{"title":"We Are Family: What Really Matters for Parents and Children, by Susan Golombok","authors":"A. Margaria","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebab007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebab007","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46346107","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}
Colonialism in India consisted of a “civilizing mission” when the British rulers sought to initiate reforms in India, by projecting themselves to be the forerunners of modernity. Ironically, restitution of conjugal rights (RCR) runs contrary to any claims of modernity. Through an RCR, an unwilling spouse could be directed by the coercive machinery of the law to cohabit with his/her spouse, in recognition of the right of married persons to conjugality and consortium. Although couched in gender neutral terms, the remedy had and continues to have grave ramifications for women. This was applied by British judges to family law cases in India in the 1800s, and incorporated in family law statutes in post-independent India. RCR remains in force and is a legal remedy sought in the Indian courts till date, although it was abolished in England in 1970. This article critically examines RCR through historical, legal, feminist and comparative law perspectives. It analyses the impact of the English remedy on the norms of marriage and family in India, which are sites of oppression of, violence against and subordination of women. It argues for the repeal of RCR from the Indian statute books as it undermines bodily integrity and sexual autonomy of women in intimate relationships, and is incongruent with constitutional principles and India’s international human rights obligations.
{"title":"Wedlock or Wed-Lockup? A Case for Abolishing Restitution of Conjugal Rights in India","authors":"S. Uma","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebab004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebab004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Colonialism in India consisted of a “civilizing mission” when the British rulers sought to initiate reforms in India, by projecting themselves to be the forerunners of modernity. Ironically, restitution of conjugal rights (RCR) runs contrary to any claims of modernity. Through an RCR, an unwilling spouse could be directed by the coercive machinery of the law to cohabit with his/her spouse, in recognition of the right of married persons to conjugality and consortium. Although couched in gender neutral terms, the remedy had and continues to have grave ramifications for women. This was applied by British judges to family law cases in India in the 1800s, and incorporated in family law statutes in post-independent India. RCR remains in force and is a legal remedy sought in the Indian courts till date, although it was abolished in England in 1970. This article critically examines RCR through historical, legal, feminist and comparative law perspectives. It analyses the impact of the English remedy on the norms of marriage and family in India, which are sites of oppression of, violence against and subordination of women. It argues for the repeal of RCR from the Indian statute books as it undermines bodily integrity and sexual autonomy of women in intimate relationships, and is incongruent with constitutional principles and India’s international human rights obligations.","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42742878","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":"La responsabilidad civil en el ejercicio de la parentalidad. Un estudio comparado entre Italia y Colombia, Natalia Rueda","authors":"Laura Esteve Alguacil","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebab028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebab028","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47983334","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}
Marital separation, especially when dependent children are involved, is a significant and disruptive event that often involves considerable changes in living standards. This article uses a newly available dataset to provide, for the first time, estimates of the short- to medium-term economic impacts of marital separation for parents of dependent-aged children in New Zealand. Unlike most similar studies, which are based on relatively small samples of separating individuals drawn from panel surveys, we exploit a large database of longitudinal tax and welfare records. This allows us to examine the economic consequences of separation for approximately 16,000 New Zealand parents and carers of dependent-aged children who separated in a 12-month period. The analysis applies propensity score matching, combined with difference-in-differences estimation, to estimate impacts. We find an average 29 per cent first-year decline in equivalised incomes for separating women and a 15 per cent average rise for men. In both cases, the effects persist to the end of the study period three years after separation. Our results also show a significant rise in poverty rates for both men and women, relatively small changes in employment and earnings, and a large increase in welfare receipts among the women.
{"title":"The Economic Consequences of Marital Separation for Parents in New Zealand: Insights from a Large Administrative Dataset","authors":"Michael Fletcher, David C. Maré, T. Maloney","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebaa011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebaa011","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Marital separation, especially when dependent children are involved, is a significant and disruptive event that often involves considerable changes in living standards. This article uses a newly available dataset to provide, for the first time, estimates of the short- to medium-term economic impacts of marital separation for parents of dependent-aged children in New Zealand. Unlike most similar studies, which are based on relatively small samples of separating individuals drawn from panel surveys, we exploit a large database of longitudinal tax and welfare records. This allows us to examine the economic consequences of separation for approximately 16,000 New Zealand parents and carers of dependent-aged children who separated in a 12-month period. The analysis applies propensity score matching, combined with difference-in-differences estimation, to estimate impacts. We find an average 29 per cent first-year decline in equivalised incomes for separating women and a 15 per cent average rise for men. In both cases, the effects persist to the end of the study period three years after separation. Our results also show a significant rise in poverty rates for both men and women, relatively small changes in employment and earnings, and a large increase in welfare receipts among the women.","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":"34 1","pages":"289-313"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/lawfam/ebaa011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45409087","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 Chinese experience with adult guardianship, focusing in particular on the regimes in Hong Kong and China. As jurisdictions in which the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘UNCRPD’) applies, a key question is whether the adult guardianship regimes in these jurisdictions can be considered compliant with the principles of the UNCRPD, specifically those in Article 12. The adult guardianship regimes in both jurisdictions are in essence substitute decision-making regimes and are therefore not consistent with the interpretation of Article 12 by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, or what is described as the ‘strong interpretation’ in this article. The question remains, however, as to whether they might be nonetheless considered compliant with what is described in this article as the ‘weak interpretation’. This article explores supported decision-making, the concept of capacity and the existence and sufficiency of safeguards in each of the two regimes, concluding that neither regime can be considered compliant even using the weak interpretation of Article 12. Reflections on the way forward are discussed.
{"title":"Bringing the Adult Guardianship Regime in Line with the UNCRPD: The Chinese Experience","authors":"D. Cheung","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebab016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebab016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article examines the Chinese experience with adult guardianship, focusing in particular on the regimes in Hong Kong and China. As jurisdictions in which the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘UNCRPD’) applies, a key question is whether the adult guardianship regimes in these jurisdictions can be considered compliant with the principles of the UNCRPD, specifically those in Article 12. The adult guardianship regimes in both jurisdictions are in essence substitute decision-making regimes and are therefore not consistent with the interpretation of Article 12 by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, or what is described as the ‘strong interpretation’ in this article. The question remains, however, as to whether they might be nonetheless considered compliant with what is described in this article as the ‘weak interpretation’. This article explores supported decision-making, the concept of capacity and the existence and sufficiency of safeguards in each of the two regimes, concluding that neither regime can be considered compliant even using the weak interpretation of Article 12. Reflections on the way forward are discussed.","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49375673","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}
The focus of the article is on the intersection between domestic violence and parental child abduction, in particular, the interpretation of the Article 13(1)(b) ‘grave risk of harm’ defence in cases involving allegations of domestic violence by the abducting mother against the left-behind father, and on the protection of such abducting mothers in return proceedings. The content of the article is divided into two substantive parts. The first part explores the courts' approach to the grave risk of harm exception to return in circumstances where allegations of domestic violence have been raised. The second part of the article examines the courts' approach to protective measures, including undertakings, in child abduction cases involving allegations of domestic violence. The article engages extensively with the work of the Hague Conference on Private International Law and the EU in the area of international parental child abduction, as inter alia, it explores the problem of effectiveness of protective measures with reference to the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children and the Regulation 606/2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters.
{"title":"Intersection between Domestic Violence and International Parental Child Abduction: Protection of Abducting Mothers in Return Proceedings","authors":"K. Trimmings, Onyója Momoh","doi":"10.1093/LAWFAM/EBAB001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/LAWFAM/EBAB001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The focus of the article is on the intersection between domestic violence and parental child abduction, in particular, the interpretation of the Article 13(1)(b) ‘grave risk of harm’ defence in cases involving allegations of domestic violence by the abducting mother against the left-behind father, and on the protection of such abducting mothers in return proceedings. The content of the article is divided into two substantive parts. The first part explores the courts' approach to the grave risk of harm exception to return in circumstances where allegations of domestic violence have been raised. The second part of the article examines the courts' approach to protective measures, including undertakings, in child abduction cases involving allegations of domestic violence. The article engages extensively with the work of the Hague Conference on Private International Law and the EU in the area of international parental child abduction, as inter alia, it explores the problem of effectiveness of protective measures with reference to the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children and the Regulation 606/2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters.","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42215485","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":"OUP accepted manuscript","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebab034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebab034","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"61427287","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":"OUP accepted manuscript","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebab056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebab056","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"61427931","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":"OUP accepted manuscript","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebab055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebab055","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"61428033","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":"OUP accepted manuscript","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebab015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebab015","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"61426800","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：