The Limits of Parental Responsibility

Responsible Parents and Parental Responsibility

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 63-83

  Gilmore, Stephen ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84993940012     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (50)

1. J Eekelaar, ‘The Emergence of Children’s Rights’ (1986) 6 OJLS 161.
2. J Eekelaar, ‘The Eclipse of Parental Rights’ (1986) 10
3. G Douglas, ‘The Retreat from Gillick’ (1992) 55 MLR 569.
4. A Bainham, ‘The Judge and the Competent Minor’ (1992) 108 LQR 194;
5. E Lawson, ‘Are Gillick rights under threat?’ (1991) 80 Childright 17;
6. J Masson, ‘Adolescent Crisis and Parental Power’ [1991] Fam Law 528;
7. J Murphy, ‘Circumscribing the Autonomy of “Gillick Competent” Children’ (1992) 4 NILQ 60;
8. J Eekelaar, ‘White Coats or Flak Jackets? Doctors, Children and the Courts—Again’ (1993) 109 LQR 182;
9. J Masson, ‘Re W: appealing from the golden cage’ (1993) 5 Journal of Child Law 37;
10. J Bridgeman, ‘Old enough to know best?’ (1993) 13 Legal Studies 69;
11. L Edwards, ‘The Right to Consent and the Right to Refuse;
12. A Grubb, ‘Treatment decisions: keeping it in the family’ in A Grubb (ed), Choices and Decisions in Health Care (Chichester, John Wiley, 1993) 37;
13. J Murphy, ‘W(h)ither Adolescent Autonomy?’ [1992] 2 JSWFL 529.
14. J Montgomery, ‘Parents and children in dispute: who has the final word?’ (1992) Journal of Child Law 85, 87 (describing Lord Donaldson’s reasoning as ‘not without merit’);
15. N Lowe and S Juss, ‘Medical Treatment—Pragmatism and the Search for Principle’ (1993) 56 MLR 86
16. JK Mason, ‘Master of the Balancers; Non-Voluntary Therapy under the Mantle of Lord Donaldson’ [1993] Juridical Review 115 (supporting Lord Donaldson’s reasoning on Family Law ReformAct 1969 s 8);
17. C Hamilton, ‘Editorial’ (1993) 5 Journal of Child Law 1, 1–2;
18. P Bromley and N Lowe, Bromley’s Family Law (8th edn, London, Butterworths, 1992) 295 (viewing subsequent case law merely as a narrow interpretation of Gillick).
19. R Taylor, ‘Reversing the retreat from Gillick? R (Axon) v Secretary of State for Health’ [2007] 19 CFLQ 81.
20. A Bainham, ‘The Balance of Power in Family Decisions’ (1986) 45 CLJ 262;
21. A Bainham, Children, Parents and the State (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1988) ch 3;
22. S de Cruz, ‘Parents Doctors and Children: the Gillick Case and Beyond’ [1987] JSWL 93;
23. J Devereux, ‘The Capacity of a Child in Australia to Consent to Medical Treatment— Gillick Revisited?’ (1991) 11 OJLS 283, 289–94;
24. M Jones, ‘Consent to Medical Treatment by Minors after Gillick’ (1986) 2 Professional Negligence 41;
25. I Kennedy, ‘The Doctor, the Pill and the 15-year-old Girl’ in I Kennedy, Treat me Right, Essays in Medical Law and Ethics (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1988) ch 5;
26. S Lee, ‘Towards a Jurisprudence of Consent’ in J Eekelaar and S Ball (eds), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence (3rd Series, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1987) ch 9;
27. J Montgomery, ‘Children as Property?’ (1988) 51 MLR 323;
28. P Parkinson, ‘The Gillick Case—JustWhat has it Decided?’ [1986] Fam Law 11;
29. GL Peiris, ‘The Gillick Case: Parental Authority, Teenage Independence and Public Policy’ [1987] Current Legal Problems 93
30. G Williams, ‘The Gillick Saga’ [1985] NLJ 1156–8 and 1179–82.
31. A Lester and D Pannick, Human Rights Law and Practice (2nd edn, London, LexisNexis UK, 2004) [4.8.48].
32. J Eekelaar, ‘Gillick in the divorce court’ (1986) 136 NLJ 184
33. Bainham, ‘The Balance of Power in Family Decisions’, above n 11, 275.
34. Bainham, Children, Parents and the State, above n 11, 72.
35. F Cannell, ‘Concepts of parenthood: theWarnock Report, the Gillick debate, and modern myths’ (1990) 17 American Ethnologist 667 (examining both broadsheet and tabloid press coverage, and concluding that the debate ‘mainly concerned the attempt to draw a line between “orderly” and “disorderly” sexuality’).
36. J Lewis with F Cannell, ‘The Politics of Motherhood in the 1980s: Warnock, Gillick and Feminists’ (1986) 13 Journal of Law and Society 321, 326.
37. Dr Havard, Secretary of the British Medical Association, The Times (2 December 1983) (a view supported by the General Medical Council and the DHSS).
38. ‘Rebel GP opposes pill for youngsters’ The Times (12 November 1983) 3.
39. D Pannick, ‘A Bitter Pill to Swallow’ The Guardian (22 December 1984) 15 (arguing that the Court of Appeal decision in Gillick was ‘incompatible with children’s rights’).
40. P Newell, ‘One law for parents, another for children’ The Guardian (5 October 1983) 13 (writer connected with the Children’s Legal Centre);
41. ‘Children’s Rights: Gillick’s gift to the kids’ The Economist (26 October 1985) 65–6 (drawing on the views of the Children’s Legal Centre).
42. P Toynbee, The Guardian (19 November 1984) 12
43. G Austin, ‘Righting a Child’s Right to Refuse Medical Treatment, Section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Gillick competent child’ (1992) 7 Otago Law Review 578, 594.
44. J Bridgeman, ‘Because we care? The medical treatment of children’ in S Sheldon and M Thomson (eds), Feminist Perspectives on Health Care Law (London, Cavendish, 1998) 106
45. A Grubb, ‘Contraceptive Advice and Medical Treatment for Children’ [1986] 45 CLJ 3, 5.
46. SM Cretney, ‘Family Law’ [1995] All ER Annual Review 173, 175;
47. K McK Norrie, ‘Gillick again: the House of Lords decides’ (1986)
48. A Grubb and D Pearl, ‘Medicine, Health, the Family and the Law’ (1986) 16 Fam Law 227, 238–9;
49. BM Dickens, ‘The Modern Function and Limits of Parental Rights’ (1981) 97 LQR 462, 464.
50. K O’Donnell, ‘Re C (Welfare of Child: Immunisation)— Room to refuse? Immunisation, welfare and the role of parental decision making’ [2004] 16 CFLQ 213, 225–6.