Family Law

Parenting coordination is a client-pay, hybrid alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process designed for parents and guardians involved in on-going, high conflict child custody disputes. The basic idea underlying the parenting coordination process is that a parenting coordinator (PC) can act more quickly than court processes and with more authority than a mediator to resolve the seemingly continuous series of issues arising between high conflict parents.

A child’s vehement rejection of a parent after divorce or separation can present the courts with a number of challenges. These can be exacerbated when children or parents make allegations of harm or abuse against the parent who is being rejected. Whilst there is no settled definition of parental alienation in psychology, it is a term that has meaning within England and Wales case law and is something that magistrates and judges are increasing required to deal with in both private and public law cases. Drawing on established psychological and psychoanalytic constructs, as well as international research into the phenomenon of children’s post-separation rejecting behaviours, this paper will offer insights into the complex dynamics that can lead to alienation and the developmental harm that these may cause to children.

Resumo: A guarda dos animais domésticos após a dissolução do vínculo conjugal, seja pelo divórcio ou pela dissolução de união estável, tornou-se uma questão relevante na pós-modernidade. O novo papel que estes animais possuem no seio destas famílias, que foi elevado de mera propriedade ou conveniência para um ente familiar, é ponto de contenda. Em razão disto, a doutrina se debruça sobre a questão, propondo soluções a partir de uma diversidade de perspectivas. Neste cenário, este trabalho possui como escopo analisar estas soluções e propor uma nova perspectiva para resolver o impasse, de forma a valorizar todos os atores envolvidos na contenda. Assim, propôs-se uma perspectiva tridimensional, que leva em consideração os interesses dos animais, dos seres humanos e do coletivo, na forma da própria família.

В книге представлены учебные и методические материалы по семейной финансовой медиации, используемые в Carolina Dispute Settlement Services (г. Роли, Северная Каролина, США). Описаны наиболее распространенные подходы к организации и ведению процесса семейной медиации в практике США. Освоение предложенных приемов модерации коммуникации между сторонами сделает процесс медиации семейных конфликтов более глубоким и эффективным. В книгу включены некоторые нормативные и правовые документы штата Северная Каролина, регулирующие подготовку медиаторов, их профессиональную деятельность и ответственность.
Материалы мануала могут быть полезны медиаторам, педагогам, психологам, социальным работникам, конфликтологам, юристам, студентам, обучающимся по соответствующим специальностям, и всем, кто заинтересован в конструктивном разрешении семейных и других видов конфликтов.

The legislator, during the last reform of family law in Greece, in 1983, introduced joint physical custody of parents for all children. The court would decide on everything if the parents disagreed, both in the marriage and during the separation or divorce. The judges stubbornly refused to deal with the child rearing and therefore a divergent jurisprudence arose around the best interests of the child: in its name, the judge presumably removes custody from capable and good parents while refusing to do so for incompetent and bad parents. Social services do not exist, the courts just issue a decision meanwhile there is no mean of direct enforcement of such a decision. Parental alienation and emotional abuse is met in the Court’s decisions. Judges continue to refuse taking any action and questioning their jurisprudential custom. Instead of protecting children and parents, the legal system protects the civil code. However, the challenge of raising a child belongs to the parents and not to the judge. Facing Family Violence and Parental Alienation in Greece is not possible without the introduction of shared parenting, including the legal presumption of shared parenting.

The termination of parental rights of parents with mental disabilities is a growing and crucial issue.  In 2010, an estimated 45.9 million adults in the U.S. had experienced a mental illness in the past year. This represents 20% of the adult population.  More than five million children in the U.S. have a parent with a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression.  Courts and child welfare systems too often assume that a parent is not amenable to treatment and is a danger to his or her child when strong symptoms of mental turmoil surface.  Some studies report that as many as 70 to 80% of mentally ill parents have lost custody.  Public systems are overwhelmed by this matter in an era of shrinking resources for such systems.  However, often parents with mental health needs are willing to accept treatment, are able to participate in programming, and are worthy of regaining custody. 
• There are gaps in federal and state law on this issue.  The federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) requires that state child welfare agencies and courts make “reasonable efforts” towards family reunification before the termination of parental rights (TPR) can take place.  However, federal statutes and case law provide little guidance to states about what “reasonable efforts” means, and states have been left to interpret that concept individually.  Many state statutes even enable a “bypass” of the “reasonable efforts” standard when “clear and convincing” evidence allegedly shows that a parent's mental condition cannot be changed.  Many states likewise place unjust, statutory and common law time limits on family reunification efforts in TPR cases. 
• Gaps in legal scholarship are also evident here.  Legal scholars have begun to discuss the inadequacy of reunification services for mentally challenged parents, the tenuous link between mental health services and child welfare agency action, the need for enhanced attorney and child welfare worker preparation in this arena, and a need for cultural competence in reunification services.  Others have even suggested that there be a rebuttable presumption in favor of family reunification.  However, those discussions lack a sound theoretical basis and a practical application of solutions. 
• As is featured in previous work of this author, a new theoretical framework of Family Systems Theory-- which is utilized in clinical behavioral health and human rights arenas-- must first be applied.  Under this theoretical framework, the vague and outdated “best interests of the child” standard, which is a legal standard used exclusively in family law cases, must be replaced with a more sound standard of “holistic family wellbeing.”  Vulnerability Theory can add credence to this theoretical framework.
• The discussion of reunification services for families featuring parents with mental disabilities should then be conducted utilizing Family Systems Theory and a legal standard of “holistic family wellbeing.”  Under these circumstances, the “family integrity” defended by our highest courts through the “reasonable efforts” provision should be upheld through the delivery of highly effective family reunification services.  The application of Family Systems Theory ultimately requires reform in the law, service delivery, and professional practice.  State and federal legislators must revisit the “reasonable efforts” standard, to include specific statutory language about the types of reunification services required and the need for flexible timelines.  Courts, child welfare agencies, and service providers need to deliver proven reunification services and coordinated mental health treatment.  In specific court cases, attorneys for the parent(s), the child(ren), and the state should focus on “holistic family wellbeing” utilizing collaborative family law and alternative dispute resolution, while advancing the agency of their clients.  Child welfare workers and practitioners likewise require training in advanced methods of conflict resolution and clinical practice.  These recommendations can ensure more effective family law practice and more successful family - serving systems.

Questo studio prende spunto dallo scarto che, a causa di un diritto scritto non sempre al passo coi tempi, viene a crearsi tra la realtà sociale concretamente vissuta dalle famiglie create ricorrendo alla procreazione medicalmente assistita (PMA) e la loro totale o parziale (in)esistenza sul piano del diritto. Oltre ad accrescere le modalità di formare la propria famiglia, l’avvento della PMA ha comportato la frammentazione delle nozioni – un tempo, unitarie – di maternità e paternità, producendo quindi potenziale confusione sul versante della determinazione dello status filiationis del nato. A fronte di una pluralità di figure potenzialmente e/o fattualmente genitoriali, la responsabilità di ‘fare ordine’ e di rispondere alle diverse istanze e ai bisogni delle famiglie moderne è caduta sulle spalle dei giudici, i quali – almeno nel contesto europeo – hanno talvolta trovato fonte d’ispirazione nella giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti umani. Spingendosi oltre i confini europei, il presente studio mira pertanto ad indagare il ruolo giocato dai giudici nazionali nel ‘fare da ponte’ tra diritto e società, portando alla luce le logiche, le tecniche e i principi che hanno guidato la loro opera di ricostruzione del diritto vigente.

We have a problem in the arena of divorce and custody. We have a system that is not impartial and often serves as a breeding ground for disingenuous and unethical actions committed by players in the legal arena and sometimes (knowingly and unknowingly) enabled by the very courts people believe will determine fact from fiction. Many Fathers have an uphill challenge awaiting them as they seek what many others before the law and courts seek...fairness and the right to be heard.

English common law remains a marked outlier in the world of pre-nuptial agreements. The use of these agreements in the United States and European jurisdictions is commonplace, and whilst originally the preserve of the wealthy, they are now being contemplated by couples of more modest means. The fundamental purpose of these agreements is to achieve greater certainty over the division of their assets in the event of a marriage breakdown. The differences between English common law and most other Western countries have changed a great deal in the post-Radmacher English legal system. However, there remain some considerable gaps. This article shall seek to address those gaps and the potential issues that may arise in trying to take the ecumenical leap.

Motherhood is no longer a clear-cut concept. Is it a mere biological fact, or does it require a volitional component? This question is answered differently throughout Europe. The French regime of accouchement sous X is more oriented towards the second option. Conversely, the English system identifies parturition as the exclusive determinant for defining legal motherhood.

In his dictum within the case of Hewer v Bryant , Lord Denning stated that the law surrounding children’s rights “can, and should, keep pace with the time ”. Denning criticised the late Victorian era case of Re Agar-Ellis  where it was held that a parent’s absolute authority over their children continued unabated until the age of majority. These comments resurfaced in the prominent case of Gillick  where the House of Lords established that a child’s capacity to make important medical decisions depended not on a legally set age but rather their individual level of maturity and understanding. This essay argues that post Hewer, Gillick and the implementation of the Human Rights Act , the UK has seen an increasingly contentious relationship between the concepts of parental responsibility and child autonomy at law. It is contended that the concepts are not inter-dependent but rather exist theoretically and practically opposed as competing and contextually qualified interests. This will be contended on the basis that the rights inherent within parental responsibility naturally conflict with a full conception of autonomy and represent instead a publicly endorsed paternalism toward children. Further, it is argued that both concepts are often used as judicial rhetoric in combination with the ‘welfare principle’ in order to impose judicial, value based, policy judgements; a precarious practice. It will be shown this is most apparent in the logically incoherent concept of ‘Gillick competency’  in relation to refusal of treatment.

The argument in this chapter is that, even if many do not like the implications of the decision, it is difficult to argue that Burns v Burns - which concerned a claim by a cohabitant to share in the beneficial interest of a family home based on work in the home - was wrongly decided on its own terms (although the Court of Appeal did present a rather limited version of the common intention constructive trust analysis in respects unrelated to the actual facts of the case). Unlike the position following Gissing v Gissing in respect of married couples, no legislative reform in respect of cohabitants has followed in the wake of Burns v Burns. It is arguable that Waller LJ was correct to suggest that the problem in cases such as Burns is not ‘one which could readily be dealt with by legislation’.The Law Commission’s proposed legislative model seems very complex and, though perhaps not for this reason, may not be enacted in the near future. This chapter doubts the legitimacy, in democratic terms, of radical judicial reform in this area and has also suggested that the current common intention trust analysis is not a promising avenue for future development on an incremental basis. This may seem a pessimistic outlook, but where is it decreed that every type of dispute that can arise in society can easily be dealt with by legal means? It may be, however, that something will eventually give – if legislative reform does not occur, then some creative or accidental misreading of existing equitable doctrine may supply the opportunity for the courts to widen the circumstances in which they give a remedy in disputes in the cohabitation (or the wider family) context. Stack v Dowden does not represent this sort of turning point, though perhaps the hyperbole surrounding the case may create a suitable climate for a more radical new departure. Such a departure would probably not be defensible in democratic terms – especially if it occurs against the background of a conscious decision by the legislature not to implement legislative reform – but, if the courts were to choose to ignore this obstacle, it is difficult to see who could effectively call them to account. Nonetheless, the clear insistence by Fox and May LJJ that this kind of reform is more appropriately a matter for Parliament establishes Burns v Burns as a landmark to guide future judges, if they are willing to heed it.

Parental alienation is the unwarranted denigration or rejection of a parent where there was a previous loving relationship. Despite thirty years of study establishing its aetiology, prevalence , appropriate interventions and outcomes for children, parental alienation remains a highly contentious concept in the UK. Additionally, there has been minimal exploration of the experiences of alienated parents across the globe. A recent Q analysis uncovered the subjective and intersubjective experiences of British alienated parents. An unexpected consensus became apparent which merited further analysis of the data. Through this phenome-nological exploration of the participants' narratives, a pervasive sense of " powerlessness " emerged. The source of this felt sense of powerlessness is considered and recommendations for policy and practice are suggested.

Execution of Unprivileged Bills comes under Section 63  of Indian Succession Act. It is a type of document in which a document in which an executor is appointed by testator so that his estate could be managed and moreover his work is to distribute the estate among beneficiaries. When the testator’s will is made legally valid it is known as Execution of Will. A will is a legal document and is signed various formalities as stated under the legislation.

his article reviews the background to the High Court's decision in the ACT same sex marriage case and traces the origin of the court's surprisingly broad definition of what marriage is for the purposes of the marriage power in s 51(xxi) of the Australian Constitution. It reached this definition largely as a result of suggestions put from the Bench in oral argument, without the benefit of detailed written submissions on the subject by either the Commonwealth or the Australian Capital Territory, and in the absence of a contradictor. Intrinsic to the court's reasoning was the proposition that unless 'marriage' in s 51(xxi) included same-sex marriage then the Commonwealth would not be able to legislate so as to prevent the states or territories from establishing same-sex marriage. In finding the Commonwealth's power with respect to marriage does extend to same-sex and other forms of marriage, the court adopted a remarkably one-sided view of the existing case law on the scope of Commonwealth heads of power. It also did not take into consideration the wealth of case law directed specifically to the scope of the marriage power. The importance of the new definition is that now marriage policy in Australia does not depend in any significant way on issues of Constitutional law. While much has thereby been settled, much is now also unsettled. Marriage is, to a great extent, whatever the Federal Parliament says it is, so long as the union is a consensual one between persons (however young) and recognised by law as intended to endure. Specifically, the court has determined that the Constitution places no barrier in the way of polygamous relationships. What view of marriage the parliament chooses to adopt is a matter for political debate. Four options for a coherent policy on marriage and family are identified in the light of the High Court's judgment on the scope of the marriage power. These are (1) to continue with the current policy of treating all kinds of unions as if they were marriages, irrespective of consent and whether or not they are intended to endure, (2) to differentiate clearly between ceremonial marriage and informal relationships, (3) to return to the idea that marriage is based on nothing more than witnessed consent without the need for a celebrant, and (4) to base family policy on the twin axes of marriage and parenthood.

In a pair of studies, we examine lay people's judgments about how hypothetical cases involving child custody after divorce should be resolved. The respondents were citizens called to jury service in Pima County, AZ. Study 1 found that both male and female respondents, if they were the judge, would most commonly award equally shared custody arrangements, as advocated by most fathers' groups. However, if the predivorce child care had been divided disproportionately between the parents, this preference shifted, slightly but significantly, toward giving more time to the parent who had provided most of that care, consistent with the Approximation Rule advocated by the American Law Institute. Moreover, respondents judged that the arrangements prevailing in today's court and legal environment would award equal custody considerably less often, and would thereby provide much less parenting time to fathers, than the respondents themselves would award. Study 2 found that respondents maintained their strong preference for equally shared custody even when there are very high levels of parental conflict for which the parents were equally to blame, but awarded substantially less time to the culpable parent when only one was the primary instigator of the parental conflict. The striking degree to which the public favors equal custody combined with their view that the current court system under-awards parenting time to fathers could account for past findings that the system is seriously slanted toward mothers, and suggests that family law may have a public relations problem.

These tales are true, And can be sad. FIXTURES in our mind, assuming all bad. There's more to their stories, Than what I can share. But they will remind us Why we choose to care. AUTHOR'S NOTE: Patients suffering from opioid use disorder have unique stories. Primary care providers are in a special position to positively change the lives of patients and families in recovery, and to find joy and meaning in practice.

The problem of the custody exchanges during the health emergency means an excellent test to understand how courts react in the time of a real exceptional law, about a subject very important in family law, concerning the interest of the child to a personal relationship and direct contact with both parents and their custody and visiting rights. The paper reveals that there is no single rule but only guiding criteria to be adopted in the light of the specific features of the concrete case.

Kazuo Kamimura è un acuto e raffinato interprete della società giapponese del suo tempo, e Il Club delle Divorziate rappresenta un perfetto esempio di tale sagace sensibilità. Attraverso le storie di persone "ai margini" di una società conformista e benestante, Kamimura mette in luce nevrosi e criticità di un sistema sociale che fatica a gestire la complessità.

The distribution of powers between the state and religious groups plays an important role in shaping how controversies over multicultural toleration and women's rights under religious law can be resolved. Some structures encourage dialogue while others make it difficult. In Israel, the presence of multiple systems of personal religious law limits the possibilities for the transformation of discriminatory religious laws. There is no civil marriage or divorce in Israel. When the modern State of Israel was created, exclusive power over family law disputes involving Jewish citizens was placed in the hands of rabbinical courts. This arrangement has been called one to retain the 'status quo'. However, it was not a continuation of Jewish tradition or of the arrangements in place during the long period of Ottoman rule in Palestine. It reflected strengthened powers that had been given to rabbinical courts during the period of the British Mandate for Palestine. This article will trace the ways in which British policies for colonial rule and the interests of Jewish religious leaders coalesced to create a regime of religious family law that is resistant to feminist demands for change.

If a lawyer of the early 20th. century woke up from his hibernation in our days, he would find a lot of new words he would not understand (internet, wifi, microwave, and so on). But when reading, or talking, about family and family Law, about , he probably would feel comfortable: "this I know", he would think (being "this" words like marriage, husband, wife, spouses, son, daughter, parents and so on). But soon he would realice that being the words the same ones he knew, their current meaning is completely different. My paper tries to deal with this evolution, mainly from the european point of view: an evolution that has changed not only some of the rules of the game, but the game itself. It also tries to suggest some ways to recover the real meaning of Family, and Family Law.

Attachment is the inborn bias of human children to seek the availability of familiar care givers in times of stress. It has been observed from ancient times and in many cultures, and scaffolds further physical, cognitive, and socioemotional development. The security of these relationships is shaped by the continuity and quality of the child-rearing environ ment, and is independent of biological ties to the caregiver. In this chapter, the child's right to a "good-enough"-that is, at least minimally adequate but not necessarily 'best'-family life and the importance of a stable network of attachment relationships is high lighted. Legal issues raised by multi-parent care, including questions around the use of attachment-based assessments for custody decisions, are addressed. Attachment theory is well equipped to inform what caregiving arrangements children need, and legislators, judges, and lawyers may consult it as a source of insight into "good-enough" care arrangements in the interest of the child.

This book analyzes the feminist and legal thought of women’s rights founder Elizabeth Cady Stanton on gender equality in the family. It discusses Stanton’s theories on marriage, divorce, marital property, domestic violence, reproductive control, and parenting. Revealing Stanton's comprehensive demand for systemic legal reform, it challenges conventional depictions of the narrowness of early feminism, the development of family law, and women's assumed acquiescence in domestic subordination. Stanton demanded change to the institutions of government, church, family, and work, which constituted “a fourfold bondage” of women. The family was one of these keys to full reform because Stanton understood the way in which the private domestic sphere was integrated with the public sphere of work and governance, and its related freedoms and opportunities. The book traces the way in which virtually all of Stanton’s proposals became law—from no-fault divorce to the elimination of dower to ...

هذا الكتاب
يرصد هذا الكتاب مدى ما وصل إليه الإفساد التشريعى الممنهج الذي تم في مصر، من خلال التعديلات التي تم إجراءها على القوانين المصرية المعنية بالأسرة والمرأة والطفل خلال الفترة من عام 1979 حتى عام 2009.
وقد استندت تلك التعديلات إلى الإتفاقيات الدولية المعنية بالمرأة والطفل، وأهمها "اتفاقية القضاء على كافة أشكال التمييز ضد المرأة (سيداو CEDAW)" والتي صدرت عن لجنة مركز المرأة بالأمم المتحدة عام 1979، واتفاقية حقوق الطفل (CRC) والتي صدرت لجنة حقوق الطفل بالأمم المتحدة عام 1989. ومن المعلوم أن تلك الاتفاقيات قد بنيت على المنظومة الغربية الحديثة، التي تقوم على التحرر من أية قيود قيمية أو دينية أو مجتمعية، وتحكمها مبادئ الفردية، والصراعية، ومن ثم يؤدي تطبيقها إلى تهدم الأسرة .. النواة الصلبة التي يرتكز عليه المجتمع، ومن ثم فناء المجتمع بشكل عام.
ونضع هذا الجهد المتواضع بين أيدي المعنيين، ليكون إضاءة لما قد يخفي عنهم من تشريعات مخالفة للشريعة الإسلامية، التي ينص البند الثاني في الدستور المصري على أنها المصدر الرئيسى للتشريع.
والله الموفق، وهو يهدي السبيل،،
                                              اللجنة الإسلامية العالمية للمرأة والطفل

Adult children living with their parents represent an increasingly common social phenomenon in the Unites States that challenges the boundaries of both the family and formal property rights. What is the legal status of adult children living with their parents? Do parents have any additional duties when they rescind permission for their child to live with them? Property and family scholars have not addressed this important issue. This article fills the void. Instead of treating people who live together as strangers, owing no legal obligations to one another, I argue that under certain conditions living with others creates a property community in the home. I call this community "home sharing". Thinking of living with others as a property community allows us to legally recognize the deep commitment between people who share a home. I urge scholars to reconsider the rule that allows an owner to unilaterally revoke permission to live in the home and argue that eviction law shoul...

Despite its grounding in a specific and peculiar set of facts, the strict scrutiny mandate of Wisconsin v. Yoder (decided in 1972) has changed the constitutional landscape of custody cases - and it has done so in a way that is unsound both as a matter of law and policy. Following Yoder, most courts require a showing of harm to the child, or a substantial threat of harm to the child, before placing any restrictions on exposure to a parent's religious beliefs and practices. This harm standard leaves children in an untenable position when parents compete for "spiritual custody," for the law can protect them only when the risk of harm is already substantial. Indeed, the bar is set so high that few courts have found circumstances that satisfy the harm standard. In this essay, I argue that a strict scrutiny standard has no place in spiritual custody cases. It is hardly consistent with the basic principle that the custody court's paramount consideration is the best intere...

Przywileje i immunitety przedstawicieli dyplomatycznych to instrumenty ochrony interesów państwa o niemal tak długiej tradycji jak sama dyplomacja. Dość wcześnie zdano sobie sprawę z tego, że pracownik służby zagranicznej -poseł, sekretarz czy ambasador -w celu efektywnego wykonywania obowiązków powierzonych mu przez państwo wysyłające nie może podlegać naciskom ze strony państwa przyjmującego. Taka niezależność jest jednak trudna do osiągnięcia. Dyplomaci, zgodnie z naturą swojego zawodu, przebywają na terytorium państwa obcego, a więc pod jego jurysdykcją. Aby ochronić ich niezależność od państwa przyjmującego wprowadzono immunitety, czyli instrumenty prawne pozwalające na częściowe wyłączenie z podległości danym normom prawnym określonego kraju. Immunitetem będzie na przykład immunitet jurysdykcyjny zapewniający przedstawicielowi dyplomatycznemu wyłączenie spod jurysdykcji karnej państwa przyjmującego.

Cuando se desarrollan procesos vinculados a la separación/divorcio de una pareja con hijos, usualmente se registran situaciones de violencia familiar, en particular contra quienes tienen menos derechos: los hijos (i), los progenitores sin tenencia (ii), registrándose situaciones de alienación parental, las cuales deberían incidir en la actuación judicial cuando se denuncian estos casos, por cuanto se registra un acto específico de violencia familiar. La variación de la tenencia en estos sentidos no sólo permite proteger la integridad psicológica y desarrollo humano del hijo involucrado en conflictos entre progenitores, sino también permite regular un derecho del progenitor afectado e impone una sanción a quien ejecuta un acto que en esencia es un delito.

En: Actualidad Civil, Nº 52, 2018 octubre, pp. 191-198

Eyebrows have recently arched not only at the high sums involved in big money divorce cases, but also at the amount of ink spilled on this relatively small subset of divorce cases. Yet, it is precisely in big money cases, wherein judges have discretion over resources that significantly exceed the needs of the parties, that fairness acquires substantial haziness. The question of fairness is particularly acute in short marriages, as well as when one spouse is at fault for the divorce or when one spouse contributes extraordinarily to the marriage. Courts in both England and the United States have been encountering these issues with increasing frequency and differing results. The majority of American courts have employed the principle of equitable distribution, resulting in a disproportionate property division between spouses, particularly when the marital estate grew because of one spouse’s extraordinary efforts. England, on the other hand, has recently implemented a yardstick of equality that aims for near equal property division between spouses, representing a major shift in English case law and a doctrinal break from American law. This article examines these changes in the comparative context, underscoring the consequences of country’s interpretation of fairness in post-divorce property division.

From the above mentioned admitted facts, it is evident
that the petitioner needs sufficient amount of money for the
treatment of breast cancer. Hence, it cannot be ruled out that
in order to save her life by getting money, she agreed for a
settlement of dissolution of marriage. On these facts, a
question that came in our mind is as to whether the Court
would be justified in granting a decree for divorce on the basis
of settlement when the wife is suffering with breast cancer and
is in need of money for her treatment and can that be the
consideration for dissolution of marriage.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 702 OF 2015
Vennangot Anuradha Samir …..Petitioner
versus
Vennangot Mohandas Samir …Respondent
Dated;December 02, 2015

In 2007, in its Final Reporto nt he financial consequences of cohabitation, the Law Commission decided not to recommend anychanges to the intestacyrules to coverfor the situation whereac ohabitant'sp artner dies.H owever,i nJ une 2008, it announced that it would undertakeageneral reviewoft his area of the law. This article reviews the current lawand reports on alarge surveyofp ublic opinion on the position of surviving cohabitants,c onducted by students at the Universities of Sheffield and Cardiff. The findings clearly showt hat al arge majority of the general public would supports ome automatic provision being made foras urviving cohabitant, with ag reater shareb eing felt appropriate both the longer the relationship had lasted and if the partners had had children. It is concluded that, givenwhat we believe to be the current unfair state of the law, coupled with the high levels of supportf or provision from the general public, the LawC ommission should examine very thoroughlyt he scope and feasibility of extending the intestacyr ules to covers urviving cohabitants.

Setting the amount of a child support award involves tradeoffs in the allocation of finite resources among at least three private parties: the two parents, and their child or children. Federal law today requires states to have child support guidelines or formulas that determine child support amounts on a uniform statewide basis. These state guidelines differ in how they make these unavoidable tradeoffs. In choosing the correct balance of these competing claims, policymakers would do well to understand the public's intuitions about the appropriate tradeoffs. We report an empirical study of lay intuitions about these tradeoffs, which we compare to the principles underlying typical state guidelines. As in other contexts in which people are asked to place a dollar value on a legal claim, we find that citizen assessments of child support for particular cases conform to the pattern that Ariely and his co-authors have called "coherent arbitrariness": the respondent's choice of dollar magnitude may be arbitrary, but relative values respond coherently to case variations, within and across citizens. These patterns also suggest that our respondents have a consistent and systematic preference with respect to the structure of child support formulas that differs in important ways from either of the two systems adopted by nearly all states.

La vicenda in commento offre l'occasione di riflettere circa l'interpretazione e la portata dispositiva dell 'art. 5 l. n. 40 del 2004. La norma richiede l'esistenza in vita di entrambi gli aspiranti genitori che abbiano fornito il consenso alla partecipazione al procedimento procreativo. Il dettato trascura altresì di specificare in quale fase tale requisito debba essere soddisfatto e se in particolare esso sia richiesto per tutta la durata della procedura riproduttiva. La motivazione della sentenza induce a ritenere che sia esclusa la configurabilità di una procreazione post mortem e che debba dunque applicarsi la normativa ex art. 8 l. n. 40 del 2004. Si sollevano dunque alcune perplessità sia in merito alla qualificazione giuridica, sia in merito alle conseguenze di ordine sistematico che la pronuncia in commento evita di affrontare: in particolare, la posizione successoria dell'erede concepito, in senso naturalistico, dopo la morte del padre e, inoltre, l'attribuzione dello status filiationis, qualora il figlio sia nato da coppia non coniugata.

THE RIGHTS OF GRANPARENTS AND GRANDCHILDREN TO KEEP A DIRECT AND REGULAR RELATIOSHIP: ORIGINS AND CRITICISM LEVELLED AT ARTICLE 229-2 OF THE CHILEAN CODE AND ITS JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT. A CASE ABOUT AN EXCESSIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD PRINCIPLE

Call for chapters for Proposal Submission Deadline: January 30, 2016 for the book “Therapeutic Jurisprudence and overcoming violence against women”, edited by Dr.Debarati Halder,Ph.D., Advocate and Managing Director,Centre for Cyber Victim Counselling, founder secretary, South Asian Society of
Criminology and Victimology, Tamil Nadu, India & Dr. K. Jaishankar, Senior Assistant professor, Criminology and Criminal Justice sciences, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, & President, South Asian Society of Criminology and
Victimology, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, India.

All polities struggle with establishing the correct balance between family autonomy and state intervention.  In a liberal world, the family is often seen as being in some ways analogous to the individual, possessed of a zone of freedom in which it is inappropriate for the State to intervene. However, the family is obviously different from an individual insofar as it comprises several individuals – a parent or parents and a child or children. Deference to family autonomy, therefore, amounts to deference to those who are powerful within the family, allowing parents to make decisions on behalf of their children. Nevertheless, there remain good reasons to allow parents make decisions on behalf of their children. At least in the case of young children, they do not have the capacity to make decisions on their own behalf. Most people would accept that – in general – parents are better placed than the State to make decisions for their children. Conversely, most people would also accept that parents' authority over their children cannot be absolute. The State retains a residual concern for children who are abused, neglected or failed by their parents, whether through misconduct or personal inadequacy. The difficult question lies in establishing the threshold for state intervention.

Since the enactment of the Divorce Act in 1996, members of the Irish judiciary have been faced with a number of difficulties regarding the interpretation and application of its provisions. This article considers the approach of both the legislature and the judiciary to the issues of clean break, pre-existing separation agreements and prenuptial agreements, and in so doing reveals their failure to recognize sufficiently the importance of existing agreements and highlights the dangers that are an inevitable consequence of the widely framed powers of the judiciary.

The graphical representation of a social and cultural asymmetry: gender in matrimonial dispensations, between the Middle Ages and the early modern period /

La représentation graphique d’une asymétrie sociale et culturelle : du genre dans les dispenses matrimoniales, entre Moyen Âge et époque moderne