DOCSLIB.ORG

Developments in Family Law: the 1999-2000 Term

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Developments in Family Law: the 1999-2000 Term TSpace Research Repository tspace.library.utoronto.ca Developments in Family Law: The 1999-2000 Term Brenda Cossman Version Publisher’s Version Citation Brenda Cossman, "Developments in Family Law: The 1999-2000 (published version) Term" (2002) 13 Supreme Court Law Review 307. Publisher’s Statement Brenda Cossman, "Developments in Family Law: The 1999-2000 Term" (2002) 13 Supreme Court Law Review 307. © [2002]. Reproduced with permission of the Supreme Court Law Review. How to cite TSpace items Always cite the published version, so the author(s) will receive recognition through services that track citation counts, e.g. Scopus. If you need to cite the page number of the author manuscript from TSpace because you cannot access the published version, then cite the TSpace version in addition to the published version using the permanent URI (handle) found on the record page. This article was made openly accessible by U of T Faculty. Please tell us how this access benefits you. Your story matters. .~~. i I I t I DEVELOPMENTS IN FAMILY LAW: THE 1998-99 TERM Brenda Cossman* I. INTRODUCTION In the 1998-99 Term, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down no less than seven family law decisions. The Court addressed a broad range of family law issues, from spousal'and child support, and division of property, to child protection and child custody. The most important family law decisions issued by the Court in the 1998-99 Term were in relation to family support obligations. 'In the cases of Charlier,' Bracklow2 and M. v. H.,. the Court has steadily expanded the scope and content of support obligations. And amongst these rulings, M. v. H. which struck down the opposite sex definition of spouse for the purposes of spousal support stands as the decision with the most far-reaching implications for family law. For the first time, the majority of the Court recognized the spousal status of same-sex couples. While the Court tried to carefully limit its ruling to the specific provisions of the Ontario Family Law Act: it has nevertheless raised difficult, and as yet unresolved, questions about the definition of spouse in Canadian family law, and the extent to which the law will be able to maintain distinctions between married and unmarried couples, and between heterosexual and same-sex couples. A. number of other trends are discernible in the family law rulings of the 1998-99 Term. The Court has continued its emphasis on family law as an area in which trial judges must be given consider­ able discretion, and in which the appellate courts must therefore * Associate Professor, Faculty ofLaw, University ofToronto. 1 Chartier v. Chartier, [1999/1 S.C.R 242. Bracklow u. Bracklow, [1999J 1 S.C.R 420. [1999) 2 S.C.R 3. • RS.O. 1990, c. F.3. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1144210 434 Supreme Court Law Review (2000), 11 S.C.L.R. (2d) (2000), 11 S.C.L.R. (2d) Family Law 435 exercise considerable deference to lower court rulings. The Court family law - of expanding the private support obligations of emphasized the fact-driven and discretionary nature of family law individual family members. While family law has always been about proceedings, and the importance of appellate courts deferring to the the private responsibilities of individual family members, the trend findings of the trial court which has had the opportunity to hear the reflects the new found importance of family law in an era of evidence, and to balance the various factors accordingly. In several of privatization. Within the new neo-liberal state - characterized by a the cases, the Court declined to rule on the facts, sending the reduction of government spending, and a transfer of responsibilities determination back to the trial court. In all but one (Best'), the Court to the private realms ofmarket and family - family law is becoming agreed with the rulings at trial. Also noteworthy in the family a more important regulatory instrument for the enforcement of rulings of the 1998-99 Term was the move towards unanimity. Five private support obligations for economically dependent family of the seven rulings were unanimous. Only in M. v. H., and Best - a members. More specifically, family law is becoming more important case involving a narrow but important issue of pension valuation ­ in addressing the economic dependency of women and children at was the Court divided in opinion. The term appears to represent a precisely the same moment as the welfare state is being dismantled, significant retreat from the multiple concurring and dissenting and any form of public financial assistance is becoming more and opinions that has characterized many of the family law rulings in more elusive. recent terms.· This is not an entirely new theme within family law. Commenta­ tors have been observing the increasing tendency of the courts and legislatures to reinforce private familial responsibilities, while FAMILY SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS IN AN ERA OF II. cutting back on any public responsibility for the social costs of PRIVATIZATION raising families.' The driving force behind this privatization In the 1998-99 Term, the Court has handed down what might be unquestionably lies with the legislatures. But, the support trilogy of cast as a new trilogy in support law. Three of the family decisions ­ the 1998-99 Term demonstrate the creeping influence of the new Chartier, Bracklow and M. v. H. - deal with the question of support emphasis on fiscal conservatism and private familial responsibility obligations, specifically, with the question of who has support on judicial decision-making. Sometimes, this new fiscal conservatism obligations for whom.' The new trilogy reflects an expanding notion is explicit in the text of the decisions. Other times, it lies just of familial responsibility, bringing more and more individuals within beneath the surface. the reach oflegal support obligations. In each decision, the Court has expanded the reach of support obligations - of step-parents, of individuals whose ex-spouses fall ill, and of same-sex couples. Each decision represents a notable change in the law of support obliga­ tions. And together, the trilogy represents a significant trend in • See Susan Boyd "(Re)placing the State: Family, Law and Oppression" (1994), • Best u. Best (1999), 49 RF.L. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.) 9 Canadian Journal of Law and Society 39 who has argued that • For a discussion ofthe division amongst the justices in family law, see Bailey "lilncreasingly...courts and administrative arms of the Canadian state are reinforcing "Developments in Family Law: The 1995-96 Term", [19971 8 S.C.L.R 447, and certain private familial responsibilities for women's poverty, in the name of feminist "Developments in Family Law: 1996-97 Term", [19981 9 S.C.L.R 389. The Court values and, in part, in response to feminist struggle in the courts, while diminishing appears to have made a concerted effort towards unanimity in its equality rights public societal commitment to alleviating that poverty." See also Eichler "The Limits ruling in Law u. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [19991 S.C.J. of Family Law Reform or, the Privatization of Female and Child Poverty" 7 Cdn. Fam. No.12, a theme which then runs through much of its family law jurisprudence this Law Qtrly. 59; Luxton "Feminism and Families: The Challenge of Neo-Conservatism" term. in Luxton, ed., Feminism and Families: Critil:al Polil:res and Changing Practices 1 A fourth support law decision, Hil:key u. Hickey (1999), 46 RF.L. (4th) 1 (1997); Fraser and Gordon "A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the (S.C.C.), deals with the question of the approach to be taken by appellate courts in U.S. Welfare State" in Fraser, Justice Interruptus: Criti<:al Reflections On the reviewing spousal and child support orders, and is discussed separately below. Postsocialist Condition (1997). Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1144210 (2000), 11 S.C.L.R. (2d) Family Law 437 436 Supreme Court Law Review (2000), 11 S.C.L.R. (2d) Court, began by reviewing the two lines of authority as to whether a 1. Child Support person can unilaterally withdraw from a relationship in which he or Chartier v. Chartier' addressed the question of the child support she stands in the place of the parent. In the first, represented by obligations of step-parents. The couple lived togethe: for two years, Carignan v. Carignan," and followed by the Court of Appeal in this and were then married for a year. There was one chIld, Jeena, born case, a person standing in the place of a parent can unilaterally during the relationship. The wife also had a daugh~er, Jess~ca, fr?m' withdraw from the parental relationship." In the second line of a previous relationship. The husband played an actIve role In c~mg authority, represented by Theriault v. Theriault," the courts have for both children during the relationship and, as the Court descnbed, held that a person cannot unilaterally withdraw, but rather, a court "was a father figure" for Jessica. The parties had considered must look to the nature of the relationship to determine if a person proceeding with an adoption, but did not do so. They did however does actually stand in the place ofa parent. IS falsely amend Jessica's birth registration to indicate th.at t~e Justice Bastarache disagreed with the ruling in Carignan. He held husband was Jessica's biological father. When the relationshIp that once a person is found to stand in the place of a parent, he or between the parties broke down, the father acknowledged in a she cannot unilaterally withdraw from that relationship.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • INFORMATION BULLETIN June 2012 New Family Law
    INFORMATION BULLETIN June 2012 New Family Law Act Table of Contents I. Background 3 II. Importance of Family Law to Women Who Are Victims of Violence in Relationships 5 III. Significant Changes in the Family Law Act for Women Who are Victims of Violence in Relationships 5 IV. Overview of Key Provisions Related to Family Violence 6 FLA Part 1 – Definitions 6 FLA Part 2 – Resolution of Family Law Disputes 7 FLA Part 4 – Care and Time with Children 7 FLA Part 7 – Child and Spousal Support 11 FLA Part 9 – Protection from Family Violence 11 FLA Part 10 – Court Processes 16 FLA Part 12 – Regulations 18 FLA Part 13 – Transitional Provisions 19 FLA Part 14 — Repeals, Related Amendment and 19 Consequential Amendments V. Implementation Issues 20 VI. Conclusion 21 VII. References 23 New Family Law Act Implications for Anti-Violence Workers, June 2012 2 INFORMATION BULLETIN June 2012 New Family Law Act Implications for Anti-Violence Workers1 The new provincial Family Law Act (FLA) received Royal Assent on November 24, 2011, fundamentally altering the way family law matters will be handled in BC. The new Act contains important and far reaching provisions intended to provide better protection for women and children experiencing violence in the family context. While the FLA has now passed through the legislature, most of its sections will not come into force until a regulation to this effect is enacted by Cabinet. The BC Ministry of Justice has announced that this will take place on March 18, 2013. This Information Bulletin will provide an overview of the changes to family law contained in the FLA.
    [Show full text]
  • " We Are Family?": the Struggle for Same-Sex Spousal Recognition In
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be fmrn any type of computer printer, The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reprodudion. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e-g., maps, drawings, &arb) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to tight in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6' x 9" black and Mite photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustratims appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. Bell 8 Howell Information and Leaning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 "WE ARE FAMILY'?": THE STRUGGLE FOR SAME-SEX SPOUSAL RECOGNITION IN ONTARIO AND THE CONUNDRUM OF "FAMILY" lMichelIe Kelly Owen A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Sociology and Equity Studies in Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto Copyright by Michelle Kelly Owen 1999 National Library Bibliothiique nationale l*B of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services sewices bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395.
    [Show full text]
  • Mothering and Work/ Mothering As Work
    A YORK UNIVERSITY PUBLICATION MOTHERING AND WORK/ MOTHERING AS WORK Fallminter 2004 Volume6, Number 2 $15 Featuring articles by JaneMaree Maher, Debra Langan, Lorna Turnbull, Merlinda Weinberg, Alice Home, Naomi Bromberg Bar-Yam, Chris Bobel, Kate Connolly, Maryanne Dever and Lise Saugeres, Corinne Rusch-Drutz, Orit Avishai, Susan Schalge, Kelly C. Walter Carney and many more ... Mothering and Work/ Mothering as Work FalVWinter 2004 Volume 6, Number 2 Founding Editor and Editor-in-Chief Andrea O'Reilly Advisory Board Patricia Bell-Scott, Mary Kay Blakely, Paula Caplan, Patrice DiQuinzio, Miriam Edelson, Miriam Johnson, Carolyn Mitchell, Joanna Radbord, Sara Ruddick, Lori Saint-Martin Literary Editor Rishma Dunlop Book Review Editor Ruth Panofsb Managing Editor Cheryl Dobinson Guest Editorial Board Katherine Bischoping Deborah Davidson Debra Langan Andrea O'Reilly Production Editor Luciana Ricciutelli Proofreader Randy Chase Association for Research on Mothering Atkinson Faculty of Liberal and Professional Studies, 726 Atkinson, York University 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Tel: (416) 736-2100 ext. 60366 Email: [email protected]; Website: www.yorku.ca~crm TheJournal of the Association for Research on Mothering (ISSN 1488-0989) is published by The Association for Research on Mothering (ARM) The Association for Research on Mothering (ARM)is the first feminist organization devoted specifically to the topics of mothering and motherhood. ARM is an association of scholars, writers, activists, policy makers, educators, parents, and artists. ARM is housed at Atkinson College, York University, Toronto, Ontario. Our mandate is to provide a forum for the discussion and dissemination of feminist, academic, and community grassroots research, theory, and praxis on mothering and motherhood.
    [Show full text]
  • Phd Thesis Entitled “A White Wedding? the Racial Politics of Same-Sex Marriage in Canada”, Under the Supervision of Dr
    A White Wedding? The Racial Politics of Same-Sex Marriage in Canada by Suzanne Judith Lenon A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Sociology and Equity Studies in Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto © Copyright by Suzanne Judith Lenon (2008) A White Wedding? The Racial Politics of Same-Sex Marriage in Canada Doctor of Philosophy, 2008 Suzanne Judith Lenon Department of Sociology and Equity Studies in Education University of Toronto Abstract In A White Wedding? The Racial Politics of Same-Sex Marriage, I examine the inter-locking relations of power that constitute the lesbian/gay subject recognized by the Canadian nation-state as deserving of access to civil marriage. Through analysis of legal documents, Parliamentary and Senate debates, and interviews with lawyers, I argue that this lesbian/gay subject achieves intelligibility in the law by trading in on and shoring up the terms of racialized neo-liberal citizenship. I also argue that the victory of same-sex marriage is implicated in reproducing and securing a racialized Canadian national identity as well as a racialized civilizational logic, where “gay rights” are the newest manifestation of the modernity of the “West” in a post-9/11 historical context. By centring a critical race/queer conceptual framework, this research project follows the discursive practices of respectability, freedom and civility that circulate both widely and deeply in this legal struggle. I contend that in order to successfully shed its historical markers of degeneracy, the lesbian/gay subject must be constituted not as a sexed citizen but rather as a neoliberal citizen, one who is intimately tied to notions of privacy, property, autonomy and freedom of choice, and hence one who is racialized as white.
    [Show full text]
  • Family Law (Guardianship of Minors, Domicile and Maintenance) Act
    LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MINISTRY OF LEGAL AFFAIRS www.legalaffairs.gov.tt FAMILY LAW (GUARDIANSHIP OF MINORS, DOMICILE AND MAINTENANCE) ACT CHAPTER 46:08 Act 15 of 1981 Amended by 20 of 1985 *14 of 1988 104 of 1994 28 of 1995 66 of 2000 *See Note on page 2 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1–70 .. 1/2006 L.R.O. 1/2006 UPDATED TO DECEMBER 31ST 2009 LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MINISTRY OF LEGAL AFFAIRS www.legalaffairs.gov.tt Family Law (Guardianship of Minors, 2 Chap. 46:08 Domicile and Maintenance) Index of Subsidiary Legislation Page Maintenance Rules (LN 89/1983) … … … … … 40 Note on Act No. 14 of 1988 For an order under section 13(2), 13(5), 13(6)(a), 13(6)(b), 14(1)(b), and 15(b), see paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Attachment of Earnings (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act No. 14 of 1988). Note on section 13 Orders for Custody and Maintenance For an order for custody and maintenance on the application of a parent under section 13 of the Act see Order 86 of the Rules of the Supreme Court (1975) which is inserted as an Appendix to this Act. UPDATED TO DECEMBER 31ST 2009 LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MINISTRY OF LEGAL AFFAIRS www.legalaffairs.gov.tt Family Law (Guardianship of Minors, Domicile and Maintenance) Chap. 46:08 3 CHAPTER 46:08 FAMILY LAW (GUARDIANSHIP OF MINORS, DOMICILE AND MAINTENANCE) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. GENERAL PRINCIPLES 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Support and Property Rights of the Putative Spouse Florence J
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 24 | Issue 2 Article 6 1-1973 Support and Property Rights of the Putative Spouse Florence J. Luther Charles W. Luther Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Florence J. Luther and Charles W. Luther, Support and Property Rights of the Putative Spouse, 24 Hastings L.J. 311 (1973). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol24/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. Support And Property Rights Of The Putative Spouse By FLORENCE J. LUTHER* and CHARLES W. LUTHER** Orequire a "non-husband" to divide his assets with and to pay support to a "non-wife" may, at first glance, appear doctrinaire. How- ever, to those familiar with the putative spouse doctrine as it had de- veloped in California the concept should not be too disquieting. In 1969 the California legislature enacted Civil Code sections 4452 and 4455 which respectively authorize a division of property1 and perma- nent supportF to be paid to a putative spouse upon a judgment of an- nulment.' Prior to the enactment of these sections, a putative spouse in California was given an equitable right to a division of jointly ac- quired property,4 but could not recover permanent support upon the termination of the putative relationship.5 This article considers the ef- fect of these newly enacted sections on the traditional rights of a puta- tive spouse to share in a division of property and to recover in quasi- contract for the reasonable value of services rendered during the puta- * Professor of Law, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Canada-SOGI Legislation Country Report-2013
    CANADA/ONTARIO – SOGI LEGISLATION COUNTRY REPORT PRODUCED: DECEMBER 2012 Please note: This document was prepared by law students and highlights publicly- accessible information about legislation available at the time it was prepared. It is not exhaustive, nor is it updated on a regular basis. The information provided here is not a substitute for legal advice or legal assistance, and the International Human Rights program at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law cannot provide such advice or assistance. Summary Jurisdiction in Canada is divided between Federal and Provincial levels of government. The examples of Ontario legislation provided are illustrative, and not necessarily representative of Provincial legislation across the country. Federal Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lists a number of prohibited grounds of discrimination (section 15(1): “every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability”). While section 15 does not explicitly include sexual orientation, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that sexual orientation is an “analogous ground” akin to the enumerated ones (Egan v Canada [1995] 2 SCR 513). “Sexual orientation” is explicitly listed as a prohibited ground of discrimination under federal human rights legislation (Canadian Human Rights Act). Speech that wilfully promotes hatred based on sexual orientation is criminalized (Criminal Code). Proof that an offence was motivated by bias based on sexual orientation is an aggravating factor at sentencing (Criminal Code).
    [Show full text]
  • Committee of Experts on Family Law (Cj-Fa)
    Strasbourg, 21 September 2009 CJ-FA (2008) 5 [cj-fa/cj-fa plenary meetings/38 th plenary meeting/working documents/cj-fa(2008) 5e] COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON FAMILY LAW (CJ-FA) A STUDY INTO THE RIGHTS AND LEGAL STATUS OF CHILDREN BEING BROUGHT UP IN VARIOUS FORMS OF MARITAL OR NON-MARITAL PARTNERSHIPS AND COHABITATION A Report for the attention of the Committee of Experts on Family Law by Nigel Lowe Professor of Law and Director of the Centre for International Family Law Studies Cardiff Law School, Cardiff University, United Kingdom Document prepared by the Secretariat of the Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs The views expressed in this publication are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Council of Europe. I. TERMS OF REFERENCE AND FORM OF REPORT The basic terms of reference of this report are: • to undertake an investigative study into the rights and legal status of children being brought up in various forms of marital or non-marital partnership and cohabitation; • to make proposals concerning a possible follow-up. An important backdrop to this study is the existence of: 1. certain Council of Europe instruments, namely, the 1975 European Convention on the Legal Status of Children Born Out of Wedlock , which has long been recognised as in need of modernising, 1 and the not unrelated Recommendation No R (84) 4 on Parental Responsibilities and the “White Paper” On Principles Concerning the Establishment and Legal Consequences of Parentage ,2 which has not yet been followed up; and 2. human rights instruments, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (“CRC”), to which all Council of Europe Member States are Parties, and by which State Parties are enjoined 3 to respect and ensure the Convention rights for each child within their jurisdiction are applied without discrimination of any kind .
    [Show full text]
  • M. V H. [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3 1) Reference Details Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
    M. v H. [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3 1) Reference Details Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Canada Date of Decision: 20 May 1999 Status: Concluded Full Link to Case: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1999/1999rcs2-3/1999rcs2-3.html 2) Facts The appellant, the Attorney General, appealed against a decision of the Court of Appeal of Ontario which upheld a decision that s. 29 of the Family Law Act 1990 (the Family Law Act) infringed the equality rights provision in s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) and that the violation could not be justified by s. 1 of the Charter. The Court further upheld the lower court’s declaration that the words “man and woman” were to be read out of the definition of “spouse” in s. 29 of the Act and replaced with the words “two persons”. The decision arose following the breakdown of a same-sex relationship between two women, financially interdependent, H and M. Following the end of their relationship, M had sought financial relief including support pursuant to the Family Law Act and had challenged the validity of the definition of “spouse” in s. 29 of the Act which included married persons or cohabiting couples of the opposite sex. Section 1(1) of the Act defined “cohabit” as “to live together in a conjugal relationship, whether within or outside marriage”. 3) The Law • Sections 1 (rights and freedoms in Canada) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and 15 (equality rights) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; • Section 29 of the Family Law Act 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • How Constitutional Litigation Has Advanced Marriage Equality in the United States
    ARTICLES BACKLASH POLITICS: HOW CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION HAS ADVANCED MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES WILLIAM N. ESKRIDGE JR.* INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 276 I. COURTS AND THE STRUGGLE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY, 1970- 2012 ................ ........... .................... 279 A. Stage 1, Uphill Struggles: 1970-1996 ......................................... 282 B. Stage 2, Politics ofRecognition Breaks Through: 1996- 2 0 08 ............................................................................................. 2 85 C. Stage 3, From Backlash Toward Normal Politics: Post- 2008........................... ............ 288 II. THE POLITICS OF BACKLASH ............................. 292 A. The Politics ofDisgust: Backlash Triumphant, 1993-1996......... 296 B. Identity Politics: Backlash Subsides, 2000-2004......................... 300 C. Normal Politics: Beyond Backlash, 2009-2013........................... 306 III. How CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION HAS ADVANCED MARRIAGE EQUALITY INTHE UNITED STATES .................... ..... 309 A. The TransformationofPolitics: Agenda-Setting, Reversing the Burden oflnertia, and CreatingConditions for Falsificationof Stereotypes......................................................... 310 1. A genda Setting...................................................................... 310 2. Reversing the Burden of Inertia............................................. 312 3. Creating Conditions for Falsification of Stereotypes. ........... 314 B. The Transformation of Social
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 10.21 Family Courts PDF, 125 KB
    10.21 Family courts Purpose This procedure outlines the interface between the department and family courts, including the process for: responding to information about harm or risk of harm to a child subject to family court orders or proceedings, or whose parents reside separately responding to a family court order, including Magellan matters, requesting intervention by the department undertaking an investigation and assessment, where there is an interface or potential interface with the family court or family court orders intervention by the department when a child requires protection from a parent who has a parenting order, or where there are current proceedings in a family court or the child’s parents reside separately. Key steps 1. The family courts and child protection interface 2. Exchange of information 3. Assess information received about harm or risk of harm 4. Respond to an order requesting intervention by the department - section 91B orders 5. Undertake an investigation and assessment 6. Respond to a child in need of protection What ifs - responding to specific family court matters Standards 1. A child of separated parents is afforded the same right to protection and intervention by the department, as other children. 2. A decision to intervene in a family court proceeding, or to provide documentation for a family court application or proceedings, is made only after consultation with Court Services. 3. Documentation to be provided to a parent, in relation to a family court application (other than a letter to a parent under the Child Protection Act 1999, section 15(2)), is forwarded to Court Services in the first instance (for quality assurance), and is signed by a CSSC manager.
    [Show full text]
  • The Illusory Rights of Marvin V. Marvin for the Same-Sex Couple Versus the Preferable Canadian Alternative--M
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by California Western School of Law California Western Law Review Volume 38 Number 2 Article 10 2002 The Illusory Rights of Marvin v. Marvin for the Same-Sex Couple versus the Preferable Canadian Alternative--M. v. H. Sharmila Roy Grossman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr Recommended Citation Grossman, Sharmila Roy (2002) "The Illusory Rights of Marvin v. Marvin for the Same-Sex Couple versus the Preferable Canadian Alternative--M. v. H.," California Western Law Review: Vol. 38 : No. 2 , Article 10. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol38/iss2/10 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by CWSL Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Western Law Review by an authorized editor of CWSL Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Grossman: The Illusory Rights of Marvin v. Marvin for the Same-Sex Couple v THE ILLUSORY RIGHTS OF MARVIN v. MARVIN FOR THE SAME- SEX COUPLE VERSUS THE PREFERABLE CANADIAN ALTERNATIVE - M. v. H. Sharmila Roy Grossman' INTRODUCTION It has been my good fortune to know and befriend an individual named Charlie. He lives in California and is thirty-five years old. At the age of twenty-four, he acquired a very lucrative job doing exactly what he loved, writing. He excelled, writing several published pieces while his salary climbed quickly. At the age of twenty-eight, he shocked those who knew him when he left his dream job and moved to Sacramento, California.
    [Show full text]