Wrongful death

Abstract: Intentional Interference with the Person; Intentional Interference with Property; Defenses to Intentional Interference with Person or Property; Negligence: Standard of Conduct; Negligence: Proof; Proximate Cause; Joint Tortfeasors; Limited Duty; Owners and Occupiers of Land; Negligence: Defenses; Imputed Negligence; Strict Liability; Compensation Systems; Nuisance; Tort and Contract; Products Liability; Misrepresentation and Nondisclosure; Defamation; Privacy; Misuse of Legal Procedure; Domestic Relations; Survival and Wrongful Death; Economic Relations; Immunities.

Abstract: Administrative regulations and tort law both impose controls on activities that cause mortality risks, but they do so in puzzlingly different ways. Under a relatively new and still-controversial procedure, administrative regulations rely on a fixed value of a statistical life representing the hedonic loss from death. Under much older law, tort law in most states excludes hedonic loss from the calculation of damages, and instead focuses on loss of income, which regulatory policy ignores. Regulatory policy also disregards losses to dependents; tort law usually allows dependents to recover for loss of support. Regulatory policy generally treats the loss of the life of a child as equivalent to the loss of the life of an adult; tort law usually treats the loss of the life of a child as less valuable. Regulatory policy implicitly values foreigners as equal to Americans; tort law does not. We argue that both areas of law make serious mistakes in valuing life and that each should learn from the other. Regulatory policy properly focuses on hedonic loss from death, and tort law should adopt this approach. But regulatory policy should imitate tort law's individualized approach to valuing the loss from death, including its inclusion of losses to dependents. If these changes were made, tort awards would be more uniform and predictable, and regulations would be less uniform and more stringent. In addition, average tort damages for wrongful death would be at least twice as high as they are today. With respect to dollar judgments for mortality risks, a pervasive issue is how to combine accuracy with administrability and predictability; both bodies of law could do far better on this score.

Abstract: Prior to 1970, most children with special needs who could not live at home would not have been considered for adoption and would therefore have grown up in out-of-home placement. The term "special needs" refers to barriers--older age, developmental problem, physical disability, behavioral problem, need for sibling group placement-that delay or prevent timely placement in an adoptive home. On balance, adoption outcomes for children with special needs are distinctly positive. About 10% to 15% of adoptions of children 3 years of age or older end in disruption, that is, termination prior to legal finalization. In those adoptions that remain intact, about 75% of parents are well satisfied with their adoptive experience. Predictors of positive adoptive outcome include younger age of the child at the time of placement, the absence of behavioral problems, the provision of complete background information regarding the child, adoption by the child's foster parents, and the child's not having been sexually abused prior to placement. Although associations of sociodemographic factors to outcome are weak, lower-income families, families of modest educational attainment, and minority families have experienced particularly good outcomes. Financial adoption subsidies may be the single most important postadoptive service for special needs families. of a number of factors that may prevent timely placement in an adoptive home. Important special needs characteristics include older age at adoption (older than 4 years), emotional or behavioral problems, adoptive placement as part of a sibling group, and disabilities. As used in this article, the term disability includes both developmental problems (for example, mental retardation, serious vision, hearing, or orthopedic impairments, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, spina bifida, muscular dystrophy, or Down's syndrome) and serious medical conditions (for example, AIDS, leukemia, or cancer). Given that children of color often experience delays in adoptive placement, minority ethnicity is also considered to be a special needs characteristic. As the article by Judith McKenzie in this journal issue demonstrates, social workers in public child welfare face a variety of barriers to providing permanent homes for children.1 Even with these barriers, outcomes of special needs James A. Rosenthal, Ph.D., is associate professor at the School of Social Work, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK. The Future of Children ADOPTION Vol. 3 * No. 1 Spring 1993 This content downloaded from 40.77.167.105 on Thu, 14 Apr 2016 05:45:41 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 78 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN SPRING 1993 adoptions are, on balance, positive and suggest that efforts should be made to encourage and increase adoption of children with special needs. While there have always been some placements of children with special needs, special needs adoption as we know it today began to emerge in the early 1970s. Alfred Kadushin's study of abused and neglected children who were adopted at 5 years of age or older demonstrated high levels of parental satisfaction, comparable to those in traditional adoptions.2 Kadushin's study demonstrated the "reversibility of [childhood] trauma" and paved the way for the development of the special needs adoption field.3 About 20,000 older children are adopted each year in the United States, and as many as 200,000 have been adopted overall.4 (See the article by Stolley in this journal issue.) Adoption offers far more stability and benefits than long-term foster care placement. Indeed, stability may be the greatest advantage of adoption. This article reviews research on special needs adoption outcome, examining both adoption disruption-termination of an adoption prior to legal finalization-and child and family functioning in nondisrupted families. It examines child, family, and service characteristics as predictors of outcome. Child characteristics studied include particular special needs characteristics (disability, behavioral problem, older age at adoption, sibling placement), gender, and ethnicity. Family characteristics that are considered include family structure (single-parent versus two-parent), ethnicity, age of parents, income and education levels, religious participation, and family interaction patterns. Service characteristics studied include placements in out-of-home care prior to adoption, type of adoption (by foster parent versus by "new" parents), sibling placements, and preand post-adoptive services, including support groups, counseling, and financial subsidies. Adoption and Foster Care The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-272) has, as its central purpose, the prevention of unplanned "drift" of children from one foster home to the next. The law's goal is to ensure that every child has a permanent home by reuniting the birthfamily or, where this is not possible, by placing the child in an adoptive home. In a review of different options for permanency for older children, Barth and Berry concluded that adoption offers far more stability and benefits than long-term foster care placement.5 Indeed, stability may be the greatest advantage of adoption. For example, when a foster family moves out of state, the child most likely stays behind. In adoption, the child becomes a permanent member of the family and moves with it. The advantage of special needs adoption relative to long-term foster care becomes more apparent when a lifetime perspective is applied. Although some foster families maintain contact after the child reaches maturity, adoption offers the stronger probability for lifetime relationships with parents, siblings, and extended family. Taking into account such factors as the financial value of parent-child relationship (determined by legal awards in wrongful death cases), parental contributions to the child's development and education, and the child's future earnings, the lifetime financial value of adoption to an 8-year-old child who might otherwise reside in foster care exceeds $500,000. This amount is six times greater than the cost of long-term foster care.5 Follow-up studies with adults also suggest advantages for adoption relative to foster care. Triseliotis and Russell compared perceptions of adults who were adopted at an older age (mean age = 3.5 years) with those of adults who were raised in foster care. The adoptees indicated higher levels of satisfaction with how they were raised and with their lives.6

Abstract: Types of Remedies; Equity; Law-Equity Distinction; Contempt; Discretion; Balancing Equities; Adequacy of Legal Remedy; Jury Trial in Equity; Injunctions and Provisional Injunctive Relief; Principles of Damages; Basic Rules; General Damages and Consequential Damages; Proving Market Value; Interest; Reduction to Present Value; Inflation; Benefits from a Tort; Avoidable Consequences; Attorney Fees Recovery; Punitive Damages; Restitution; Restitution at Law and in Equity; Constructive Trust; Measurement of Restitution; Defenses; Harms to Tangible Property; Land; Personal Property; Interference with Economic Rights; Invasion of Civil Rights and Dignitary Interests; Personal Injury and Wrongful Death; Fraud and Misrepresentation; Duress, Undue Influence and Other Unconscionable Conduct; Mistake in Contracting and Gift Transactions; Remedies for Breach of Contract; Unenforceable Contracts.