The Co-Parental Divorce: Removing the Children from the Jurisdiction

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW Revue General de Droit Pub Date : 2019-05-09 DOI:10.7202/1059529AR
J. D. Payne, Eileen Overend
{"title":"The Co-Parental Divorce: Removing the Children from the Jurisdiction","authors":"J. D. Payne, Eileen Overend","doi":"10.7202/1059529AR","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The preservation of parenting rights in contested custody or access proceedings\n arising on the dissolution of marriage necessitates a judicial reconciliation or balancing\n of the competing interests of the children, the parents and members of any extended or\n reconstituted families. In C. v. C., (unreported, March 7, 1984, Ont.\n S.C.) the mother was held to the terms of a prior separation agreement and was ordered not\n to remove the children from the Province of Ontario without the father's consent or a\n further order of the court. In reaching this decision, the trial judge placed heavy reliance\n on the evidence of a mediator who had unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the differences\n between the parents and who was of the opinion that the children would be at risk if the\n mother proceeded with her plans to remarry and establish a new home for herself and the\n children in England.\n C. v. C. raises diverse fundamental issues concerning the legal\n resolution of parenting disputes on marriage breakdown or divorce. The following issues are\n addressed in the commentary of this judgment (reproduced in annex):\n 1. What significance, if any, does, and should, a court give to the express terms\n of a separation agreement?\n 2. If a mediator is retained, should the mediation process, including the\n mediator's evaluation, be “open” (i.e. subject to disclosure to the court) or\n “closed” (i.e. confidential and excluded from any evidence adduced in subsequent\n judicial proceedings)?\n 3. How can the best interests of the children — the legal criterion to be applied\n in the adjudication of parenting disputes — be reconciled with the best interests of other\n concerned family members?\n 4. Could, and should, the court have addressed the possibility of some alternative\n form of parenting arrangements that might accomodate the competing interests of all the\n affected parties?\n 5. To what extent can the courts legally fetter the freedom of a custodial parent\n to establish a new home for (i) herself (or himself) and (ii) the children?\n Some of these issues are specifically addressed in the unreported reasons for\n judgment. Others are ignored. The purpose of this commentary is to canvass these issues and\n point to the need for a family-oriented approach to the resolution of parenting disputes,\n rather than an individual rights approach, such as has been traditionally adhered to by the\n courts in the adjudication of custody and access disputes.","PeriodicalId":42153,"journal":{"name":"Revue General de Droit","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revue General de Droit","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7202/1059529AR","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The preservation of parenting rights in contested custody or access proceedings arising on the dissolution of marriage necessitates a judicial reconciliation or balancing of the competing interests of the children, the parents and members of any extended or reconstituted families. In C. v. C., (unreported, March 7, 1984, Ont. S.C.) the mother was held to the terms of a prior separation agreement and was ordered not to remove the children from the Province of Ontario without the father's consent or a further order of the court. In reaching this decision, the trial judge placed heavy reliance on the evidence of a mediator who had unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the differences between the parents and who was of the opinion that the children would be at risk if the mother proceeded with her plans to remarry and establish a new home for herself and the children in England. C. v. C. raises diverse fundamental issues concerning the legal resolution of parenting disputes on marriage breakdown or divorce. The following issues are addressed in the commentary of this judgment (reproduced in annex): 1. What significance, if any, does, and should, a court give to the express terms of a separation agreement? 2. If a mediator is retained, should the mediation process, including the mediator's evaluation, be “open” (i.e. subject to disclosure to the court) or “closed” (i.e. confidential and excluded from any evidence adduced in subsequent judicial proceedings)? 3. How can the best interests of the children — the legal criterion to be applied in the adjudication of parenting disputes — be reconciled with the best interests of other concerned family members? 4. Could, and should, the court have addressed the possibility of some alternative form of parenting arrangements that might accomodate the competing interests of all the affected parties? 5. To what extent can the courts legally fetter the freedom of a custodial parent to establish a new home for (i) herself (or himself) and (ii) the children? Some of these issues are specifically addressed in the unreported reasons for judgment. Others are ignored. The purpose of this commentary is to canvass these issues and point to the need for a family-oriented approach to the resolution of parenting disputes, rather than an individual rights approach, such as has been traditionally adhered to by the courts in the adjudication of custody and access disputes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
共同父母离婚:将子女从管辖权中移除
在因婚姻破裂而产生的有争议的监护权或探视权诉讼中,要维护养育子女的权利,就必须对子女、父母和任何大家庭或重组家庭成员的相互竞争的利益进行司法和解或平衡。在C.诉C.案中(未报告,1984年3月7日,安大略省),母亲被要求遵守先前分居协议的条款,并被命令在未经父亲同意或法院进一步命令的情况下不得将孩子从安大略省带走。在做出这一决定时,主审法官高度依赖一名调解员的证据,该调解员试图解决父母之间的分歧,但没有成功,并且认为如果母亲继续实施再婚计划,并在英国为自己和孩子们建立一个新家,孩子们将面临风险。C.诉C.一案提出了关于婚姻破裂或离婚时育儿纠纷的法律解决的各种基本问题。本判决的评注(转载于附件)涉及以下问题:1。法院对分居协议的明确条款给予了什么意义(如果有的话),也应该给予什么意义?2.如果聘请了调解员,调解过程,包括调解员的评估,应该是“公开的”(即向法院披露)还是“封闭的”(例如保密的,不包括在随后的司法程序中援引的任何证据中)?3.子女的最大利益——在裁决育儿纠纷时适用的法律标准——如何与其他相关家庭成员的最大利益相协调?4.法院是否能够也应该解决某种替代形式的育儿安排的可能性,这种安排可能会照顾到所有受影响方的竞争利益?5.法院在多大程度上可以在法律上限制监护父母为(i)她自己(或他自己)和(ii)孩子建立新家的自由?其中一些问题在未报告的判决理由中得到了具体处理。其他则被忽略。本评注的目的是探讨这些问题,并指出有必要采取以家庭为导向的方法来解决育儿纠纷,而不是像法院在裁决监护权和探视权纠纷时传统上坚持的那样采取个人权利的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
期刊最新文献
Documentation et mobilisation des traditions juridiques autochtones comme fondements normatifs d’ordres juridiques contemporains : de quelques approches méthodologiques possibles Logiciels de surveillance d’examens en ligne en temps de pandémie : à la recherche d’une minimisation des risques d’atteinte à la vie privée des étudiants Pistes de réflexion républicaines sur le travail en contexte pandémique et postpandémique Pandémie de COVID-19 : réflexions sur quelques enjeux sociojuridiques L’expertise et l’information dans la gouvernance de la crise sanitaire au Québec
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1