Involving children in decision-making has received much attention in New Zealand, and internationally, recently. Care of Children Act 2004 attempts to embody much of the research and attitudinal shifts that have occurred. There is even greater emphasis on involving children than previously. The new legislation aims to better reflect the attitude and expectations of today’s society.

Recognises children’s basic dignity in place of participation in society as of right. Importance for children in terms of development. Develops competence in terms of self- sufficiency.

Section 6: Child's views (1) This subsection applies to proceedings involving— (a) the guardianship of, or the role of providing day-to-day care for, or contact with, a child; or (b) the administration of property belonging to, or held in trust for, a child; or (c) the application of the income of property of that kind.

(2) In proceedings to which subsection (1) applies,— (a) a child must be given reasonable opportunities to express views on matters affecting the child; and (b) any views the child expresses (either directly or through a representative) must be taken into account.

A separate section has been created to deal with participation (see old section 23(2) Guardianship Act 1968). “Views” is now used rather than “wishes”. “Views” implies capacity to understand and form legitimate views. Less qualitative than a “wish”? - Children have a perspective rather than merely wishing something to happen.

No express right of attendance of children under Care of Chidren Act. Contrast with Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 s.22 and s right to attend and participate. Given the above, participation / views through ;

The lawyer appointed to act for the child; In an interview by the Judge; In a report from a child psychologist.

“A team approach is required if each child is to be given a reasonable opportunity to express their view. The different situations and personalities of each child and the different skills and personalities of the legal and non-legal professionals involved in the Family Court process mean that some children will “match” with some adults and not with others” Pauline Tapp

Section 7 Lawyer to act for child (1) A Court may appoint a lawyer to act for a child who is the subject of, or who is a party to, proceedings (other than criminal proceedings) under this Act. (2) However, unless it is satisfied the appointment would serve no useful purpose, the Court must make an appointment under subsection (1) if the proceedings— (a) involve the role of providing day-to-day care for the child, or contact with the child; and (b) appear likely to proceed to a hearing.

(3) To facilitate performance of the lawyer's duties and compliance with section 6 (child's views), the lawyer must, unless he or she considers it inappropriate to do so because of exceptional circumstances, meet with the child.

To represent the client and to put forward views. To advance cases having regard to the children’s issues. Evidence gatherer? Relationship with Court appointed experts. Place of the welfare/”best interests” role.

Care of Children Act 2004 s. 55(4) (4) A lawyer acting for, or other person representing, a child, must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the effect of an order under section 48(1) is explained to the child, to an extent and in a manner and in language that the child understands.”

Lack of direct input into decisions is disrespectful. Children understand that it is the Judge who makes the decision. The most up to date information can be obtained. Judge can get better appreciation of the child as a person - assess maturity Children can often think of solutions nobody else has thought of.

Judges may lack specific skills in interviewing Might children be intimidated by the situation? How is a Judge to obtain information and not share it in the hearing? Might the child worry that views might be conveyed to parents? Might the child be schooled by one of the parents? Could children feel responsible for the decision?

Court can seek a specialist report from a psychologist (or social worker) Child psychologists are often well trained in communicating with children More than one meeting may be desirable and in a relaxed setting Directly asking views is better avoided Psychological reports should not be requested solely for the purpose of ascertaining the child’s views

The process of interview and obtaining children’s views needs substantial thought Should lawyers for children be specifically trained in interviewing children? Should Judges who interview children be specifically trained in how to interview children? Where should interviews occur - in a Judge’s Chambers? Should children be interviewed individually?

There is a genuine and widely held view that to involve children in decision-making is necessary for the rights of the children involved, to add to their positive development, and that involving children helps us achieve the best possibly outcome for all those involved in a child care dispute.

Family Court of New Zealand