examine and consider social welfare issues which do not always reach the court for decision making, whilst also reaffirming the Journal’s commitment to the social welfare field by providing a dedicated section for coverage of a range of social welfare issues.
In this issue, we are absolutely delighted to publish Edward Kirton-Darling’s piece on the role of the contemporary inquest, particularly given the recent high-profile cases in which questions of social welfare issues were of relevance. For example, the inquest into the death of Jodey Whiting in a case brought by her mother, after Jodey’s welfare benefits were stopped (Dove v. HM Assistant Coroner for Teesside and Hartlepool [2023] EWCA Civ 289). In this excellent article, Kirton-Darling considers the value of inquests as a site of social welfare law and proposes an agenda for research. This is done through an analysis of a number of inquests (including Dove) in which social welfare issues were considered.
The second piece in our ‘Social Welfare’ section is authored by Becky Khan. This piece focuses on the Dove case, and provides, in-part, a reply to Kirton-Darling’s article and examines what this case demonstrates about the role of the bereaved in shaping the scope of inquests.
In addition to the pieces by Kirton-Darling and Khan on social welfare matters, this issue provides the editorial team with the opportunity to be able to cover a range of family-oriented issues from this jurisdiction and internationally.
The first article in our General Section is by Vanesssa Baxter, Victoria Boydell and Susan McPherson. In this piece, Baxter and colleagues evaluated a Multi-Disciplinary Team’s (MDT) pilot programme which employs specialist teams to work with families on the ‘edge of care’. They found that the MDT programme delivered several benefits for families. For example, half of the children had their safeguarding level stepped down. They suggest that the MDT was viewed as an effective and valuable service by social care practitioners and the MDT offered a good model for supporting edge of care families.
The section then takes an international turn, with Mikael Nygård, Josefine Nyby and Mikko Kuisma examining the politicisation of parental leave in Finland. They consider the new Finnish parental leave system allowing equal leave rights for parents and the use of parental leave quotas as a way to strengthen gender equality. They argue that ideological factors delayed a reform of the leave system in a more gender-equal way, suggesting that although the conservatives did warm up to the idea of gender equality, this did not alter their traditional views of the family and gender roles.
The final article in our general section returns to the English and Welsh jurisdiction to consider the experiences of female survivors of domestic abuse when an expert has been instructed in private law child arrangements proceedings. Through interviews, Rachael Grey suggests that survivors’ accounts raise serious professional and safeguarding concerns, as well as ethical issues about the role and impact of the expert in private law child arrangements proceedings. In particular, the study suggests that domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour continues to be poorly understood and recognised.
Moving on to our final two sections, Jane Becker has provided a detailed review of the Research Handbook on Family Justice Systems, whilst the cases team and contributing authors have brought us a collection of case comments which cover a range of family law issues, including parental responsibility, the voice of the child in family proceedings, care orders for children living at home and non-qualifying ceremonies.