DOCSLIB.ORG

The District of Columbia's Joint Custody Presumption: Misplaced Blame and Simplistic Solutions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The District of Columbia's Joint Custody Presumption: Misplaced Blame and Simplistic Solutions Catholic University Law Review Volume 46 Issue 3 Spring 1997 Article 4 1997 The District of Columbia's Joint Custody Presumption: Misplaced Blame and Simplistic Solutions Margaret Martin Barry Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Margaret M. Barry, The District of Columbia's Joint Custody Presumption: Misplaced Blame and Simplistic Solutions, 46 Cath. U. L. Rev. 767 (1997). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol46/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S JOINT CUSTODY PRESUMPTION: MISPLACED BLAME AND SIMPLISTIC SOLUTIONS MargaretMartin Barry* Joint custody made its statutory debut in 1979 with the passage of Cali- fornia's Family Law Act.' Today, most states acknowledge joint custody as an option. Several jurisdictions, however, have significantly limited the applicability of joint custody, while only eight have made it presumptive.' * The author is an Assistant Professor at the Columbus School of Law at The Catho- lic University of America, where she teaches the Families and the Law Clinic. Many of the statements found in this Article arise from her experience. The author would like to give special thanks to Professors Karen Czapanskiy and Naomi R. Cahn for taking the time to review the article and offer insightful comments. She also would like to thank her research assistant, Nancy Palermo, for her reliable and skilled research in the preparation of this article. 1. CAL. CIV. CODE § 4600.5 (Deering 1984). 2. The eight jurisdictions that have a presumption or preference in favor of joint cus- tody are Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana and New Mexico. See FLA. STAT. ANN. § 61.13(2)(b)(2) (West 1985 & Supp. 1997); IDAHO CODE § 32-717B(4) (1996); KAN. STAT. ANN. § 60-1610(a)(4)(A) (1994 & Supp. 1995); LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 9:335(A)(1) (West Supp. 1997); MINN. STAT. ANN. § 518.17(2)(d) (West Supp. 1997); Miss. CODE ANN. § 93-5-24(4) (1972 & Supp. 1996); MONT. CODE ANN. § 40- 4-224(1) (1995); N.M. STAT. ANN. § 40-4-9.1(A) (Michie 1994). The courts in Florida have limited significantly the application of the statute. See Garvie v. Garvie, 659 So. 2d 394, 395 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995) (citing Bienvenu and Langford); Langford v. Ortiz, 654 So. 2d 1237, 1238 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995) ("Rotating custody ... is presumptively not in the best interest of a child."); Bienvenu v. Bienvenu, 380 So. 2d 1164, 1165 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980) (referring to the well-settled Florida law that divided cus- tody arrangements are not to be sustained). In determining whether to award sole or joint custody, the Montana Supreme Court has ignored the statutory presumption and applied the best interests of the child standard to the facts of each case. See generally Dale R. Mrkich, Comment, The Unfulfilled Promise of Joint Custody in Montana, 48 MONT. L. REv. 135 (1987) (discussing Montana's joint cus- tody law and the Montana Supreme Court's application of it). California, the first jurisdiction to create a joint custody presumption, has since amended its law to apply only in cases where the parents have agreed to joint custody. See CAL. FAM. CODE § 3080 (1994). Connecticut, Maine, Michigan, Nevada and New Hampshire have similar provisions. See CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN. § 46b-56a(b) (West 1995); ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 19, § 214(6) (West Supp. 1996); MICH. Comp. LAWS ANN. § 722.26a(2) (West 1993); NEV. REV. STAT. ANN. § 125.490(1) (Michie 1993); N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 458:17(11) (1992); see also Appendix A (providing a state-by-state analysis of joint cus- tody statutes). Catholic University Law Review [Vol. 46:767 In 1996, the District of Columbia joined the small minority when it en- acted a presumption in favor of joint custody. In so doing, the District entered into a realm of domestic relations law that has been described as frightfully lacking in linguistic uniformity3 and consistency in outcome.4 This Article discusses the District of Columbia's version of joint cus- tody. Section I provides a brief overview of child custody trends in the United States. Section II considers the meaning of the term "joint cus- tody" and the phrase "rebuttable presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of the child." Section III is an in-depth discussion of the District of Columbia's new joint custody law. Section IV discusses the incongruities between the concept of joint custody as advocated and the realities of a predominantly black community in which poverty defines the lives of a significant segment of the population. In particular, this section questions the benefit to the District of Columbia community of divisive gender-driven policies. Section V expands on why a joint custody presumption is in conflict with the best interest of the child standard. This Article concludes by observing that the District's new law is of particular concern given the demographics of the jurisdiction. As with welfare reform, rhetoric supporting this law places considerable blame for societal woes on the parent who is raising children single-handedly, and in poverty. The law must not be used as a wedge to further isolate welfare mothers, causing more division where unity of spirit and purpose need to be fostered. Yet, it has the potential to do this if parents are placed in artificial and unfamiliar unions that can undermine the efforts being made by single parents. The serendipitous approach to custody reflected in the District's pre- sumption does not account for the real harm done to relationships when marriages or other familial unions dissolve, or when they never formed. Because courts must meet their obligation to protect children, the new law cannot be interpreted as a license to abandon analysis of the many factors-impact of anger, lack of trust, fear, and/or irrelevance due to lack of involvement-that indicate what may be in the child's best inter- est. The new law cannot be viewed as a shortcut to custody decision- making since it raises far more questions than it answers. 3. Taylor v. Taylor, 508 A.2d 964, 966 (Md. 1986) (citing David J. Miller, Joint Cus- tody, 13 FAM. L.Q. 345, 376 (1979)). 4. See, e.g., Lee E. Teitelbaum, Divorce, Custody, Gender, and the Limits of Law: On Dividing the Child, 92 MICH. L. REV. 1808 (1994) (reviewing ELEANOR E. MACCOBY & ROBERT H. MNOOKIN, DIVIDING THE CHILD: SOCIAL AND LEGAL DILEMMAS OF CUSTODY (1992)). Teitelbaum finds that much of the earlier social research on custody was "less than excellent and some [was] very poor." Id. at 1810. 1997] Joint Custody Presumption The appendices to this Article include a state-by-state analysis of joint custody legislation and a model custody statute for the District of Columbia. I. CUSTODY By WHAT RULE? From the beginning, courts have viewed their role with regard to child custody determinations as one of parens patriae-a duty to protect vul- nerable citizens.5 Consistent with that role, the best interest of the child has been the driving standard, and, as such, statutory presumptions have generally been stated in those terms.6 This judicial function consistently has been muddled with parental interest in the companionship, care, cus- tody, and/or management of their children. Thus, the law reflects an often unresolved conflict between the child's needs and those of the parents.7 The roots of the authority in Anglo-American law to act on behalf of the safety and welfare of children dates back to the seventeenth century and the equitable jurisdiction of the English courts.' Determining cus- tody was simple: the father received sole custody except in cases where the father was found to have gone beyond accepted norms.9 The paternal preference was based on the English common law rule recognizing the father's right to his children's services (the "fruits of their labor") in re- 5. Cf. Lawrence B. Custer, The Origins of the Doctrine of Parens Patriae, 27 EMORY L.J. 195, 205 (1978). 6. See, e.g., LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 518.17(2)(d) (stating that a presumption exists that joint custody is in the best interest of the child); MINN. STAT. ANN. § 518.17(2)(d) (same); Miss. CODE ANN. § 93-S-24(4) (same). In fact seven states and three territories refer to the child's best interest but make no reference to joint custody in their statutes: Arkansas, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, West Virginia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. See ARK. CODE ANN. § 9-13-101 (Michie 1993); N.Y. DOM. REL. LAW § 240 (McKinney Supp. 1996); N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 14-09-06.1 to -06.2 (1991 & Supp. 1995) (including no explicit reference to sole or joint custody, but stating that evidence of domestic violence "creates a rebuttable presumption that a parent who has perpetrated domestic violence may not be awarded sole or joint custody of a child"); R.I. GEN. LAWS § 15-5-16 (1996); S.C. CODE ANN. § 20-3-160 (Law Co-op. 1985); W. VA. CODE § 48-2-15 (1995 & Supp. 1996); 19 GUAM CODE ANN, § 4106, 9108 (1995) (presum- ing that the mother receive custody of a child of "tender years"); P.R. LAws ANN. tit. 31, § 383 (1993); V.I. CODE ANN. tit. 16, § 109 (1996).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Expert Evidence in Favour of Shared Parenting 2 of 12 Shared Parenting: Expert Evidence
    Expert evidence in favour of shared parenting 2 of 12 Shared Parenting: Expert Evidence Majority View of Psychiatrists, Paediatricians and Psychologists The majority view of the psychiatric and paediatric profession is that mothers and fathers are equals as parents, and that a close relationship with both parents is necessary to maximise the child's chances for a healthy and parents productive life. J. Atkinson, Criteria for Deciding Child Custody in the Trial and Appellate Courts, Family Law Quarterly, Vol. XVIII, No. 1, American both Bar Association (Spring 1984). In a report that “summarizes and evaluates the major research concerning joint custody and its impact on children's welfare”, the American Psychological Association (APA) concluded that: “The research reviewed supports the conclusion that joint custody is parent is associated with certain favourable outcomes for children including father involvement, best interest of the child for adjustment outcomes, child support, reduced relitigation costs, and sometimes reduced parental conflict.” best The APA also noted that: the “The need for improved policy to reduce the present adversarial approach that has resulted in primarily sole maternal custody, limited father involvement and maladjustment of both children and parents is critical. Increased mediation, joint custody, and parent education are supported for this policy.” Report to the US Commission on Child and Family Welfare, American Psychological Association (June 14, 1995) The same American Psychological Association adopted
    [Show full text]
  • Chickasaw Nation Code Title 6, Chapter 2
    Domestic Relations & Families (Amended as of 08/20/2021) CHICKASAW NATION CODE TITLE 6 "6. DOMESTIC RELATIONS AND FAMILIES" CHAPTER 1 MARRIAGE ARTICLE A DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE Section 6-101.1 Title. Section 6-101.2 Jurisdiction. Section 6-101.3 Areas of Jurisdiction. Section 6-101.4 Applicable Law. Section 6-101.5 Definitions of Marriage; Common Law Marriage. Section 6-101.6 Actions That May Be Brought; Remedies. Section 6-101.7 Consanguinity. Section 6-101.8 Persons Having Capacity to Marry. Section 6-101.9 Marriage Between Persons of Same Gender Not Recognized. Section 6-101.10 Grounds for Divorce. Section 6-101.11 Petition; Summons. Section 6-101.12 Notice of Pendency Contingent upon Service. Section 6-101.13 Special Notice for Actions Pending in Other Courts. Section 6-101.14 Pleadings. Section 6-101.15 Signing of Pleadings. Section 6-101.16 Defense and Objections; When and How Presented; by Pleadings or Motions; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Section 6-101.17 Reserved. Section 6-101.18 Lost Pleadings. Section 6-101.19 Reserved. Section 6-101.20 Reserved. Section 6-101.21 Reserved. Section 6-101.22 Reserved. Section 6-101.23 Reserved. Page 6-1 Domestic Relations & Families Section 6-101.24 Reserved. Section 6-101.25 Reserved. Section 6-101.26 Reserved. Section 6-101.27 Summons, Time Limit for Service. Section 6-101.28 Service and Filing of Pleadings and Other Papers. Section 6-101.29 Computation and Enlargement of Time. Section 6-101.30 Legal Newspaper. Section 6-101.31 Answer May Allege Cause; New Matters Verified by Affidavit.
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Parenting Laws: Mistakes of Pooling? Margaret F
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2014 Shared Parenting Laws: Mistakes of Pooling? Margaret F. Brinig Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Family Law Commons Recommended Citation Margaret F. Brinig, Shared Parenting Laws: Mistakes of Pooling?, Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper No. 1426 (August 14, 2014). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/1116 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Shared Parenting Laws: Mistakes of Pooling? Margaret F. Brinig, Notre Dame Law School In their recent paper “Anti-Herding Regulation,” forthcoming in the Harvard Business Review,1 Ian Ayres and Joshua Mitts argue that many well-intentioned public policy regulations potentially harm rather than help situations. That is, because the rules seek to pool—or herd—groups of people, treating them as equal, they miss or mask important differences among the regulated, thus magnifying systematic risk. Anti- herding regulation, on the other hand, can produce socially beneficial information, in their words steering “both private and public actors toward better evidence-based outcomes.” Left to their own, or with various carrot-and-stick incentives, some groups, anyway, would instead fare better if allowed to separate or diverge. Ayres and Mitts buttress their case with examples from engineering (bridges collapsing because soldiers crossed them in cadences matched to the structures’ oscillations), finance (mandating only low percentages down for real estate purchasers), biodiversity and ecosystem stability, and genetic variation itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Child Custody Arrangements: Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say
    Land & Water Law Review Volume 31 Issue 2 Article 15 1996 Child Custody Arrangements: Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say DeNece Day Koenigs Kimberly A. Harris Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/land_water Recommended Citation Koenigs, DeNece Day and Harris, Kimberly A. (1996) "Child Custody Arrangements: Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say," Land & Water Law Review: Vol. 31 : Iss. 2 , pp. 591 - 621. Available at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/land_water/vol31/iss2/15 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Land & Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. Koenigs and Harris: Child Custody Arrangements: Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say Comment CHILD CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS: Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say INTRODUCTION In Wyoming, custody battles place judges and court commissioners in King Solomon's' position nearly everyday as they are asked to split children between divorcing parents.2 Of course, judges and commissioners do not wield swords, but they do use legal terms which are often inade- quate and misused.' Unfortunately, the modem day result, though not as graphic as that from the Bible, is just as severe. As many as one in every two marriages will result in divorce.4 Thirty percent of children today will be the focus of a custody decision., For too many of these children, their lives will be adversely affected by an improper custody arrangement caused by the erroneous use of the term "joint custody." 6 The law as it stands in Wyoming does not adequately consider the non-legal aspects of custody or give practitioners and judges the guidance necessary to make appropriate custody determinations.' Gurney v.
    [Show full text]
  • Divorce, Annulment, and Child Custody
    DIVORCE, ANNULMENT, AND CHILD CUSTODY : DISCLAIMER The information on this page is intended for educational purposes only. It is not legal advice. If you have specific questions, or are experiencing a situation where you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney. Student Legal Services makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information on this page. However, the law changes frequently and this site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice. It is highly recommended that anyone accessing this page consult with an attorney licensed in the state of Wyoming prior to taking any action based on the information provided on this page. DIVORCE A divorce is when two individuals petition the court to formally end their marriage. Divorce includes the division of marital property. If a couple has children, the court also will determine the custody arrangement for those children. You can learn more about divorce on the Equal Justice Wyoming website here. It is possible to complete the divorce process without an attorney. Completing the process without an attorney is called a “pro se divorce.” Divorces without attorneys are easiest when there are no children and the parties agree about the majority of the property distribution. You can access directions and packets for a pro se divorce here. ANNULMENT An annulment is when the marriage is dissolved as if it never existed. It is very hard to receive an annulment and most marriages will not qualify. Annulments occur in two situations. When the marriage is void and when the marriage is voidable. VOID MARRIAGES: When a marriage is void, it means that the marriage could not have taken place under the law—therefore it does not exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Divorce and Other Options for Ending Your Marriage with Children in Washington State
    3240EN | October 2020 www.WashingtonLawHelp.org Divorce and Other Options for Ending Your Marriage with Children in Washington State 3240EN | October 2020 www.WashingtonLawHelp.org Table of Contents Part 1. Ending the Relationship ....................................................................... 1 Part 2. Where to File ......................................................................................... 2 Part 3. How long will it take? ........................................................................... 1 Part 4. I want child support or a parenting schedule now. What do I do? ... 2 Part 5. Dividing Property & Debts ................................................................... 1 Part 6. Custody and Visitation ......................................................................... 1 Part 7. Child support ........................................................................................ 1 Part 8. Our Do-it-Yourself Resources ............................................................. 2 This publication provides general information concerning your rights and responsibilities. It is not intended as a substitute for specific legal advice. © 2020 Northwest Justice Project — 1-888-201-1014 (Permission for copying and distribution granted to the Alliance for Equal Justice and to individuals for non- commercial purposes only.) Table of Contents | Page - 1 3240EN | October 2020 www.WashingtonLawHelp.org Part 1. Ending the Relationship A. Do I need a reason to get a divorce? No. Washington is a “no-fault” divorce
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Versus Sole Physical Custody What Does the Research Tell Us About Children’S Outcomes?
    feature article Joint Versus Sole Physical Custody What Does the Research Tell Us About Children’s Outcomes? by Linda Nielsen, Ph.D. Do children fare better or worse in joint physical cus- favorably in terms of children's best interests and perceived it as tody (JPC) families where they live with each parent at least having no impact on legal or personal conflicts between parents.1 35% of the time than in sole physical custody (SPC) families But are children’s outcomes better in JPC than SPC fami- where they live primarily or exclusively with one parent? This lies –especially if their parents do not get along well as co-par- question assumes even more importance as JPC has become ents? And if JPC children have better outcomes, is this because increasingly common in the U.S. and abroad. For example, in their parents have more money, less conflict, better parenting Wisconsin JPC increased from 5% in 1986 to more than 35% skills or higher quality relationships with their children before in 2012. And as far back as 2008, 46% of separated parents in they separate? Put differently, are JPC parents “exceptional” Washington state and 30% in Arizona had JPC arrangements. because they get along better than SPC parents and mutually JPC has risen to nearly 50% in Sweden, 30% in Norway and agree to the custody plan from the outset? the Netherlands, 37% in Belgium, 26% in Quebec and 40% in British Columbia and the Catalonia region of Spain. Those who have expressed misgivings about JPC have made a number of claims that they report are based on the research.
    [Show full text]
  • Sole Legal and Sole Physical Custody
    Sole Legal and Sole Physical Custody walllegalsolutions.com /4954-2/ In the state of Utah, there are two different facets of child custody. Physical custody dictates where a child lives, while legal custody refers to which parent can make important decisions regarding their child’s health, education, religion and overall wellbeing. In most cases, the court presumes joint legal custody is in the child’s best interest. However, the state recognizes a few different custody arrangements for minors, including sole legal and sole physical; joint legal and joint physical; joint legal and sole physical; and split custody. Differences between Sole Legal and Sole Physical Custody Either parent may be granted sole legal and sole physical custody of the child(ren), becoming the custodial parent. Here is a look at what’s encompassed by each type of custody. Sole Legal Custody Sole legal custody grants one parent full legal right and responsibility to be the sole decision-maker in regards to the minor child and his or her education, health, safety, daycare provisions, and religion, but the non-custodial parent is granted the right to be provided information by the custodial parent on those decisions. Sole Physical Custody Physical custody refers to who has the authority to determine the child’s physical place of residence. However, even when sole physical custody is granted to one parent, the non-custodial parent often receives the right to visitation/parent time in order to spend time with their minor child(ren). Sole Custody and Relocating Even if a parent is awarded sole physical and sole legal custody of a minor, it does not grant them the right to relocate without permission from the court.
    [Show full text]
  • Superior Court of the District of Columbia Family Court
    Superior Court of the District of Columbia Family Court HANDBOOK FOR PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT THEMSELVES IN DIVORCE, CUSTODY, AND CHILD SUPPORT CASES Moultrie Courthouse 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Phone: (202) 879-1010 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. GENERAL INFORMATION ................................................................................. 1 Why Should I Read This Handbook? ................................................. 1 How Can I Get More Information About Family Court Cases In D.C. Superior Court? ................................................................ 1 How Do I Get Information About The Status Of My Case? ............... 1 Do I Need A Lawyer To Represent Me? ............................................. 1 Can The Court Appoint A Lawyer To Represent Me? ....................... 2 What Are My Responsibilities If I Represent Myself? ....................... 2 Can I Call Or Write The Judge If I Don’t Know What To Do? ............ 2 How Should I Behave In Court? ......................................................... 2 What Should I Wear To Court? ........................................................... 3 Can I Bring My Children To Court? .................................................... 3 II. THE RULES AND LAW....................................................................................... 3 DIVORCE CASES ...................................................................................... 3 Do I Have To Live In D.C. To File A Divorce Case? ........................... 3 What Do I Have To
    [Show full text]
  • Custody and Visitation for the Military Practitioner
    CUSTODY AND VISITATION FOR THE MILITARY PRACTITIONER COL MARK E. SULLIVAN, USAR, RET. I. VISITATION DRAFTING: What Can We Do? Two Problem Clauses-- A. "Reasonable visitation" [vs. specified visitation provisions -- times, dates spelled out explicitly in the agreement or order] 1. Who decides what is reasonable? 2. If mom is in Charlottesville and dad is at Ft. Bragg, is it reasonable for him to drive up to get the child Friday night at 7 p.m. [a 4-hour drive that means they get back on base at 11 p.m.] and return the child Sunday night at 7? Is it unreasonable? B. "Visitation by mutual consent" 1. What if mom disagrees with Wednesday night supper with dad? What if she disagrees with dad's having the children on the 4th of July? 2. What if there is no mutual consent because one parent is being unreasonable? Can you solve the problem by adding a clause stating that neither parent shall be unreasonable in requesting or withholding visitation? Will it work with these parents? C. Accommodating predictability and flexibility 1. The need to know when visitation will occur to avoid disappointing child or unnecessarily disrupting mom's schedule 2. But also need to leave room for changes in visitation due to child's schedule [a sleep-over with a friend, a trip to the mountains or the beach on dad's weekend], mom's schedule or dad's schedule [as when he has a trip on his visitation weekend] D. See options set out in client handout at ATCH 1 after outline.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of the 2010 Civil Code on Trends in Joint Physical Custody in Catalonia
    EFFECTS OF THE 2010 CIVIL CODE ON TRENDS IN JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY IN CATALONIA. A COMPARISON WITH THE Document downloaded from www.cairn-int.info - Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona 158.109.138.45 09/05/2017 14h03. © I.N.E.D REST OF SPAIN Montserrat Solsona, Jeroen Spijker I.N.E.D | « Population » 2016/2 Vol. 71 | pages 297 - 323 ISSN 0032-4663 ISBN 9782733210666 This document is a translation of: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Montserrat Solsona, Jeroen Spijker, « Influence du Code civil catalan (2010) sur les décisions de garde partagée. Comparaisons entre la Catalogne et le reste de Espagne », Population 2016/2 (Vol. 71), p. 297-323. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Available online at : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_POPU_1602_0313--effects-of-the-2010-civil-code- on.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How to cite this article : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Montserrat Solsona, Jeroen Spijker, « Influence du Code civil catalan (2010) sur les décisions de garde partagée. Comparaisons entre la Catalogne et le reste de Espagne », Population 2016/2 (Vol. 71), p. 297-323. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Joint Custody on Marriage and Divorce
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Halla, Martin Working Paper The effect of joint custody on marriage and divorce IZA Discussion Papers, No. 4314 Provided in Cooperation with: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics Suggested Citation: Halla, Martin (2009) : The effect of joint custody on marriage and divorce, IZA Discussion Papers, No. 4314, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-20090825539 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/36023 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu IZA DP No. 4314 The Effect of Joint Custody on Marriage and Divorce Martin Halla July 2009 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor The Effect of Joint Custody on Marriage and Divorce Martin Halla University of Linz and IZA Discussion Paper No.
    [Show full text]