DOCSLIB.ORG

Presentation at the World Conference in Recife

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Presentation at the World Conference in Recife Selections from the Recife Congress Edited by Margaret F. Brinig, University of Notre Dame, USA TABLE OF CONTENTS PAPER 1 Pension Rights by Legal Separation or Divorce in Denmark ........................................................... 3 Gitte Meldgaard Abrahamsen, Assistant Professor, University of Aalborg, Denmark PAPER 2 Gender Inequalities and Family Solidarity in Times of Crisis (deContractualisation of Family Law) .............................................................................................. 9 Prof. dr. E. Alofs (Faculty of law, Free University of Brussels) Prof. dr. A.-L Verbeke (Faculty of law, University of Leuven) Prof. dr. D. Mortelmans (Faculty of sociology, University of Antwerp) C. Defever (Faculty of sociology, University of Antwerp) PAPER 3 Upheaval in the Family Court of New Zealand: “User Pays” and Privatization .............................. 38 Bill Atkin1 PAPER 4 Shared Parenting Laws: Mistakes of Pooling? ................................................................................ 49 Margaret F. Brinig, Notre Dame Law School PAPER 5 Marriage for Immigration in the Republic of Korea ......................................................................... 101 LEE, Dongjin PAPER 6 Children's Voices: Centre-stage or Side-lined in Out-of-Court Dispute Resolution in England and Wales? ........................................................................................................................................ 126 Jan Ewing, Research Associate at the University of Kent on the ERSC funded 'Mapping Paths to Family Justice' project. The project is led by Anne Barlow at the University of Exeter. The CIs are Anne Barlow, Rosemary Hunter (University of Kent) and Janet Smithson (University of Exeter) PAPER 7 The Structural Integrity of Marriages Following Major breaches of Trust in the First Four Years ................................................................................................................................ 143 Jan Ewing, University of Cambridge 1 PAPER 8 Delegalizing Family Law .................................................................................................................. 160 Marsha Garrison, Suzanne J. and Norman Miles Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Secretary-General of the International Society of Family Law Advisory Board of the Journal of Law and Family Studies and the International Advisory Board of the Child and Family Law Quarterly PAPER 9 Adoption and International Adoption: The Czech Republic Experience ......................................... 176 Zdeńka Králíčková, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, Brno, the Czech Republic PAPER 10 The Challenge of Affordable Family Law ....................................................................................... 189 Patrick Parkinson, University of Sydney, Australia President of the International Society of Family Law (2011-2014) PAPER 11 As the Family Goes: Achieving Moral and Legal Pluralism by Prioritizing Marriage .................... 215 Lynn D. Wardle, BYU Law Lynn Wardle is Bruce C. Hafen Professor of Law at J. Reuben Clark Law School of Brigham Young University and an expert in family law. He has been President (2011-14) of the International Academy for the Study of the Jurisprudence of the Family. 2 Pension Rights by Legal Separation or Divorce in Denmark. Gitte Meldgaard Abrahamsen, Assistant Professor. University of Aalborg, Denmark. Every year thousands of marriages are terminated in Denmark. In 2013, 18.872 couples were divorced1 and the divorce rate is on the rise — 46.5 percent of all marriages in Denmark today end in a divorce.2 The division of property in a divorce or legal separation proceeding is, therefore, of great importance. This paper deals with pension rights by legal separation or divorce. It examines pension rights and to what extent those rights are a part of the division of property in Denmark. It includes a short introduction to the legal framework in Denmark and to the present state of law. Some reflections on economic inequalities within the family will also be made.3 According to the Danish Act on Legal Effects of Marriage, the statutory basis for Danish family law is the concept of community property (see s. 15 (2)). Community property includes all property acquired by either spouse during the marriage as well as all property owned by either spouse at the time of the marriage. Each spouse can – as the main rule – deal freely with his or her own property within the community property assets. The main legal effect of community property is only evident when one of three things occurs: one of the spouses dies, they have a legal separation, or go through a divorce. When the marriage is terminated, community property must – as the main rule – be divided into equal shares. However, in Denmark this rule does not apply to pension rights even though pension rights are one of the biggest – if not the biggest – assets within the community of marriage today. In 2007, a new set of rules became law in Denmark.4 In framing these rules, the question was whether or not pension rights should be considered a form of capital and, therefore, be included in the division of property in case of a divorce just like other assets. Alternatively, pension rights could be excluded from the division in case of divorce due to their purpose and personal character.5 Since the emphasis in the rules was on the purpose of the pension, the general rule 1 “News”, number 144, Statistics Denmark (Nyt”, nr. 144, Danmarks Statistik), 18.th of March, 2014. 2 “News”, number 139, Statistics Denmark (”Nyt”, nr. 139, Danmarks Statistik), 18.th of March, 2014. 3 The paper is a product of my PhD thesis. For more see Abrahamsen, Gitte Meldgaard. ”Pensionsudlignende regler ved separation og skilsmisse” (Pension equalizing rules by legal separation or divorce), Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 1. edition 2014 4 Act number 483 of June 7th 2006. 5 See Report number 1466 of 2005 “Spouses pension rights – in the division of community property” (Betænkning nr. 1466 af 2005, “Ægtefællers pensionsrettigheder – behandling på skifte af fællesbo”), p. 185 and p. 20. 3 in Danish family law today is, as the predominant rule, that pension rights are not included in the division of matrimonial property in a divorce or legal separation. Therefore, the spouses as a main rule retain their own pension rights after the divorce. This legal position differs much from general family law and is, consequently, modified by different rules that can lead to a degree of equalization of the pensions. There are three possible ways to modify the legal position on retaining their own pension right after the divorce. Firstly, if the pension right in question is not reasonable, then the value of the pension has to be included in the division.6 This follows from the fact, that in order to exclude pension rights from the equal division of property, the pension right in question has to be reasonable. However, when is a pension right regarded as reasonable? That is both in practice and theory a difficult question. Some of the answer can be found when examining whether the pension right in question corresponds to the spouse’s educational and professional background. For instance, if the spouse is a doctor, the reasonable pension right for this spouse will be the same level as for other doctors in the same type of job. A reasonable pension is thus basically what follows from a collective agreement in that specific area. If the doctor has a larger pension than this, then these “extra” contributions will be regarded as not reasonable and must be included in the equal division of property in case of divorce or legal separation. An extra contribution may be for example if the doctor, for tax reasons, pays larger contributions or creates a voluntary pension alongside his occupational pension right. [Since all normal occupational pension rights are reasonable, it follows that most pension rights in Denmark will be characterised as reasonable.7 Secondly, there is a possibility that a spouse can be allocated compensation due to the pension situation. Two different types of compensation are possible. The first one is called “fællesskabskompensation” which here is freely translated into joint-effort compensation. As the name suggests, this is a compensation that may be allocated as a result of a joint effort for the family. The joint effort, in this context, is when one spouse has been absent from the labour market in order to take care of the family due to a maternity or paternity leave or part-time employment. It could also be because of the other spouse’s employment situation. The absence from the labour market may result in lack of – or smaller –pension savings for the caretaking spouse. Compensation is then possible when the sacrifices due to the marriage are the reason for a loss in pension contributions. This also means that compensation is ruled out if the 6 If the marriage has been short, which means less than five years, all pension rights can be excluded from community property (see cf. the Danish Act on Legal Effects of Marriage, s. 16 c.) 7 See Report number 1466 of 2005 “Spouses pension rights – in the division of community property”, p. 179. 4 reduction in the pension savings is due to illness or unemployment. But there are several other conditions that are to be met before compensation can be allocated. An example of this: the absence from the labour market must have taken place during the marriage –
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annual Survey of Virginia Law: Legal Issues Involving Children Robert E
    University of Richmond Law Review Volume 22 | Issue 4 Article 11 1988 Annual Survey of Virginia Law: Legal Issues Involving Children Robert E. Shepherd Jr. University of Richmond Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview Part of the Juvenile Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert E. Shepherd Jr., Annual Survey of Virginia Law: Legal Issues Involving Children, 22 U. Rich. L. Rev. 691 (1988). Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol22/iss4/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Richmond Law Review by an authorized editor of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVING CHILDREN Robert E. Shepherd, Jr.* I. ABUSE AND NEGLECT, FOSTER CARE AND TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS A. Abuse and Neglect This article last year noted the disturbing increase in the num- ber of reported cases involving individuals prosecuted for the sex- ual abuse of children, and the persistence of legislative efforts to address the profound difficulties encountered by young children called as witnesses in those cases." This year, the General Assem- bly finally yielded to the urgings of those seeking changes in the law, and to the recommendations of a joint legislative subcommit- tee created in 1987 to study the problem of child abuse victims as witnesses in the courtroom.2 The subcommittee recommended the enactment of four bills in an effort to minimize the adverse impact of the courtroom atmosphere on young children who testify in child abuse cases while trying, at the same time, to protect the le- gitimate rights of the person accused of abuse.3 All four of the pro- posed bills were enacted into law with few amendments.
    [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]
  • Creating Parenting Plans Presentation
    Custody must be awarded to “such person as will best promote the interest and welfare of the child.” Court may grant: ◦ Joint custody to the parents ◦ Exclusive custody to one person ◦ Custody to two or more persons 1 Order shall include such terms, including visitation as will best promote the interest and welfare of the child Visitation is a “lesser form of custody” ◦ Clark v. Clark, 294 NC 554 (1978) Order should establish the time, place and conditions for exercising visitation. ◦ Ingle v. Ingle, 53 NC App 227 (1981) Between mother and father, no presumption shall apply as to who will better promote the interest and welfare of the child ◦ GS 50-13.2 Parent cannot be denied reasonable visitation unless court finds parent unfit or that visitation is not in best interest of the child ◦ GS 50-13.5(i) ◦ Supervised visitation is not “reasonable visitation” Hinkle v. Hartsell, 131 NC App 833 (1998) Cannot allow custodial parent to control visitation ◦ Brewington v. Serrato, 77 N.C.App. 726, 336 S.E.2d 444 (1985) Physical Custody ◦ No definition in statutes or cases Legal Custody ◦ Right and responsibility to make decisions with important and long-term implications for a child’s best interest and welfare ◦ Includes “education, health care, religious training and the like.” Diehl v. Diehl, 177 NC App 642 (2006) No presumptions regarding legal custody Order should be specific 2 Must be considered “upon request of either party” ◦ GS 50-13.2 There is no presumption in favor of joint custody ◦ Hall v. Hall, 655 SE2d 901, n3 (NC App, Feb.
    [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]
  • Result Inequality in Family Law Margaret F. Brinig Notre Dame Law School
    Result Inequality in Family Law Margaret F. Brinig Notre Dame Law School The neoclassical economics system assumes that individuals, acting on the basis of rational self‐interest, will acquire the “perfect” knowledge needed to make decisions, will respond rationally to changes in “price,” that distributional consequences can be ignored in setting laws since losses can be made up through taxes and transfer payments, and that it is enough that parties theoretically could compensate third parties for their losses out of the gains from choices they make.1 None of these assumptions holds particularly true in the complex systems of families, as the data will show. Turning to the legal side, the Constitution, especially since enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, constrains lawmakers to treat every person equally. Despite claims during the 1970s that inequalities in results produced by facially neutral statutes violated the Constitution, the Supreme Court has upheld legislation that permitted unequal funding levels for public education2 or that allowed family size caps on welfare payments.3 In a free market economy, wealth can purchase better education or legal services so long as the basic rights guaranteed to all are available. Thus, just as voting cannot be relegated to those who can pay a poll tax,4 access to divorce cannot be based on payment of a filing fee5 nor the ability to marry be conditioned on payment of previously ordered child support.6 Of course, public policy about family law as well as public assistance, and education has changed over forty years. Importantly, there is a recognition that while basic rights to control and direct the upbringing of children belong to their fit parents,7 when parents’ and children’s interests conflict (or the child’s and one parent’s conflicts with the other’s), the children’s must 1 Kaldor-Hicks efficiency criteria were suggested in 1939 by Nicholas Kaldor, Welfare Propositions in Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility, 49 Econ.
    [Show full text]
  • BACK to the BEST INTERESTS of the CHILD 2Nd Edition
    POLICY MONOGRAPH BACK TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD 2nd Edition TOWARDS A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF JOINT RESIDENCE Yuri Joakimidis BACK TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD TOWARDS A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF JOINT RESIDENCE Although the dispute is symbolized by a 'versus' which signifies two adverse parties at opposite poles of a line, there is in fact a third party whose interests and rights make of the line a triangle. That person, the child who is not an official party to the lawsuit but whose well- being is in the eye of the controversy, has a right to shared parenting when both are equally suited to provide it. Inherent in the express public policy is a recognition of the child's right to equal access and opportunity with both parents, the right to be guided and nurtured by both parents, the right to have major decisions made by the application of both parents' wisdom, judgement and experience. The child does not forfeit these rights when the parents divorce." Presiding Judge Dorothy T. Beasley, Georgia Court of Appeals, "In the Interest of A.R.B., a Child," July 2, 1993 A PAPER COMPILED BY THE JOINT PARENTING ASSOCIATION Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................... 5 Overview.................................................................................................................... 7 The Solomon Parable ................................................................................................ 8 The Hearing............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Custody
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Law Faculty Scholarly Articles Law Faculty Publications 1979 Joint Custody Carolyn S. Bratt University of Kentucky College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub Part of the Family Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Carolyn S. Bratt, Joint Custody, 67 Ky. L.J. 271 (1979). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Faculty Publications at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Joint Custody Notes/Citation Information Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 67, No. 2 (1978-1979), pp. 271-308 This article is available at UKnowledge: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/206 JOINT CUSTODY By CAROLYN S. BRATr* And the.king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the .other. Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, . and she said, 0 my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it be neither mine no thine, but divide it. Then the king answered and said, Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it: she is the mother thereof, And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king: for they saw the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment.1 Custody battles have been with us for a long time; Solo- mon's wisdom in resolving the custody dispute before him is renowned.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Iowa
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 59 / 06-0191 Filed June 15, 2007 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LYLE MARTIN HANSEN and DELORES LORENE HANSEN Upon the Petition of LYLE MARTIN HANSEN, Appellee, And Concerning DELORES LORENE HANSEN, Appellant. On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Dan F. Morrison, Judge. Former husband seeks further review after court of appeals modified dissolution decree. DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Frank J. Nidey of Nidey Peterson Erdahl & Tindal, PLC, Cedar Rapids, for appellee. Constance Peschang Stannard of Johnston & Nathanson, P.L.C., Iowa City, for appellant. 2 APPEL, Justice. In this case, we review physical care and property issues related to the parties’ dissolution of marriage. The district court granted joint legal custody and joint physical care of the two children to Lyle and Delores Hansen. The district court also distributed the property in the marital estate, ordered Lyle to pay alimony, and established child and medical support. Delores appealed. We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals reversed the district court on the physical care issue, granting physical care of the children to Delores. The court of appeals decreased the amount Delores was required to pay Lyle as a result of the property distribution and increased the monthly amount and duration of Lyle’s alimony payments. The court of appeals further made corrections related to the amount of child and medical support, and awarded Delores $1,000 in attorneys’ fees.
    [Show full text]
  • The Concepts of Habitual Residence and Ordinary Residence in Light of Quebec Civil Law, the 1985 Divorce Act and the Hague Conventions of 1980 and 1996
    SERVING CANADIANS The Concepts of Habitual Residence and Ordinary Residence in Light of Quebec Civil Law, the 1985 Divorce Act and the Hague Conventions of 1980 and 1996 Family, Children and Youth Section Research Report September 2006 The Concepts of Habitual Residence and Ordinary Residence in Light of Quebec Civil Law, the Divorce Act and the Hague Conventions of 1980 and 1996 Prepared by: Gérald Goldstein LL.D., Full Professor Faculty of Law, Univ. de Montréal Presented to: Family, Children and Youth Section Department of Justice Canada The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Justice Canada. Aussi disponible en français This paper was written in French under the title, Les notions de résidence habituelle et de résidence ordinaire à la lueur du droit civil québécois, de la Loi sur le divorce et des Conventions de La Haye de 1980 et de 1996. This translation was commissioned by the Department of Justice Canada. This report may be reproduced, in part or in whole, and by any means, without charge or further permission from the Department of Justice Canada, provided that due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced; that the Department of Justice Canada is identified as the source department; and that the reproduction is not represented as an official version of the original report. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................... 1 PART I: HABITUAL RESIDENCE IN QUEBEC LAW AND UNDER THE 1980 AND 1996 HAGUE CONVENTIONS.........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Arguments for an Equal Parental Responsibility Presumption in Contested Child Custody
    The American Journal of Family Therapy, 40:33–55, 2012 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0192-6187 print / 1521-0383 online DOI: 10.1080/01926187.2011.575344 Arguments for an Equal Parental Responsibility Presumption in Contested Child Custody EDWARD KRUK School of Social Work, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada Sixteen arguments in support of an equal parental responsibility presumption in contested child custody are presented from a child- focused perspective, and clinical and empirical evidence in support of each argument is contrasted to the conflicting evidence. These arguments are made in support of the model equal parental re- sponsibility presumption outlined in Volume 39, Number 5, of The American Journal of Family Therapy. We state our case for the equal parental responsibility presumption out- lined in Volume 39, Number 5, of The American Journal of Family Therapy, in “A Model Equal Parental Responsibility Presumption in Contested Child Custody.” Given the drawbacks of the “best interests of the child” (BIOC) standard and the harms attendant to the sole custody model detailed in the earlier article, we consider that each of the sixteen arguments below is sufficient to adopt equal parental responsibility (EPR) as a viable alternative; combined, they are a powerful testament to the urgent need for law reform in the direction of equal parenting. The research studies cited in support of each argument have, for the most part, utilized large and representative samples, and overcome most of the methodological limitations of earlier research. SIXTEEN ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF EQUAL PARENTAL Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 12:03 10 January 2012 RESPONSIBILITY 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Sample Custody Arrangements
    SAMPLE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS The following eight custody arrangements are examples. However, parents can choose other equal time schedules beneficial to their particular situation. 50/50 schedules benefit children. Allowing the child to spends time living with both parents fosters closer relationship with both parents and helps ensure the child feels loved and cared for by both parents. Whatever custody schedule you choose, remember to give everyone in your family time to adjust before making changes. Official written parenting plans help everyone involved recognize the importance of following the plan. Consider revisiting the plan annually to ensure that the schedule continues to meet the needs of both parents and children involved. OPTION 1 – ALTERNATING WEEKS. Exchange of child on any day of the week Rotate non-major holidays important to the family Rotate major holidays (alternating weeks typically rotates the major holidays each year anyway) Allow each parent time on the child’s birthday Allow each parent to spend time with the child on their respective birthdays. This popular custody schedule allows for parents share 50/50 child custody. With this plan the children would live at home with Parent A for one week, and then with Parent B the next week, and so on. Many families choose to make the transition on Fridays after school or Monday morning when school starts, but could choose whatever day of the week works best for you. Research shows in a high conflict situation, the exchange works best on Mondays when school starts. Some weeks may need to be split in order to ensure that both parents receive at least one vacation week with the children for fall break or spring break during the school year.
    [Show full text]
  • Backlash in Gender Equality and Women's and Girls' Rights
    STUDY Requested by the FEMM committee Backlash in Gender Equality and Women’s and Girls’ Rights WOMEN’S RIGHTS & GENDER EQUALITY Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union PE 604.955– June 2018 EN Backlash in Gender Equality and Women’s and Girls’ Rights STUDY Abstract This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the FEMM Committee, is designed to identify in which fields and by which means the backlash in gender equality and women’s and girls’ rights in six countries (Austria, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia) is occurring. The backlash, which has been happening over the last several years, has decreased the level of protection of women and girls and reduced access to their rights. ABOUT THE PUBLICATION This research paper was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality and commissioned, overseen and published by the Policy Department for Citizen's Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Policy Departments provide independent expertise, both in-house and externally, to support European Parliament committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation and exercising democratic scrutiny over EU external and internal policies. To contact the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to: [email protected] RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH ADMINISTRATOR Martina SCHONARD Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] AUTHORS Borbála JUHÁSZ, indipendent expert to EIGE dr.
    [Show full text]