Giving Children a Voice in Court?
Age Boundaries for Involvement of Children in Civil Proceedings and the Relevance of Neuropsychological Insights
Erasmus Law Review , Volume 13 - Issue 1 p. 31- 44
In the last decade neuropsychological insights have gained influence with regard to age boundaries in legal procedures, however, in Dutch civil law no such influence can be distinguished. Recently, voices have been raised to improve children’s legal position in civil law: to reflect upon the minimum age limit of twelve years for children to be invited to be heard in court and the need for children to have a stronger procedural position. In this article, first the current legal position of children in Dutch law and practice will be analysed. Second, development of psychological constructs relevant for family law will be discussed in relation to underlying brain developmental processes and contextual effects. These constructs encompass cognitive capacity, autonomy, stress responsiveness and (peer) pressure. From the first part it becomes clear that in Dutch family law, there is a tortuous jungle of age limits, exceptions and limitations regarding children’s procedural rights. Until recently, the Dutch government has been reluctant to improve the child’s procedural position in family law. Over the last two years, however, there has been an inclination towards further reflecting on improvements to the child’s procedural rights, which, from a children’s rights perspective, is an important step forward. Relevant neuropsychological insights support improvements for a better realisation of the child’s right to be heard, such as hearing children younger than twelve years of age in civil court proceedings.
|Keywords||age boundaries, right to be heard, child’s autonomy, civil proceedings, neuropsychology|
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.5553/ELR.000157, hdl.handle.net/1765/130031|
|Series||Erasmus Law Review|
|Journal||Erasmus Law Review|
|Organisation||Erasmus School of Law|
Bruning, M., & Peper, J. (2020). Giving Children a Voice in Court?. Erasmus Law Review, 13(1), 31–44. doi:10.5553/ELR.000157