The applicant was a 14-year-old girl who claimed that the respondent was her biological father. She...

 

Transcribed Image Text:

The applicant was a 14-year-old girl who claimed that the respondent was her biological father. She claimed child support. She indicated that her birth parents signed an agreement by which the respondent paid a lump sum to her mother in full satisfaction of child support obligations. The applicant wanted to attend a private school and asked for financial assistance from the respondent. The respondent was married to someone other than the applicant's birth mother and they had three young children who did not know about the applicant. The respondent asked the Court to seal the file and order that the names of the parties be initialized to protect these three children from psychological harm. The Court acknowledged that the value of the principles of openness and transparency must be weighed against the goal of protecting children who may be adversely atffected by litigation. Should the Court extend this concem to children who are not parties to the litigation, as was the case here? What evidence is relevant to determining if children will suffer harm from the litigation or if it is made public? Discuss the arguments for giving the public access to personal and private matters such as those in this case. What did the Court decide? The applicant was a 14-year-old girl who claimed that the respondent was her biological father. She claimed child support. She indicated that her birth parents signed an agreement by which the respondent paid a lump sum to her mother in full satisfaction of child support obligations. The applicant wanted to attend a private school and asked for financial assistance from the respondent. The respondent was married to someone other than the applicant's birth mother and they had three young children who did not know about the applicant. The respondent asked the Court to seal the file and order that the names of the parties be initialized to protect these three children from psychological harm. The Court acknowledged that the value of the principles of openness and transparency must be weighed against the goal of protecting children who may be adversely atffected by litigation. Should the Court extend this concem to children who are not parties to the litigation, as was the case here? What evidence is relevant to determining if children will suffer harm from the litigation or if it is made public? Discuss the arguments for giving the public access to personal and private matters such as those in this case. What did the Court decide?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Yes that child has a problematic aspect However that person is aware of ... View the full answer