Children's law: toward a new realism

Area of Science:

• Legal Studies
• Developmental Psychology
• Sociology

Background:

• The dominant realist approach in American jurisprudence has historically favored symbolic interpretations over empirical evidence in children's legal matters.
• Despite the prevalence of realism, decision-making concerning children's issues frequently lacks grounding in social reality assessments.
• Psycholegal research in this domain has often been misdirected, failing to adequately inform policy and practice.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critique the prevailing symbolic approach in American children's law.
• To highlight the disconnect between legal decision-making and empirical social science regarding children.
• To propose the Convention on the Rights of the Child as a framework for a more psychologically informed legal system.

Main Methods:

• Critical analysis of jurisprudential trends in American law concerning children.
• Review of psycholegal research methodologies and their application to children's issues.
• Examination of the principles and potential impact of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Main Results:

• American jurisprudence on children's issues has been characterized by symbolism rather than pragmatism.
• Existing psycholegal research has often failed to effectively bridge the gap between psychological science and legal practice for children.
• The Convention on the Rights of the Child presents a viable alternative framework.

Conclusions:

• A shift from symbolic legal reasoning to evidence-based, psychologically informed approaches is necessary for children's law.
• The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides a crucial international standard for advancing children's rights and welfare within legal systems.
• Future legal scholarship and practice should integrate psycholegal insights and international human rights principles for more effective child-centered jurisprudence.