RETHINKIN. (Rethinking legal kinship and family studies in the Low Countries) is a Scientific Research Network (WOG) 2015-2019 of the Research Foundation Flanders. It currently joins the entire Flemish academic research into family law with the Dutch Alliantie Familie & Recht (Alliance Family and Law – ACFL, NIG and UCERF) as “Low Countries”. RETHINKIN. will first draw a Roadmap for Kinship & Family Studies in the Low Countries as a stepping stone to the development of its further scientific activities under the EU Framework Programmes for Scientific Research and Innovation. A continuous dialogue with an international multiand transdisciplinary panel will allow the expansion of the current research landscape so as to cultivate new areas in alliance with other disciplines.
RETHINKIN。(重新思考低地国家的法律亲属关系和家庭研究)是佛兰德斯研究基金会2015-2019年科学研究网络(WOG)项目。目前，它与荷兰Alliantie family & Recht(家庭与法律联盟- ACFL, NIG和UCERF)一起将整个佛兰德家庭法学术研究纳入“低地国家”。RETHINKIN。将首先为低地国家的亲属关系和家庭研究绘制路线图，作为在欧盟科学研究和创新框架方案下发展其进一步科学活动的垫脚石。与国际多学科和跨学科小组的持续对话将允许扩展当前的研究景观，从而与其他学科联盟培养新的领域。
{"title":"Family Law and Economics Introduction to a RETHINKIN. seminar","authors":"F. Swennen","doi":"10.5553/FENR/.000025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5553/FENR/.000025","url":null,"abstract":"RETHINKIN. (Rethinking legal kinship and family studies in the Low Countries) is a Scientific Research Network (WOG) 2015-2019 of the Research Foundation Flanders. It currently joins the entire Flemish academic research into family law with the Dutch Alliantie Familie & Recht (Alliance Family and Law – ACFL, NIG and UCERF) as “Low Countries”. RETHINKIN. will first draw a Roadmap for Kinship & Family Studies in the Low Countries as a stepping stone to the development of its further scientific activities under the EU Framework Programmes for Scientific Research and Innovation. A continuous dialogue with an international multiand transdisciplinary panel will allow the expansion of the current research landscape so as to cultivate new areas in alliance with other disciplines.","PeriodicalId":167265,"journal":{"name":"The Family in Law","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122297835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
1. Op donderdag 12 en vrijdag 13 november 2015 vond het eerste internationale besloten expertenseminarie van RETHINKIN. plaats te Gent en Kortrijk. Dit seminarie is het initiatief van de Wetenschappelijke Onderzoeks Groep (WOG) RETHINKIN. (Rethinking legal kinship studies in the Low Countries). Deze WOG is het resultaat van de samenwerking tussen enerzijds de Vlaamse Vereniging voor Familie & Recht (V.Fam.) en anderzijds de Nederlandse Alliantie Familie & Recht. Het doel van RETHINKIN. is het herdefiniëren van het familierecht in de Lage Landen (www.rethinkin.eu). 2. Op het seminarie debatteerden internationale experten gedurende twee dagen over twee thema’s: de vergoeding van huishoudelijke inspanningen in relaties enerzijds en de zorg voor ouderen anderzijds. Deze topics werden op de eerste dag geanalyseerd vanuit economisch standpunt. Hierna wordt enkel ingegaan op de tweede dag van het seminarie, waarop beide thema’s in juridisch en historisch perspectief werden geplaatst.
{"title":"Verslag van het internationale besloten expertenseminarie Family Studies’ Perspectives towards Household Production and Informal Elderly Care","authors":"K. D. Vos","doi":"10.5553/FenR/.000024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5553/FenR/.000024","url":null,"abstract":"1. Op donderdag 12 en vrijdag 13 november 2015 vond het eerste internationale besloten expertenseminarie van RETHINKIN. plaats te Gent en Kortrijk. Dit seminarie is het initiatief van de Wetenschappelijke Onderzoeks Groep (WOG) RETHINKIN. (Rethinking legal kinship studies in the Low Countries). Deze WOG is het resultaat van de samenwerking tussen enerzijds de Vlaamse Vereniging voor Familie & Recht (V.Fam.) en anderzijds de Nederlandse Alliantie Familie & Recht. Het doel van RETHINKIN. is het herdefiniëren van het familierecht in de Lage Landen (www.rethinkin.eu). 2. Op het seminarie debatteerden internationale experten gedurende twee dagen over twee thema’s: de vergoeding van huishoudelijke inspanningen in relaties enerzijds en de zorg voor ouderen anderzijds. Deze topics werden op de eerste dag geanalyseerd vanuit economisch standpunt. Hierna wordt enkel ingegaan op de tweede dag van het seminarie, waarop beide thema’s in juridisch en historisch perspectief werden geplaatst.","PeriodicalId":167265,"journal":{"name":"The Family in Law","volume":"149 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127626666","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recent moves towards a non-legal presumption of child-inclusive family mediation propose removing the need for both parents to consent when a child is tested as Gillick–competent. This is intended to let consenting children share their experiences, and express their concerns and views for sensitive consideration by their parents, so that these can be taken into account in the dispute resolution process (J Walker and A Lake-Caroll ‘Child-inclusive divorce resolution: Time for Change’ [2015] Fam Law 695). This paper explores the potential consequences of adopting such a model, based on an earlier analysis of the ethical propositions informing four of the most prominent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) texts (Wilson, 2010). It contends that shifts of practice that involve overruling a dissenting parent have fundamental implications in terms of the mediator’s duty of care and, therefore, the communitarian principles upon which family mediation is founded. There should be further debate regarding how practising mediators should address the application of differing ethical models in circumstances where these are likely to compete with one another.
最近有一种非法律推定——包括孩子在内的家庭调解——提议，当孩子被测试为“吉利克胜任能力”时，不需要父母双方同意。这是为了让同意的孩子分享他们的经历，并表达他们的担忧和观点，供父母敏感地考虑，以便在争议解决过程中考虑到这些问题(J Walker和A lake - carol的《包容孩子的离婚解决方案:时间改变》[2015]Fam Law 695)。本文基于对四个最突出的替代性争议解决(ADR)文本的伦理命题的早期分析，探讨了采用这种模型的潜在后果(Wilson, 2010)。它认为，涉及推翻异议父母的实践转变，就调解员的注意义务而言，具有根本性的影响，因此，家庭调解所依据的社区主义原则。应进一步讨论执业调解员应如何处理在可能相互竞争的情况下应用不同的道德模式。
{"title":"Family mediation: which ethical model are we following?","authors":"B. Wilson","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2920638","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2920638","url":null,"abstract":"Recent moves towards a non-legal presumption of child-inclusive family mediation propose removing the need for both parents to consent when a child is tested as Gillick–competent. This is intended to let consenting children share their experiences, and express their concerns and views for sensitive consideration by their parents, so that these can be taken into account in the dispute resolution process (J Walker and A Lake-Caroll ‘Child-inclusive divorce resolution: Time for Change’ [2015] Fam Law 695). \u0000This paper explores the potential consequences of adopting such a model, based on an earlier analysis of the ethical propositions informing four of the most prominent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) texts (Wilson, 2010). It contends that shifts of practice that involve overruling a dissenting parent have fundamental implications in terms of the mediator’s duty of care and, therefore, the communitarian principles upon which family mediation is founded. There should be further debate regarding how practising mediators should address the application of differing ethical models in circumstances where these are likely to compete with one another.","PeriodicalId":167265,"journal":{"name":"The Family in Law","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133192686","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M. Jonker, Rozemarijn van Spaendonck, J. Tigchelaar
In deze bijdrage worden de resultaten gepresenteerd van een uitgebreid jurisprudentieonderzoek naar de wijze waarop religie en cultuur betrokken worden in de overwegingen van de rechter in familierechtelijke beslissingen over kinderen in Nederland. Naast een kwantitatief overzicht van de gepubliceerde jurisprudentie worden de uitspraken inhoudelijk ontsloten en geanalyseerd aan de hand van thema's zoals bloedtransfusies, cultuurverschillen en identiteitsontwikkeling, rituelen (besnijdenis en doop) en schoolkeuze. Bij de analyse wordt onderscheid gemaakt tussen de rechten van het kind en de rechten van ouders, en wordt ingegaan op de vraag welke criteria de rechter hanteert voor de afweging van de rechten van het kind en diens ouders. Ook wordt besproken in hoeverre internationale normen herkenbaar zijn in de overwegingen van de rechter. Uit de 79 rechtszaken waarin de rechter overwegingen wijdt aan religie en cultuur, blijkt dat deze aspecten zowel positieve als negatieve effecten kunnen hebben op het belang van het kind en met name op de identiteitsontwikkeling van het kind. De rechter hanteert hierbij criteria zoals: schade voor de gezondheid van het kind, sociale aansluiting met anderen van dezelfde religieuze of culturele achtergrond, en praktische overwegingen. This contribution presents the results of an extensive Dutch case law study on the way in which religion and culture play a role in the considerations of judges in family law decisions regarding children. In addition to a quantitative overview of the published case law in the Netherlands, the decisions are analysed on the basis of themes such as blood transfusion, culture differences and identity development, rituals (circumcision and baptism), and choosing a school. In the analysis, a distinction is made between the rights of the child and the rights of parents. Furthermore, the criteria which the judge deploys to balance the rights of the child and the rights of its parents are addressed. Finally, the extent to which international legal standards can be identified in the considerations of the judge is discussed. From the 79 cases in which the judge consider to religion and culture, it appears that these aspects can have both positive and negative effects upon the best interests of the child, and in particular upon the identity development of the child. In these cases, the judge uses criteria such as: harm to the health of the child, social connections with others of the same religious and cultural background, and practical day-to-day considerations.
{"title":"Religie en cultuur in familierechtelijke beslissingen over kinderen","authors":"M. Jonker, Rozemarijn van Spaendonck, J. Tigchelaar","doi":"10.5553/FENR/.000020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5553/FENR/.000020","url":null,"abstract":"In deze bijdrage worden de resultaten gepresenteerd van een uitgebreid jurisprudentieonderzoek naar de wijze waarop religie en cultuur betrokken worden in de overwegingen van de rechter in familierechtelijke beslissingen over kinderen in Nederland. Naast een kwantitatief overzicht van de gepubliceerde jurisprudentie worden de uitspraken inhoudelijk ontsloten en geanalyseerd aan de hand van thema's zoals bloedtransfusies, cultuurverschillen en identiteitsontwikkeling, rituelen (besnijdenis en doop) en schoolkeuze. Bij de analyse wordt onderscheid gemaakt tussen de rechten van het kind en de rechten van ouders, en wordt ingegaan op de vraag welke criteria de rechter hanteert voor de afweging van de rechten van het kind en diens ouders. Ook wordt besproken in hoeverre internationale normen herkenbaar zijn in de overwegingen van de rechter. Uit de 79 rechtszaken waarin de rechter overwegingen wijdt aan religie en cultuur, blijkt dat deze aspecten zowel positieve als negatieve effecten kunnen hebben op het belang van het kind en met name op de identiteitsontwikkeling van het kind. De rechter hanteert hierbij criteria zoals: schade voor de gezondheid van het kind, sociale aansluiting met anderen van dezelfde religieuze of culturele achtergrond, en praktische overwegingen. This contribution presents the results of an extensive Dutch case law study on the way in which religion and culture play a role in the considerations of judges in family law decisions regarding children. In addition to a quantitative overview of the published case law in the Netherlands, the decisions are analysed on the basis of themes such as blood transfusion, culture differences and identity development, rituals (circumcision and baptism), and choosing a school. In the analysis, a distinction is made between the rights of the child and the rights of parents. Furthermore, the criteria which the judge deploys to balance the rights of the child and the rights of its parents are addressed. Finally, the extent to which international legal standards can be identified in the considerations of the judge is discussed. From the 79 cases in which the judge consider to religion and culture, it appears that these aspects can have both positive and negative effects upon the best interests of the child, and in particular upon the identity development of the child. In these cases, the judge uses criteria such as: harm to the health of the child, social connections with others of the same religious and cultural background, and practical day-to-day considerations.","PeriodicalId":167265,"journal":{"name":"The Family in Law","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114253309","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
De algehele gemeenschap van goederen die ons huwelijksvermogensrecht nu kent is een veelbesproken thema. Mondige vooren tegenstanders zijn er in overvloed en door de jaren heen zijn er verscheidene initiatieven geweest om de huwelijksgemeenschap te beperken. Op dit ogenblik is wetsvoorstel 33987 aanhangig, dat precies over deze materie gaat. Ook over dit initiatief hebben al vele meningen de revue gepasseerd. Op 22 mei 2015 vond in Utrecht een symposium plaats over dit wetsvoorstel, waarover de lezer in dit stuk een verslag aantreft.
{"title":"Verslag Symposium ‘Invoering beperkte huwelijksgoederengemeenschap in Nederland’: commentaren vanuit het buitenland, praktijk, politiek en wetenschap","authors":"Bas Legger, T. Bos","doi":"10.5553/FENR/.000022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5553/FENR/.000022","url":null,"abstract":"De algehele gemeenschap van goederen die ons huwelijksvermogensrecht nu kent is een veelbesproken thema. Mondige vooren tegenstanders zijn er in overvloed en door de jaren heen zijn er verscheidene initiatieven geweest om de huwelijksgemeenschap te beperken. Op dit ogenblik is wetsvoorstel 33987 aanhangig, dat precies over deze materie gaat. Ook over dit initiatief hebben al vele meningen de revue gepasseerd. Op 22 mei 2015 vond in Utrecht een symposium plaats over dit wetsvoorstel, waarover de lezer in dit stuk een verslag aantreft.","PeriodicalId":167265,"journal":{"name":"The Family in Law","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133408999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
New social and legal demands take time to have societal and legal recognition. Changes in family compositions have challenged societies’ values and legislation based on traditional practices or on an ideal concept of family. Some policy-makers and researchers, for instance, promote the idea that parents should be offered incentives to get married and remain married in order to ensure that children are raised in two-parent families. Not so long ago, children born outside of wedlock were not granted any rights. Adopted children did not have same rights as their “normal” siblings.
{"title":"Sexual Orientation and the ECtHR: what relevance is given to the best interests of the child? An analysis of the European Court of Human Rights' approach to the best interests of the child in LGBT parenting cases","authors":"G. Faria","doi":"10.5553/FenR/.000018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5553/FenR/.000018","url":null,"abstract":"New social and legal demands take time to have societal and legal recognition. Changes in family compositions have challenged societies’ values and legislation based on traditional practices or on an ideal concept of family. Some policy-makers and researchers, for instance, promote the idea that parents should be offered incentives to get married and remain married in order to ensure that children are raised in two-parent families. Not so long ago, children born outside of wedlock were not granted any rights. Adopted children did not have same rights as their “normal” siblings.","PeriodicalId":167265,"journal":{"name":"The Family in Law","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116847600","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper, the authors present an empirical research on the content of cohabitation contracts in the Netherlands, conducted in 2013. The legal professionals who mostly deal with cohabitation contracts - the notaries - have been asked to fill in a digital questionnaire. The format of this research is exploratory, painting a first picture of legal practice on making cohabitation contracts. The content of the average cohabitation contract differs very much compared to the content of the average marriage contract. Clauses that express solidarity between cohabitants (sharing income or property values or maintenance) are rare in cohabitation contracts, whereas they are rather popular in matrimonial property contracts. Further research is necessary to gain more insight into the legal practice of making cohabitation contracts.
{"title":"Samenlevingsovereenkomsten in de notariële praktijk","authors":"P. Kuik, W. M. Schrama, L. Verstappen","doi":"10.5553/FenR/.000017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5553/FenR/.000017","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, the authors present an empirical research on the content of cohabitation contracts in the Netherlands, conducted in 2013. The legal professionals who mostly deal with cohabitation contracts - the notaries - have been asked to fill in a digital questionnaire. The format of this research is exploratory, painting a first picture of legal practice on making cohabitation contracts. The content of the average cohabitation contract differs very much compared to the content of the average marriage contract. Clauses that express solidarity between cohabitants (sharing income or property values or maintenance) are rare in cohabitation contracts, whereas they are rather popular in matrimonial property contracts. Further research is necessary to gain more insight into the legal practice of making cohabitation contracts.","PeriodicalId":167265,"journal":{"name":"The Family in Law","volume":"104 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132075291","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In Denemarken en Nederland is sprake geweest van wetgeving die tot doel had, in het belang van het kind, de gelijkheid van ouders ten opzichte van hun kinderen verder te bevorderen. Voor beide landen werd al tijdens de parlementaire behandeling van de wetsvoorstellen toegezegd dat de wetten binnen een termijn van drie jaar zouden worden geevalueerd. Inmiddels heeft de evaluatie van de Deense wet op de ouderlijke verantwoordelijkheid ook tot wetswijziging geleid. In dit artikel worden de achtergrond van de Deense wetsevaluatie, de evaluatie zelf en de daaropvolgende wetswijzigingen behandeld. Daarna wordt kritisch gekeken naar de interactie tussen de wetsevaluatie en de daaropvolgende wetswijzigingen. De vragen die hier rijzen, betreffen de doelstellingen van de wetsevaluatie. Wat werd beoogd? Moest de wet zich bewijzen of werd alleen beoogd de eventuele scherpe randjes van de wet af te halen? In hoeverre zijn de bevindingen verwerkt in de daaropvolgende wetswijzigingen? Ten slotte wordt het gezamenlijk ouderschap na evaluatie in perspectief gebracht. --- Recent developments in Danish and Dutch legislation have provided norms which were directed at furthering equality between parents, in the interest of the child. In both countries, it was promised in the course of the parliamentary deliberations that the enacted legislation would be evaluated within a period of three years. The Danish evaluation led to new legislation being enacted. In this article the background for the Danish evaluation, the findings in the evaluation en the resulting legislative changes are deliberated. Subsequently, the interaction between the evaluation and the resulting changes is critically analysed. An essential question concerns the purpose of the evaluation. What was envisaged? That the stated aims were realised? Or just the elimination of sharp edges of the legislation? To what extent were the findings in the evaluation taken into account in the subsequent legislative changes? Finally, joint parenting after evaluation will be brought into perspective.
{"title":"Gezamenlijk Ouderschap na scheiding : over de interactie tussen de doelstellingen van de Deense wet op de ouderlijke verantwoordelijkheid, de bevindingen in de uitgevoerde wetsevaluatie en de daaropvolgende wetswijzigingen","authors":"C. J. Boer","doi":"10.5553/FENR/.000016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5553/FENR/.000016","url":null,"abstract":"In Denemarken en Nederland is sprake geweest van wetgeving die tot doel had, in het belang van het kind, de gelijkheid van ouders ten opzichte van hun kinderen verder te bevorderen. Voor beide landen werd al tijdens de parlementaire behandeling van de wetsvoorstellen toegezegd dat de wetten binnen een termijn van drie jaar zouden worden geevalueerd. Inmiddels heeft de evaluatie van de Deense wet op de ouderlijke verantwoordelijkheid ook tot wetswijziging geleid. In dit artikel worden de achtergrond van de Deense wetsevaluatie, de evaluatie zelf en de daaropvolgende wetswijzigingen behandeld. Daarna wordt kritisch gekeken naar de interactie tussen de wetsevaluatie en de daaropvolgende wetswijzigingen. De vragen die hier rijzen, betreffen de doelstellingen van de wetsevaluatie. Wat werd beoogd? Moest de wet zich bewijzen of werd alleen beoogd de eventuele scherpe randjes van de wet af te halen? In hoeverre zijn de bevindingen verwerkt in de daaropvolgende wetswijzigingen? Ten slotte wordt het gezamenlijk ouderschap na evaluatie in perspectief gebracht. --- Recent developments in Danish and Dutch legislation have provided norms which were directed at furthering equality between parents, in the interest of the child. In both countries, it was promised in the course of the parliamentary deliberations that the enacted legislation would be evaluated within a period of three years. The Danish evaluation led to new legislation being enacted. In this article the background for the Danish evaluation, the findings in the evaluation en the resulting legislative changes are deliberated. Subsequently, the interaction between the evaluation and the resulting changes is critically analysed. An essential question concerns the purpose of the evaluation. What was envisaged? That the stated aims were realised? Or just the elimination of sharp edges of the legislation? To what extent were the findings in the evaluation taken into account in the subsequent legislative changes? Finally, joint parenting after evaluation will be brought into perspective.","PeriodicalId":167265,"journal":{"name":"The Family in Law","volume":"90 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134000089","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The legal and de facto role of a known sperm donor in the life of the child constitutes an ongoing challenge in both private and legal decision-making. It is a problem framed by several legal and societal developments. Artificial insemination with donor sperm has been employed by heterosexual couples with fertility problems for several decades. When donor insemination was used by married heterosexual couples, and the donor was usually anonymous, no significant problems arose concerning the latter’s role in the life of the child. According to the pater est presumption, the husband of the mother of the child became the legal father by operation of law. Even if the donor’s identity was known, his paternity could not be established either by himself, or by other persons. The situation has now changed significantly, as donor insemination has become extensively employed in what is called planned lesbian parentage, by lesbian couples who are now legally permitted to marry or be in a registered partnership. Moreover, in an increasing number of jurisdictions, they can now become legal parents without having to resort to step-parent adoption. At the same time, growing acknowledgment of the right of the child to know its origins has initiated a legislative trend towards the abolition of the anonymity of the donor. This has resulted in a decreased in the number of donors, which has led many lesbian couples to search for donors themselves, and to make private arrangements with them. There is also evidence that when given a choice, lesbian couples are more inclined to give preference to a known donor than heterosexual couples are. Such donors are often willing to play a certain role in the life of the child. Their wishes may range from a desire to see the child a few times a year, to a wish to become a legal parent vested with shared parental responsibility. Alongside the lesbian couple, the addition of such a donor means that a plurality of persons wish to assume a parental role. These multi-parent families are not catered for in the current legal framework, modelled on a heterosexual, monogamous nuclear family, and thus allowing for no more than two legal parents. However, this traditional legal framework has recently been challenged in Canada, first by the ground-breaking Ontario case AA v BB, then by the Uniform Child Status Act 2010, which was followed by the British Columbia Family Law Act 2013, allowing, under certain conditions, more the two persons to become legal parents of a child in case of assisted reproduction. Restriction of the number of legal parents to two still remains the reality in the vast majority of jurisdictions. In the shadow of this legal restriction, the role and legal position of the known donor vis-à-vis the duo-mother becomes a subject of private negotiations. There are a number of studies showing how lesbian mothers alone, or in conjunction with the donor, ‘devise new definitions of parenthood’ 1
{"title":"Legal embedding planned lesbian parentage. Pouring new wine into old wineskins","authors":"M. V. Antokolskaia","doi":"10.5553/FENR/.000015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5553/FENR/.000015","url":null,"abstract":"The legal and de facto role of a known sperm donor in the life of the child constitutes an ongoing challenge in both private and legal decision-making. It is a problem framed by several legal and societal developments. Artificial insemination with donor sperm has been employed by heterosexual couples with fertility problems for several decades. When donor insemination was used by married heterosexual couples, and the donor was usually anonymous, no significant problems arose concerning the latter’s role in the life of the child. According to the pater est presumption, the husband of the mother of the child became the legal father by operation of law. Even if the donor’s identity was known, his paternity could not be established either by himself, or by other persons. The situation has now changed significantly, as donor insemination has become extensively employed in what is called planned lesbian parentage, by lesbian couples who are now legally permitted to marry or be in a registered partnership. Moreover, in an increasing number of jurisdictions, they can now become legal parents without having to resort to step-parent adoption. At the same time, growing acknowledgment of the right of the child to know its origins has initiated a legislative trend towards the abolition of the anonymity of the donor. This has resulted in a decreased in the number of donors, which has led many lesbian couples to search for donors themselves, and to make private arrangements with them. There is also evidence that when given a choice, lesbian couples are more inclined to give preference to a known donor than heterosexual couples are. Such donors are often willing to play a certain role in the life of the child. Their wishes may range from a desire to see the child a few times a year, to a wish to become a legal parent vested with shared parental responsibility. Alongside the lesbian couple, the addition of such a donor means that a plurality of persons wish to assume a parental role. These multi-parent families are not catered for in the current legal framework, modelled on a heterosexual, monogamous nuclear family, and thus allowing for no more than two legal parents. However, this traditional legal framework has recently been challenged in Canada, first by the ground-breaking Ontario case AA v BB, then by the Uniform Child Status Act 2010, which was followed by the British Columbia Family Law Act 2013, allowing, under certain conditions, more the two persons to become legal parents of a child in case of assisted reproduction. Restriction of the number of legal parents to two still remains the reality in the vast majority of jurisdictions. In the shadow of this legal restriction, the role and legal position of the known donor vis-à-vis the duo-mother becomes a subject of private negotiations. There are a number of studies showing how lesbian mothers alone, or in conjunction with the donor, ‘devise new definitions of parenthood’ 1","PeriodicalId":167265,"journal":{"name":"The Family in Law","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129205790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sinds de invoering van het Burgerlijk Wetboek in 1838 heeft men herhaaldelijk getracht de gronden voor echtscheiding te verruimen. Hoewel deze gronden uiteindelijk pas verruimd werden in 1971, werd de tot die tijd bestaande situatie, waarbij echtscheiding slechts op vier gronden mogelijk was en echtscheiding met wederzijds goedvinden verboden was, als onwenselijk beschouwd. Dit gevoelen werd nog sterker na het arrest van de Hoge Raad uit 1883, de zogenaamde 'Groote Leugen'. Teneinde een einde te maken aan deze 'Groote Leugen' en in een poging het Nederlandse echtscheidingsrecht meer in lijn te brengen met het Duitse recht, heeft de Nederlandse secretaris-generaal voor Justitie, J.J. Schrieke, tussen 1942 en 1944 twee wijzigingsvoorstellen voorgelegd aan de Duitse autoriteiten welke destijds Nederland bezet hielden. Dit artikel analyseert beide wijzigingsvoorstellen en probeert een antwoord te geven op de vraag in hoeverre deze voorstellen het resultaat waren van een mogelijke invloed van het Nationaal Socialisme. --- Since the introduction of the Civil Code in 1838 one has repeatedly tried to extend the grounds for divorce. Although the grounds for divorce were not extended before 1971, the then existing situation, with only four grounds for divorce and a prohibition of divorce with mutual consent, was considered undesirable This sentiment became even stronger after the judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court of 1883, which became known as the 'Big Lie'. In order to stop this 'Big Lie' and in an attempt to bring Dutch divorce law more in line with German divorce law, the Dutch secretary-general of Justice, J.J. Schrieke, has presented the German authorities, which then occupied the Netherlands, with two draft revisions between 1942 and 1944. This article analyses both drafts and tries to answer the question to what extent these drafts were the result of a possible influence of National Socialism.
自1838年民法出台以来，人们多次试图扩大离婚的理由。虽然这些理由直到1971年才扩大，但在此之前的情况是不可取的，即只有四个理由可以离婚，经双方同意不得离婚。这种观点在1883年最高法院的判决之后变得更加强烈，即所谓的“大谎言”。以结束这种“大谎言”,试图使荷兰echtscheidingsrecht更符合德国法律,荷兰司法秘书长J . J .施赖克1942年至1944年,两个修正案提交给德国当局,当时荷兰占领。本文分析了这两项修正案，并试图回答这些建议在多大程度上是国家社会主义可能影响的结果。——自1838年《民法》出台以来，有一个人曾多次试图扩大离婚的范围。虽然1971年任职for离婚were not扩展before the then的情况,with only four委员会任职的离婚和禁酒令或离婚与mutual同意书,冠undesirable这个情绪成为了同样更强after the judgment of the 1883年荷兰最高法院,这成为了被称为“大谎言”。为了制止这一“大谎言”，并试图将荷兰的离婚法与德国的离婚法更一致，荷兰司法部长j.j.施里克(j.j. Schrieke)向德国当局提出了建议，德国当局随后占领了荷兰，并在1942年至1944年期间提出了两份修订草案。这篇文章分析了草案，并试图回答这样一个问题:这些草案是国家社会主义可能产生的影响的结果。
{"title":"De voorstellen tot herziening van het Nederlandse echtscheidingsrecht tijdens de Duitse bezetting","authors":"M. Lenaerts","doi":"10.5553/FenR/.000012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5553/FenR/.000012","url":null,"abstract":"Sinds de invoering van het Burgerlijk Wetboek in 1838 heeft men herhaaldelijk getracht de gronden voor echtscheiding te verruimen. Hoewel deze gronden uiteindelijk pas verruimd werden in 1971, werd de tot die tijd bestaande situatie, waarbij echtscheiding slechts op vier gronden mogelijk was en echtscheiding met wederzijds goedvinden verboden was, als onwenselijk beschouwd. Dit gevoelen werd nog sterker na het arrest van de Hoge Raad uit 1883, de zogenaamde 'Groote Leugen'. Teneinde een einde te maken aan deze 'Groote Leugen' en in een poging het Nederlandse echtscheidingsrecht meer in lijn te brengen met het Duitse recht, heeft de Nederlandse secretaris-generaal voor Justitie, J.J. Schrieke, tussen 1942 en 1944 twee wijzigingsvoorstellen voorgelegd aan de Duitse autoriteiten welke destijds Nederland bezet hielden. Dit artikel analyseert beide wijzigingsvoorstellen en probeert een antwoord te geven op de vraag in hoeverre deze voorstellen het resultaat waren van een mogelijke invloed van het Nationaal Socialisme. --- Since the introduction of the Civil Code in 1838 one has repeatedly tried to extend the grounds for divorce. Although the grounds for divorce were not extended before 1971, the then existing situation, with only four grounds for divorce and a prohibition of divorce with mutual consent, was considered undesirable This sentiment became even stronger after the judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court of 1883, which became known as the 'Big Lie'. In order to stop this 'Big Lie' and in an attempt to bring Dutch divorce law more in line with German divorce law, the Dutch secretary-general of Justice, J.J. Schrieke, has presented the German authorities, which then occupied the Netherlands, with two draft revisions between 1942 and 1944. This article analyses both drafts and tries to answer the question to what extent these drafts were the result of a possible influence of National Socialism.","PeriodicalId":167265,"journal":{"name":"The Family in Law","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121680191","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：