Child protection pathways for newborn infants: A multi-disciplinary retrospective chart review of an Irish maternity hospital’s records

In Ireland, little is known about mothers and infants where child welfare and protection concerns arise during the perinatal period. This study explores, for the first time, perinatal child protection. A retrospective audit was carried out of a large maternity hospital's medical social work, neonatal and psychiatric files for a five-year period from 2016 to 2020. The study identified 99 children, born to 86 mothers, who were either subject to a child protection conference; placed for adoption; discharged to someone other than the mother; or discharged home under supervision. The study found that two-thirds of the children were discharged to their mother's care. When compared to national data, the health indicators for this cohort of mothers and children painted a grim picture. The maternal profiles identified high prevalence of mental health and addiction difficulties and domestic violence. The study found evidence of supports provided to the mothers to enable them to care for their infants while they remained in the hospital and during an initial discharge from hospital. However, a significant number of the mothers were not caring for their children when viewed across a longer time frame. Dedicated multi-disciplinary clinics and improved data systems were identified as of importance.     

Public perceptions of castle doctrine and stand your ground cases

Introduction

Stand your ground (SYG) and castle doctrine (CD) laws are presently growing throughout the United States. The present study aims to better understand public perceptions of SYG and CD cases and demographic factors that influence judicial decision making.

Methods

Participants were 204 adults who were randomly assigned one of four vignettes that depicted a CD or SYG scenario and varied by defendant demographics. After reading the vignette, participants completed a questionnaire assessing whether they believed the defendant was guilty of the murder and whether the homicide was justified.

Results

Results indicated participants were more likely to assign a guilty verdict to the SYG scenario, compared to the CD scenario. Additionally, participants assigned to the SYG vignette believed the male defendant was more justified in killing the victim, compared to participants assigned the female defendant.

Conclusion

Results from this study reveal how potential jurors may harbor sex/gender bias in determining justifiable homicide in stand your ground cases.