德国的共同实际监护权:德国家庭模式研究的法律框架和结果

IF 0.9 4区 社会学 Q3 FAMILY STUDIES International Journal of Law Policy and the Family Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1093/lawfam/ebad010
Tobias Helms, Anja Steinbach, Lara Augustijn
{"title":"德国的共同实际监护权:德国家庭模式研究的法律框架和结果","authors":"Tobias Helms, Anja Steinbach, Lara Augustijn","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebad010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Only since a landmark decision by the Federal Court of Justice on 1 February 2017 has it been clear that family courts in Germany can order symmetric joint physical custody against the will of one parent. The prerequisite is that this solution is in the child’s best interests. This article analyses which criteria have been used by courts to order this physical custody arrangement since the decision. It also presents the results of the Family Models in Germany (FAMOD) study, which the authors conducted in Germany by interviewing a total of 1,554 families to investigate the living conditions of children cared for in joint physical custody care arrangements. Joint physical custody children were compared to children growing up in sole physical custody arrangements. Results show that joint physical custody can be a good solution for parents who succeed in keeping interparental conflict away from their children and reach an amicable agreement on the care of their children after separation. However, the advantages of joint physical custody were more apparent for children in the age group of 7–14 years than for younger children in the age group of 2–6 years. Furthermore, asymmetric joint physical custody seemed to have more positive effects on children’s well-being than symmetric joint physical custody.","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Joint physical custody in Germany: legal framework and results of the Family Models in Germany (FAMOD) study\",\"authors\":\"Tobias Helms, Anja Steinbach, Lara Augustijn\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/lawfam/ebad010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Only since a landmark decision by the Federal Court of Justice on 1 February 2017 has it been clear that family courts in Germany can order symmetric joint physical custody against the will of one parent. The prerequisite is that this solution is in the child’s best interests. This article analyses which criteria have been used by courts to order this physical custody arrangement since the decision. It also presents the results of the Family Models in Germany (FAMOD) study, which the authors conducted in Germany by interviewing a total of 1,554 families to investigate the living conditions of children cared for in joint physical custody care arrangements. Joint physical custody children were compared to children growing up in sole physical custody arrangements. Results show that joint physical custody can be a good solution for parents who succeed in keeping interparental conflict away from their children and reach an amicable agreement on the care of their children after separation. However, the advantages of joint physical custody were more apparent for children in the age group of 7–14 years than for younger children in the age group of 2–6 years. Furthermore, asymmetric joint physical custody seemed to have more positive effects on children’s well-being than symmetric joint physical custody.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebad010\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebad010","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

直到2017年2月1日,联邦法院做出了一项具有里程碑意义的裁决,德国的家事法院才明确规定,可以在违背父母一方意愿的情况下,裁定对称的共同人身监护权。先决条件是这种解决办法符合儿童的最大利益。本文分析了自该判决以来,法院在裁定这种实际监护安排时采用了哪些标准。它还介绍了德国家庭模式(FAMOD)研究的结果,作者在德国进行了这项研究,共采访了1554个家庭,调查在共同监护照料安排下照顾的儿童的生活条件。共同监护儿童与单独监护儿童进行了比较。结果表明,共同监护是一种很好的解决办法,可以成功地使父母之间的冲突远离孩子,并在分居后就照顾孩子达成友好协议。然而,与2-6岁的儿童相比,7-14岁的儿童共同监护权的优势更为明显。此外,不对称的共同监护权似乎比对称的共同监护权对儿童的幸福感有更积极的影响。
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
Joint physical custody in Germany: legal framework and results of the Family Models in Germany (FAMOD) study
Only since a landmark decision by the Federal Court of Justice on 1 February 2017 has it been clear that family courts in Germany can order symmetric joint physical custody against the will of one parent. The prerequisite is that this solution is in the child’s best interests. This article analyses which criteria have been used by courts to order this physical custody arrangement since the decision. It also presents the results of the Family Models in Germany (FAMOD) study, which the authors conducted in Germany by interviewing a total of 1,554 families to investigate the living conditions of children cared for in joint physical custody care arrangements. Joint physical custody children were compared to children growing up in sole physical custody arrangements. Results show that joint physical custody can be a good solution for parents who succeed in keeping interparental conflict away from their children and reach an amicable agreement on the care of their children after separation. However, the advantages of joint physical custody were more apparent for children in the age group of 7–14 years than for younger children in the age group of 2–6 years. Furthermore, asymmetric joint physical custody seemed to have more positive effects on children’s well-being than symmetric joint physical custody.
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
1.20
自引率
25.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The subject matter of the International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family comprises the following: - Analyses of the law relating to the family which carry an interest beyond the jurisdiction dealt with, or which are of a comparative nature - Theoretical analyses of family law - Sociological literature concerning the family which is of special interest to law and legal policy - Social policy literature of special interest to law and the family - Literature in related disciplines (such as medicine, psychology, demography) which is of special relevance to law and the family - Research findings in the above areas, reviews of books and relevant reports The journal has a flexible policy as to length of contributions, so that substantial research reports can be included.
期刊最新文献
Surrogates’, intended parents’, and professionals’ perspectives on ways to improve access to surrogacy in Australia Introducing a randomized controlled trial into Family Proceedings: Describing the ‘how?’ and defending the ‘why?’ The expert witness—psychologists and judicial gatekeepers in the family court Individual realities and legal responsibilities: a study of non-resident parents who dispute child maintenance obligations in Swedish administrative courts, 2014–2019 Healthcare Decision Making for Children in Singapore: The Missing Chapter in Comparison with English Law
×
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