While altruistic surrogacy arrangements are permitted in Australia, commercial ones are not. Regardless of this, most intended parents undertake commercial arrangements by bypassing domestic laws and engaging with foreign surrogates. Considering the welfare risks and ethical concerns associated with international surrogacy, developing a more accessible model of surrogacy in Australia has been proposed as a harm minimization approach. This study aims to describe how Australians who have navigated or facilitated surrogacy believe access to arrangements could be improved. Australian surrogates, intended parents, parents through surrogacy, and surrogacy professionals were interviewed, and interview transcripts were analysed thematically. The themes identified were ‘improve public awareness’, ‘develop policies to guide healthcare practitioners’, ‘establish agencies’, and ‘reform the law’. ‘Reform the law’ had four sub-themes: ‘harmonise laws across the states and territories’; ‘grant intended parents legal parenthood at birth’; ‘legalise commercial surrogacy and gamete donation’; and ‘fair surrogate compensation’. Findings indicate that improving access to surrogacy in Australia will require an overhaul of the legislative environment relating to surrogacy and gamete donation, policies to guide healthcare practitioners, and public awareness campaigns.
{"title":"Surrogates’, intended parents’, and professionals’ perspectives on ways to improve access to surrogacy in Australia","authors":"Ezra Kneebone, Karin Hammarberg, Kiri Beilby","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebae009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebae009","url":null,"abstract":"While altruistic surrogacy arrangements are permitted in Australia, commercial ones are not. Regardless of this, most intended parents undertake commercial arrangements by bypassing domestic laws and engaging with foreign surrogates. Considering the welfare risks and ethical concerns associated with international surrogacy, developing a more accessible model of surrogacy in Australia has been proposed as a harm minimization approach. This study aims to describe how Australians who have navigated or facilitated surrogacy believe access to arrangements could be improved. Australian surrogates, intended parents, parents through surrogacy, and surrogacy professionals were interviewed, and interview transcripts were analysed thematically. The themes identified were ‘improve public awareness’, ‘develop policies to guide healthcare practitioners’, ‘establish agencies’, and ‘reform the law’. ‘Reform the law’ had four sub-themes: ‘harmonise laws across the states and territories’; ‘grant intended parents legal parenthood at birth’; ‘legalise commercial surrogacy and gamete donation’; and ‘fair surrogate compensation’. Findings indicate that improving access to surrogacy in Australia will require an overhaul of the legislative environment relating to surrogacy and gamete donation, policies to guide healthcare practitioners, and public awareness campaigns.","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141548576","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Carol Atkinson, Matt Forde, Karen Crawford, Marion Henderson, Philip Wilson, Dennis Ougrin, Helen Minnis
In 2011, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a mental health intervention for families with children under the age of 5 years coming into the Scottish care system was launched, called the Best Services Trial (BeST). When attempts were made to expand the study to English sites, the local leadership Judge objected, concerned that randomization in family proceedings was unfair, potentially discriminatory, and unlawful. Considerations about parental consent, fairness of randomization, and an understanding that the new intervention might be no better, or even harmful, compared to current best practices were crucial in addressing these concerns. In 2017, BeST was launched in England utilizing a randomized methodology. Significant input into the design of BeST came from the leadership Judge who had previously considered randomization unlawful. In July 2021, 383 families with 488 children had been recruited across both Scottish and English sites. Follow-up continues and 76 per cent of families continue to participate at 2.5 years after entering the study. Although there were undoubted challenges in designing and implementing BeST, with hindsight, the objections raised to the testing of interventions randomly were demonstrably resolvable and the process of randomization encountered no legal challenges. This is the first time an RCT has been accommodated within live proceedings in the family justice arena in England and Wales and one of a relatively few such RCTs conducted internationally.
{"title":"Introducing a randomized controlled trial into Family Proceedings: Describing the ‘how?’ and defending the ‘why?’","authors":"Carol Atkinson, Matt Forde, Karen Crawford, Marion Henderson, Philip Wilson, Dennis Ougrin, Helen Minnis","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebad024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebad024","url":null,"abstract":"In 2011, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a mental health intervention for families with children under the age of 5 years coming into the Scottish care system was launched, called the Best Services Trial (BeST). When attempts were made to expand the study to English sites, the local leadership Judge objected, concerned that randomization in family proceedings was unfair, potentially discriminatory, and unlawful. Considerations about parental consent, fairness of randomization, and an understanding that the new intervention might be no better, or even harmful, compared to current best practices were crucial in addressing these concerns. In 2017, BeST was launched in England utilizing a randomized methodology. Significant input into the design of BeST came from the leadership Judge who had previously considered randomization unlawful. In July 2021, 383 families with 488 children had been recruited across both Scottish and English sites. Follow-up continues and 76 per cent of families continue to participate at 2.5 years after entering the study. Although there were undoubted challenges in designing and implementing BeST, with hindsight, the objections raised to the testing of interventions randomly were demonstrably resolvable and the process of randomization encountered no legal challenges. This is the first time an RCT has been accommodated within live proceedings in the family justice arena in England and Wales and one of a relatively few such RCTs conducted internationally.","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138580625","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since the 17th-century witch trials, the expert witness has been an intrinsic part of the operation of the legal system. This article builds on a prior analysis of Australian family law cases involving allegations of child sex abuse, which revealed experts representing multiple agencies and disciplinary perspectives present conflicting risk assessments for the same case. This second stage of inductive research examined Family Court appeal cases involving psychologists as an expert witness in child custody disputes. It uncovered risks arising from the way in which determinative weight is ascribed by judges to such testimony and a lack of processes for identifying potential disciplinary or professional biases. This has led to a core finding that there is a need for more explicit agreement as to what counts as specialist knowledge, particularly in matters lacking intra-disciplinary consensus and how it is achieved. Equally, there is a need for enforcing compliance with existing Rules that require making clear the methods or practices, relevant facts, matters, and assumptions employed in forming opinions as well as acknowledging alternative opinions that may be relevant. This will support judicial practice associated with determining the reliability and weight ascribed to such advice. Many of the concerns raised here are relevant to other issues the family court considers and relies upon claims of expert knowledge.
{"title":"The expert witness—psychologists and judicial gatekeepers in the family court","authors":"Emily Schindeler","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebad030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebad030","url":null,"abstract":"Since the 17th-century witch trials, the expert witness has been an intrinsic part of the operation of the legal system. This article builds on a prior analysis of Australian family law cases involving allegations of child sex abuse, which revealed experts representing multiple agencies and disciplinary perspectives present conflicting risk assessments for the same case. This second stage of inductive research examined Family Court appeal cases involving psychologists as an expert witness in child custody disputes. It uncovered risks arising from the way in which determinative weight is ascribed by judges to such testimony and a lack of processes for identifying potential disciplinary or professional biases. This has led to a core finding that there is a need for more explicit agreement as to what counts as specialist knowledge, particularly in matters lacking intra-disciplinary consensus and how it is achieved. Equally, there is a need for enforcing compliance with existing Rules that require making clear the methods or practices, relevant facts, matters, and assumptions employed in forming opinions as well as acknowledging alternative opinions that may be relevant. This will support judicial practice associated with determining the reliability and weight ascribed to such advice. Many of the concerns raised here are relevant to other issues the family court considers and relies upon claims of expert knowledge.","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138494432","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article deals with the role of the European Union (EU) in enhancing rights of same-sex couples and their children (‘rainbow families’). It describes EU actions in this area and examines what influence they can have within the Member States, using the Czech Republic as a case study. The article argues that, despite the EU’s general lack of competence in family law matters, the relationship between the EU and rainbow families’ rights, in theory, no longer appears incompatible, but rather promising, as the EU bodies have found ways to address these issues. In practical terms. However, the question raised in this article’s title cannot be definitively answered without data from the Member States. Here, the findings from the Czech Republic demonstrate that the EU law’s potential has not been fulfilled in practice yet. Therefore, it would be too soon to celebrate the EU as a significant player in the rainbow families’ rights arena. As the Czech example suggests, if the EU wants to truly enhance rainbow families’ rights, it will probably need to be more explicit about that because the Member States, particularly their national courts, may not find or pave the way to utilize EU law themselves.
{"title":"Same-sex families’ rights and the European Union: incompatible or promising relationship?","authors":"Lenka Křičková","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebad001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebad001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article deals with the role of the European Union (EU) in enhancing rights of same-sex couples and their children (‘rainbow families’). It describes EU actions in this area and examines what influence they can have within the Member States, using the Czech Republic as a case study. The article argues that, despite the EU’s general lack of competence in family law matters, the relationship between the EU and rainbow families’ rights, in theory, no longer appears incompatible, but rather promising, as the EU bodies have found ways to address these issues. In practical terms. However, the question raised in this article’s title cannot be definitively answered without data from the Member States. Here, the findings from the Czech Republic demonstrate that the EU law’s potential has not been fulfilled in practice yet. Therefore, it would be too soon to celebrate the EU as a significant player in the rainbow families’ rights arena. As the Czech example suggests, if the EU wants to truly enhance rainbow families’ rights, it will probably need to be more explicit about that because the Member States, particularly their national courts, may not find or pave the way to utilize EU law themselves.","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49456486","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the South African High Court judgement in TR & others v Minister of Home Affairs & others, which is the first time that a South African court has addressed the constitutional rights of children in the immigration context. In this case, constitutional rights claims were made by South African citizen children because South African immigration law deemed a foreign national parent to be an ‘illegal alien’, subject to expulsion, as soon their spousal relationship with a South African citizen had broken down. The law allowed no other outcome, other than expulsion, regardless of the impact on the affected children. We argue, therefore, that although the High Court deployed the language of children’s dignity and best interests, TR is not really a decision about children at all. Instead, it is a judgement about whether the parents’ deserved the status of ‘illegality’, and its consequences, which had been imposed by South African immigration law. This focus on the deservingness of the parents, rather than the best interests of the children, can be found in other jurisdictions and this article explores how the law deals with similar circumstances in the UK and the European Court of Human Rights. This article concludes by arguing that Article 3 CRC requires that ‘the sins and traumas of fathers and mothers should not be visited on their children’ and that this should be foundational to the best interests of the child provision in the South African constitution in the immigration context.
本文检视南非高等法院在TR & others v Minister of Home Affairs & others一案中的判决，这是南非法院首次处理移民背景下儿童的宪法权利。在这种情况下，南非公民儿童提出宪法权利要求，因为南非移民法认为外籍父母是“非法外国人”，一旦他们与南非公民的配偶关系破裂，就会被驱逐出境。法律不允许其他结果，除了驱逐，不管对受影响的儿童有什么影响。因此，我们认为，尽管高等法院使用了儿童尊严和最大利益的语言，但TR实际上根本不是一个关于儿童的决定。相反，这是一个关于父母是否应该得到南非移民法规定的“非法移民”地位及其后果的判断。这种对父母的应得性的关注，而不是孩子的最大利益，可以在其他司法管辖区找到，本文探讨了法律如何处理英国和欧洲人权法院的类似情况。本文的结论是，《儿童权利公约》第3条要求“父亲和母亲的罪恶和创伤不应被转嫁到他们的孩子身上”，这应该是南非宪法中移民背景下儿童最大利益条款的基础。
{"title":"Rights claims of citizen children of foreign national parents in South Africa, the UK, and the European Court of Human Rights: hierarchies of ‘illegality’ and deservingness","authors":"J. Sloth-Nielsen, J. Collinson, A. Spalding","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebad019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebad019","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article examines the South African High Court judgement in TR & others v Minister of Home Affairs & others, which is the first time that a South African court has addressed the constitutional rights of children in the immigration context. In this case, constitutional rights claims were made by South African citizen children because South African immigration law deemed a foreign national parent to be an ‘illegal alien’, subject to expulsion, as soon their spousal relationship with a South African citizen had broken down. The law allowed no other outcome, other than expulsion, regardless of the impact on the affected children. We argue, therefore, that although the High Court deployed the language of children’s dignity and best interests, TR is not really a decision about children at all. Instead, it is a judgement about whether the parents’ deserved the status of ‘illegality’, and its consequences, which had been imposed by South African immigration law. This focus on the deservingness of the parents, rather than the best interests of the children, can be found in other jurisdictions and this article explores how the law deals with similar circumstances in the UK and the European Court of Human Rights. This article concludes by arguing that Article 3 CRC requires that ‘the sins and traumas of fathers and mothers should not be visited on their children’ and that this should be foundational to the best interests of the child provision in the South African constitution in the immigration context.","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46273670","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Journal Article The Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships: Emerging Families in Ireland and Beyond, Brian Tobin Get access The Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships: Emerging Families in Ireland and Beyond, Brian Tobin, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2023, pp, £85, Hardback, ISBN 978-1-50995-253-3. Kathryn O’Sullivan Kathryn O’Sullivan Associate Professor, School of Law, University of Limerick, Ireland Kathryn.OSullivan@ul.ie https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3606-9352 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, Volume 37, Issue 1, 2023, ebad023, https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebad023 Published: 10 November 2023
{"title":"<i>The Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships: Emerging Families in Ireland and Beyond</i>, Brian Tobin","authors":"Kathryn O’Sullivan","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebad023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebad023","url":null,"abstract":"Journal Article The Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships: Emerging Families in Ireland and Beyond, Brian Tobin Get access The Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships: Emerging Families in Ireland and Beyond, Brian Tobin, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2023, pp, £85, Hardback, ISBN 978-1-50995-253-3. Kathryn O’Sullivan Kathryn O’Sullivan Associate Professor, School of Law, University of Limerick, Ireland Kathryn.OSullivan@ul.ie https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3606-9352 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, Volume 37, Issue 1, 2023, ebad023, https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebad023 Published: 10 November 2023","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135612108","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Owing to its pro-natalist approach, Israel is considered as an in-vitro fertilization (IVF) superpower. With the high number of state-funded IVF treatments, IVF units find themselves stranded with around a million cryopreserved ‘surplus’ embryos; namely, embryos neglected or forgotten by patients, or abandoned due to personal or familial circumstances. The accumulation of such a vast number of surplus embryos creates operational and economic burdens for IVF units. Attempting to better comprehend this predicament, we conducted a survey. Its findings serve as a basis for the theoretical analysis provided in this article, which is based on the tension between reproductive autonomy on the one hand, and solidarity and personal responsibility, on the other. The survey examined present and former IVF patients’ attitudes towards relevant dispositions for surplus embryos in Israel. Our findings indicated that patients express an individualistic approach to autonomy, which was reflected, for example in reluctance to donate their surplus embryos to research or discard them, even years after completing their IVF treatments. These findings and others led us to conclude that a solidarity-based policy should be imposed. We also argue that personal responsibility, via the constructs of ‘participatory patienthood’—the notion of self-empowered patients taking initiative with respect to their health—should be encouraged in supporting an ethical imperative to choose a disposition for one’s surplus embryos.
{"title":"Surplus embryos in IVF units in Israel: patients’ attitude towards various dispositions—a bioethical analysis of empirical findings","authors":"Sivan Tamir, Roy Gilbar","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebad020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebad020","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Owing to its pro-natalist approach, Israel is considered as an in-vitro fertilization (IVF) superpower. With the high number of state-funded IVF treatments, IVF units find themselves stranded with around a million cryopreserved ‘surplus’ embryos; namely, embryos neglected or forgotten by patients, or abandoned due to personal or familial circumstances. The accumulation of such a vast number of surplus embryos creates operational and economic burdens for IVF units. Attempting to better comprehend this predicament, we conducted a survey. Its findings serve as a basis for the theoretical analysis provided in this article, which is based on the tension between reproductive autonomy on the one hand, and solidarity and personal responsibility, on the other. The survey examined present and former IVF patients’ attitudes towards relevant dispositions for surplus embryos in Israel. Our findings indicated that patients express an individualistic approach to autonomy, which was reflected, for example in reluctance to donate their surplus embryos to research or discard them, even years after completing their IVF treatments. These findings and others led us to conclude that a solidarity-based policy should be imposed. We also argue that personal responsibility, via the constructs of ‘participatory patienthood’—the notion of self-empowered patients taking initiative with respect to their health—should be encouraged in supporting an ethical imperative to choose a disposition for one’s surplus embryos.","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134989129","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J. Wangmann, F. Bartlett, Becky Batagol, T. Booth, H. Douglas, M. Kaye, Kate Seear
There is increasing recognition that many lawyers, regardless of their practice area, will represent people who have both used and experienced violence in their intimate relationships. This suggests that being informed about domestic and family violence (DFV) is an important attribute of competent lawyering. Despite repeated reports and research drawing attention to poor practices, many lawyers lack DFV training. There is limited research about what it means to be a ‘good’ DFV lawyer. To explore this, we conducted focus groups with lawyers employed in specialist women’s legal services in Australia. Much work undertaken in these services involves working with clients who have experienced DFV, so these lawyers are well placed to identify features of ‘good’ DFV lawyering. The attributes for competent lawyering with people who have experienced DFV, include being knowledgeable about DFV, being trauma-informed/responsive, being knowledgeable about the law and the relevance of violence, adopting a safety lens and providing a holistic service. Our study identifies a number of areas that require further research including understanding the difference between DFV-informed lawyering and trauma-informed/responsive lawyering, and whether specific competencies are required when representing people who experience DFV or have used DFV. Despite years of research and various inquiries pointing to inadequacies and making recommendations for improvement, this article draws attention to continuing gaps in this area.
{"title":"What is ‘good’ domestic violence lawyering?: views from specialist legal services in Australia","authors":"J. Wangmann, F. Bartlett, Becky Batagol, T. Booth, H. Douglas, M. Kaye, Kate Seear","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebac034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebac034","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 There is increasing recognition that many lawyers, regardless of their practice area, will represent people who have both used and experienced violence in their intimate relationships. This suggests that being informed about domestic and family violence (DFV) is an important attribute of competent lawyering. Despite repeated reports and research drawing attention to poor practices, many lawyers lack DFV training. There is limited research about what it means to be a ‘good’ DFV lawyer. To explore this, we conducted focus groups with lawyers employed in specialist women’s legal services in Australia. Much work undertaken in these services involves working with clients who have experienced DFV, so these lawyers are well placed to identify features of ‘good’ DFV lawyering. The attributes for competent lawyering with people who have experienced DFV, include being knowledgeable about DFV, being trauma-informed/responsive, being knowledgeable about the law and the relevance of violence, adopting a safety lens and providing a holistic service. Our study identifies a number of areas that require further research including understanding the difference between DFV-informed lawyering and trauma-informed/responsive lawyering, and whether specific competencies are required when representing people who experience DFV or have used DFV. Despite years of research and various inquiries pointing to inadequacies and making recommendations for improvement, this article draws attention to continuing gaps in this area.","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46055774","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Gutgläubig gelebte Statusverhältnisse—Vertrauensschutz im deutschen Namens-, Ehe- und Abstammungsrecht, Jan Ole Flindt","authors":"Joshua Kohler","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebad018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebad018","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42423348","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Das Familienrecht in seiner großen Vielfalt – Festschrift für Hans-Joachim Dose zum Ausscheiden aus dem Richterdienst, Anatol Dutta, Hartmut Guhling, and Frank Klinkhammer (eds)","authors":"Jan Ole Flindt","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebad002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebad002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46313837","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：