以家事调解维护父母的责任:检讨香港法律对离婚子女的角色

IF 1.2 4区 法学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Public Administration and Policy-An Asia-Pacific Journal Pub Date : 2021-10-15 DOI:10.1108/pap-08-2021-0045
S. Law
{"title":"以家事调解维护父母的责任:检讨香港法律对离婚子女的角色","authors":"S. Law","doi":"10.1108/pap-08-2021-0045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis paper aims to analyse the different requirements of Practice Direction 15.10 (which governs the process of family mediation in Hong Kong) and Practice Direction 31 (which governs the process of general mediation in Hong Kong), and to highlight the need to incorporate the spirit of family mediation into legislation to better protect children’s interest in a family dispute.Design/Methodology/approachThe paper reviews and compares the content on Practice Direction 15.10 and Practice Direction 31 issued by Chief Justice of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, and adopts interpretative and analytical approaches to evaluate their impact.FindingsIn an effort to promote parental responsibility-based negotiation in divorce proceeding, a missed opportunity in enacting the Children Proceedings (Parental Responsibility) Bill in 2015 might be a blessing in disguise as it offers another chance for policy makers to consider how to direct parties to negotiate and communicate, to seek and benefit from professional guidance on a continuous basis, and to seek alternative channels to resolve disputes other than the court room. The policy and the law advocating a switch from a “rights-based” to “responsibility-based” approach in handling children’s matters should be revisited by incorporating the spirit of family mediation into legislation.Originality/valueAnalyses are conducted through direct contextual review and documentary research. This paper conducts literal analysis of court guidance and unveils policy implications for the general public. It would be of interest to judicial officers, scholars and government officials concerning children’s rights and parental responsibility in divorce proceedings.","PeriodicalId":34601,"journal":{"name":"Public Administration and Policy-An Asia-Pacific Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Upholding parental responsibility by family mediation: revisiting the role of the law for children in divorce in Hong Kong\",\"authors\":\"S. Law\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/pap-08-2021-0045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThis paper aims to analyse the different requirements of Practice Direction 15.10 (which governs the process of family mediation in Hong Kong) and Practice Direction 31 (which governs the process of general mediation in Hong Kong), and to highlight the need to incorporate the spirit of family mediation into legislation to better protect children’s interest in a family dispute.Design/Methodology/approachThe paper reviews and compares the content on Practice Direction 15.10 and Practice Direction 31 issued by Chief Justice of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, and adopts interpretative and analytical approaches to evaluate their impact.FindingsIn an effort to promote parental responsibility-based negotiation in divorce proceeding, a missed opportunity in enacting the Children Proceedings (Parental Responsibility) Bill in 2015 might be a blessing in disguise as it offers another chance for policy makers to consider how to direct parties to negotiate and communicate, to seek and benefit from professional guidance on a continuous basis, and to seek alternative channels to resolve disputes other than the court room. The policy and the law advocating a switch from a “rights-based” to “responsibility-based” approach in handling children’s matters should be revisited by incorporating the spirit of family mediation into legislation.Originality/valueAnalyses are conducted through direct contextual review and documentary research. This paper conducts literal analysis of court guidance and unveils policy implications for the general public. It would be of interest to judicial officers, scholars and government officials concerning children’s rights and parental responsibility in divorce proceedings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34601,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Administration and Policy-An Asia-Pacific Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Administration and Policy-An Asia-Pacific Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/pap-08-2021-0045\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"法学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Administration and Policy-An Asia-Pacific Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/pap-08-2021-0045","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的分析《香港家庭调解实务指引15.10》(规管家庭调解程序)与《香港一般调解实务指引31》(规控一般调解程序)的不同要求,并强调有需要将家庭调解精神纳入法例,以更好地保障儿童在家庭纠纷中的权益。设计/方法/方法本文回顾和比较了香港终审法院首席法官发布的《实务指示15.10》和《实务指示31》的内容,并采用解释和分析的方法来评估其影响。发现为了在离婚程序中促进基于父母责任的谈判,错过了2015年颁布《儿童诉讼(父母责任)法案》的机会可能是因祸得福,因为它为决策者提供了另一个机会,让他们考虑如何指导各方进行谈判和沟通,持续寻求专业指导并从中受益,并寻求除法庭之外的其他解决纠纷的渠道。应通过将家庭调解的精神纳入立法,重新审视倡导在处理儿童事务时从“基于权利”转向“基于责任”的政策和法律。原创性/价值分析是通过直接的上下文回顾和文献研究进行的。本文对法院指导进行了文字分析,并揭示了对公众的政策含义。司法官员、学者和政府官员对离婚诉讼中的儿童权利和父母责任感兴趣。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Upholding parental responsibility by family mediation: revisiting the role of the law for children in divorce in Hong Kong
PurposeThis paper aims to analyse the different requirements of Practice Direction 15.10 (which governs the process of family mediation in Hong Kong) and Practice Direction 31 (which governs the process of general mediation in Hong Kong), and to highlight the need to incorporate the spirit of family mediation into legislation to better protect children’s interest in a family dispute.Design/Methodology/approachThe paper reviews and compares the content on Practice Direction 15.10 and Practice Direction 31 issued by Chief Justice of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, and adopts interpretative and analytical approaches to evaluate their impact.FindingsIn an effort to promote parental responsibility-based negotiation in divorce proceeding, a missed opportunity in enacting the Children Proceedings (Parental Responsibility) Bill in 2015 might be a blessing in disguise as it offers another chance for policy makers to consider how to direct parties to negotiate and communicate, to seek and benefit from professional guidance on a continuous basis, and to seek alternative channels to resolve disputes other than the court room. The policy and the law advocating a switch from a “rights-based” to “responsibility-based” approach in handling children’s matters should be revisited by incorporating the spirit of family mediation into legislation.Originality/valueAnalyses are conducted through direct contextual review and documentary research. This paper conducts literal analysis of court guidance and unveils policy implications for the general public. It would be of interest to judicial officers, scholars and government officials concerning children’s rights and parental responsibility in divorce proceedings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
30
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
A stakeholder analysis for sustainable development of Maritime Village in Semarang coastal community, Indonesia Indigenous cultures and employee efficiency: the moderating effect of cronyism in state-owned enterprises in Ghana Agencification, policy reversal and the reforms of the French health care system Critical success factors of Public-Private Partnerships in the education sector Citizens’ trust and digital attitudes: evidence from city digital transformation in Shanghai, China
×
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