DOCSLIB.ORG

LAWS3010: Family Law (Academic Year 2015/16)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LAWS3010: Family Law (Academic Year 2015/16) 09/24/21 LAWS3010: Family Law | University College London LAWS3010: Family Law View Online A Diduck. 2014. ‘Autonomy and Vulnerability in Family Law: The Missing Link.’ in Vulnerabilities, care and family law, edited by J. A. Wallbank and J. Herring. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Alison Diduck. 1995. ‘The Unmodified Family: The Child Support Act and the Construction of Legal Subjects.’ Journal of Law and Society 22(4):527–48. Altman, S. 2003. ‘A Theory of Child Support.’ International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 17(2):173–210. doi: 10.1093/lawfam/17.2.173. Anitha, Sundari, and Aisha Gill. 2009. ‘Coercion, Consent and the Forced Marriage Debate in the UK.’ Feminist Legal Studies 17(2):165–84. doi: 10.1007/s10691-009-9119-4. Anon. 1866. ‘Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee - [1861-73] All ER Rep 175.’ Anon. 1919. ‘BALFOUR v. BALFOUR. - [1919] 2 K.B. 571.’ Anon. 1939. ‘Pardy v Pardy [1939] P 288.’ Anon. 1942. ‘Slawson v Slawson [1942] 2 All ER 527.’ Anon. 1945. ‘Glenister v Glenister [1945] P 30.’ Anon. 1949. ‘Marriage Act 1949.’ Anon. 1963. ‘Perry v Perry [1963] 3 All ER 766.’ Anon. 1967. ‘Dunn v Dunn [1967] P 217.’ Anon. 1970a. ‘Corbett v Corbett (otherwise Ashley) - [1970] 2 All ER 33.’ Anon. 1970b. ‘CORBETT v. CORBETT (OTHERWISE ASHLEY) - [1971] P. 83.’ Anon. 1971. ‘Singh v Singh [1971] P 226.’ Anon. 1972a. ‘Ash v Ash [1972] 1 All ER 582.’ Anon. 1972b. ‘Mouncer v Mouncer [ 1972] 1 All ER 289.’ Anon. 1972c. ‘Parker v Parker [1972] 1 All ER 410.’ 1/24 09/24/21 LAWS3010: Family Law | University College London Anon. 1972d. ‘Pheasant v Pheasant [1972] 1 All ER 587.’ Anon. 1972e. ‘Pheasant v Pheasant [1972] 1 All ER 587.’ Anon. 1972f. ‘Santos v Santos [1972] 2 All ER 246.’ Anon. 1973a. ‘Bradley v Bradley [1973] 3 All ER 750.’ Anon. 1973b. ‘Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.’ Anon. 1973c. ‘Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.’ Anon. 1973d. ‘Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Ss 1 – 10A.’ Anon. 1973e. ‘Wachtel v Wachtel [1973] Fam 72.’ Anon. 1974a. ‘Carr v Carr [1974] 1 All ER 1193.’ Anon. 1974b. ‘Cleary v Cleary [1974] 1 All ER 498.’ Anon. 1974c. ‘Livingstone-Stollard v Livingstone-Stollard [1974] Fam 47.’ Anon. 1974d. ‘Rukat v Rukat [1975] 1 All ER 343.’ Anon. 1975. ‘Thurlow v Thurlow [1975] 2 All ER 979.’ Anon. 1976. ‘Stringfellow v Stringfellow [1976] 2 All ER 539.’ Anon. 1977a. ‘Grenfell v Grenfell [1978] Fam 128.’ Anon. 1977b. ‘Martin v Martin [1978] Fam 12.’ Anon. 1978. ‘Richardson v Richardson [1978] 9 Fam Law 86.’ Anon. 1980a. ‘Edgar v Edgar [1980] 1 WLR 1410.’ Anon. 1980b. ‘Kokosinski v Kokosinski [1980] 1 All ER 1106.’ Anon. 1980c. ‘Mesher v Mesher and Hall [1980] 1 All ER 126.’ Anon. 1982a. ‘Hirani v Hirani [1983] 4 FLR 232.’ Anon. 1982b. ‘Preston v Preston (1982) Fam 17.’ Anon. 1983a. ‘Richards v Richards (1983) 2 All ER 807.’ Anon. 1983b. ‘Vervaeke v Smith (Messina and A-G Intervening) [1983] 1 AC 145, [1982] 2 All ER 144.’ Anon. 1985. ‘Leadbeater v Leadbeater [1985] FLR 789.’ Anon. 1986a. ‘Suter v Suter [1987] 2 FLR 232.’ 2/24 09/24/21 LAWS3010: Family Law | University College London Anon. 1986b. ‘THE REES CASE [1987] 2 FLR 111.’ Anon. 1987a. ‘Buffery v Buffery [1988] 2 FLR 365.’ Anon. 1987b. ‘Buffery v Buffery [1988] 2 FLR 365.’ Anon. 1987c. ‘Suter v Suter [1987] 2 All ER 336.’ Anon. 1990a. ‘Delaney v Delaney [1990] 2 FLR 457.’ Anon. 1990b. ‘K v K [1990] 2 FLR 225.’ Anon. 1991a. ‘Clutton v Clutton [1991] 1 All ER 340.’ Anon. 1991b. ‘Cossey v Cossey [1991] 2 FLR 492.’ Anon. 1992. ‘Birch v Birch [1992] 1 FLR 564.’ Anon. 1994a. ‘Mawson v Mawson [1994] 2 FLR 985.’ Anon. 1994b. ‘Re E (A Minor) (child Support: Blood Test) [1994] 2 FLR 548.’ Anon. 1995a. ‘Burris v Azadani - [1995] 4 All ER 802.’ Anon. 1995b. ‘Looking to the Future: Mediation and the Ground for Divorce the Government’s Proposals - Publications - GOV.UK.’ Anon. 1995c. ‘Re C (A Minor) (child Support Agency: Disclosure) [1995] 1 FLR 201.’ Anon. 1995d. ‘Re J (Income Support: Cohabitation) [1995] 1 FLR 660.’ Anon. 1996a. ‘Dart v Dart [1996] 2 FLR 286.’ Anon. 1996b. ‘Family Law Act 1996.’ Anon. 1997a. ‘Butterworth v Butterworth [1997] 2 FLR 336.’ Anon. 1997b. ‘*C v C (Financial Relief: Short Marriage) [1997] 2 FLR 26.’ Anon. 1997c. ‘C v C (Financial Relief: Short Marriage) [1997] 2 FLR 26.’ Anon. 1997d. ‘Gereis v Yagoub [1997] 1 FLR 854.’ Anon. 1997e. ‘K v K (Financial Relief: Widow’s Pension) [1997] 1 FLR 35.’ Anon. 1997f. ‘Protection from Harassment Act 1997.’ Anon. 1998a. ‘Archer v Archer [ 1999] 1 FLR 327.’ Anon. 1998b. ‘B v B (Occupation Order) [1999] 1 FLR 715.’ Anon. 1998c. ‘C v C [1998] Fam 70.’ 3/24 09/24/21 LAWS3010: Family Law | University College London Anon. 1998d. ‘Re A [1998] 1 FLR 347.’ Anon. 1998e. ‘Re A (child of the Family) [1998] 1 FLR 347.’ Anon. 1998f. ‘SHEFFIELD AND HORSHAM v UK [1998] 2 FLR 928.’ Anon. 1998g. ‘Supporting Families: A Consultation Document.’ Anon. 1998h. ‘T v T (Financial Relief: Pensions) [1998] 1 FLR 1072.’ Anon. 1998i. ‘T v T (Financial Relief: Pensions) [1998] 1 FLR 1072.’ Anon. 1998j. ‘Wickler v Wickler [1998] 2 FLR 326.’ Anon. 1999a. ‘Banks v Banks [1999] 1 FLR 726.’ Anon. 1999b. ‘Chechi v Bashier [1999] 2 FLR 489.’ Anon. 1999c. ‘Clark v Clark [1999] 2 FLR 498.’ Anon. 1999d. ‘Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd - [2001] 1 AC 27.’ Anon. 1999e. ‘J v C (Child: Financial Provision) [1999] 1 FLR 152.’ Anon. 1999f. ‘Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360.’ Anon. 1999g. ‘Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360.’ Anon. 1999h. ‘P v P (Contempt of Court: Mental Capacity) [1999] 2 FLR 897.’ Anon. 1999i. ‘Xydias v Xydias [1999] 1 FLR 683 – General Policy.’ Anon. 2000a. A Choice by Right : The Report of the Working Group on Forced Marriage. [London]: Home Office Communications Directorate. Anon. 2000b. ‘Chief Adjudication Officer v Bath [2000] 1 FLR 8.’ Anon. 2000c. ‘G v F (Non-Molestation Order : Jurisdiction), [2000] 2 FLR 533.’ Anon. 2000d. ‘G v G (Occupation Order: Conduct) [2000] 2 FLR 36.’ Anon. 2000e. ‘Hale v Tanner [2000] 2 FLR 879.’ Anon. 2000f. ‘Lau v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] 1 FLR 799.’ Anon. 2000g. ‘Nwogbe v Nwogbe [2000] 2 FLR 744.’ Anon. 2000h. ‘R v Hills [2001] 1 FLR 580.’ Anon. 2000i. ‘White v White [2001] 1 AC 596, [2000] 2 FLR 981.’ Anon. 2000j. ‘White v White [2001] 1 AC 596, [2000] 2 FLR 981.’ 4/24 09/24/21 LAWS3010: Family Law | University College London Anon. 2000k. ‘White v White [2001] 1 AC 596, [2000] 2 FLR 981.’ Anon. 2000l. ‘*White v White [2001] 1 AC 596, [2000] 2 FLR 981.’ Anon. 2001a. ‘Law’s Progressive Potential: The Value of Engagement with the Law for Domestic Violence.’ Social & Legal Studies 10(1):105–30. Anon. 2001b. ‘R v Colohan [2001] EWCA Crim 1251.’ Anon. 2001c. ‘W v W (Nullity: Gender) [2001] 1 FLR 324.’ Anon. 2002a. ‘*B v B (Financial Provision Welfare of Child and Conduct) [2002] 1 FLR 555.’ Anon. 2002b. ‘B v B (Mesher Order) [2002] EWHC 3106 (Fam); [2003] 2 FLR 285.’ Anon. 2002c. ‘B v B (Mesher Order) [2002] EWHC 3106 (Fam); [2003] 2 FLR 285.’ Anon. 2002d. ‘Do Divorced Women Catch Up in Pension Building?’ Child and Family Law Quarterly 14(2). Anon. 2002e. ‘Goodwin v United Kingdom (Application 28957/95) [2002] IRLR 664, [2002] 2 FCR 577.’ Anon. 2002f. ‘P v P (Divorce: Financial Provision Clean Break) [2002] EWCA Civ 1886; [2003] 1 FLR 942.’ Anon. 2002g. ‘P v R (Forced Marriage: Annulment) [2003] 1 FLR 661.’ Anon. 2002h. ‘S v S [2002] 1 FLR 457.’ Anon. 2003a. ‘Bellinger v Bellinger (Lord Chancellor Intervening) - [2003] 2 AC 467.’ Anon. 2003b. ‘Civil Partnership: A Framework for the Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Couples.’ Anon. 2003c. ‘GW v RW (Financial Provision: Departure From Equality) [2003] 2 FLR 108.’ Anon. 2003d. ‘Halpern et Al. v. Attorney General of Canada et Al. (June 10, 2003).’ Anon. 2003e. ‘K v K (Ancillary Relief: Prenuptial Agreement) [2003] 1 FLR 120.’ Anon. 2003f. ‘Re P (A Child) (Financial Provision) [2003] 2 FLR 865.’ Anon. 2003g. ‘Responses to Civil Partnership: A Framework for the Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Couples.’ Anon. 2003h. ‘Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Jones [2004] 1 FLR. 282.’ Anon. 2004a. ‘Civil Partnership Act 2004.’ 5/24 09/24/21 LAWS3010: Family Law | University College London Anon. 2004b. ‘Civil Partnership Act 2004.’ Anon. 2004c. ‘Civil Partnership Act 2004 Ss 44 - 48.’ Anon. 2004d. ‘Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.’ Anon. 2004e. ‘Gender Recognition Act 2004.’ Anon. 2004f. ‘Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30.’ Anon. 2004g. ‘H v O (Contempt of Court: Sentencing) [2004] EWCA Civ 1691.’ Anon. 2004h. ‘P v P (Inherited Property) [2004] EWHC 1364; [2005] 1 FLR 576.’ Anon. 2005a. ‘Home Affairs v Fourie [2005] ZACC 19.’ Anon. 2005b. ‘Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Fourie and Another; Lesbian and Gay Equality Project and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others - (2005) 20 BHRC 368.’ Anon. 2005c. ‘R. (on the Application of Kehoe) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 48; [2004] EWCA Civ 225; [2004] 1 FLR 1132 (on Enforcement).’ Anon. 2006a. ‘B and L v UK [2006] 1 FLR 35.’ Anon. 2006b. ‘*Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown (Overview).’ Anon. 2006c. ‘Consultation Paper No 179: Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown (Overview).’ Anon. 2006d. ‘H v H (Financial Relief: Attempted Murder as Conduct) [2006] 1 FLR 990.’ Anon.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SN 5900 Gay and Lesbian 'Marriage': an Exploration of the Meanings and Significance of Legitimating Same Sex Relationships, 2003-2006 Depositor: Smart, C
    UK Data Archive Study Number 5900 Gay and Lesbian 'Marriage': an Exploration of the Meanings and Significance of Legitimating Same Sex Relationships, 2003-2006 USER GUIDE How did you get here? Narratives of lived experience • How did you get together? • When did you first think about having a ceremony? • What are the advantages and disadvantages of the option you’ve chosen? (link to standpoint) • What made you decide to have some kind of ceremony? • Are you both of the same mind? Tell me about the ceremony • Did you have a ceremony? If not, why not? • How did it happen? •Vows • Rings • Readings • Photos / Videos - outfits • Order of service • Who was involved? • Who played what role in the ceremony? Nature of the relationship • Did either of you propose? • Romance / love •Commitment • Is your ceremony about love and romance? •Security • So, how would you describe your relationship? • Do you hold hands in public? • Does this depend on where you are? Why? • How open are you about your relationship in your local area? Finance and Legal • How do you organise your finances? • Were your finances a factor in deciding to register your partnership? • Have you made any legal provisions of any sort? • Have you considered what would happen if you separate? (CP would require a legal separation) • Looking far into the future, have you talked about / do you talk about what will happen when one of you dies? • Wills, guardianship, ownership of property, pension, living wills Recognition • Do you think the ceremony offers recognition? •Family •Social •
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    CONTENTS Acknowledgements v Contributors ix Introduction 1 MAVIS MACLEAN Part I Framing Family Law 1 Personal Obligations JOHN EEKELAAR 9 2 Basic Values and Family Law in Recent Judgments of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany WOLFGANG VOEGELI 27 3 Family Values, Friendship Values: Opposition or Continuity? MALGORZATA FUSZARA and JACEK KURCZEWSKI 45 4 The Changing Context for the Obligation to Care and to Earn JANE LEWIS 59 Part II Regulating New Forms of Relationship Between Adults and Children 5 Changing Ways, New Technologies and the Devaluation of the Genetic Connection to Children JULIE SHAPIRO 81 6 Can Co-Parenting be Enforced? Family Law Reform and Family Life in France LAURA CARDIA VONÈCHE and BENOIT BASTARD 95 7 Supporting Conflicted Post-Divorce Parenting KATRIN MUELLER-JOHNSON 107 8 Litigation in the Shadow of Mediation: Supporting Children in Sweden JOHANNA SCHIRATZKI 123 9 Changing Commitments: A Study of Close Kin after Divorce in England CAROL SMART 137 Part III Regulating New Forms of Relationships Between Adults 10 Targeting the Exclusionary Impact of Family Law LISA GLENNON 157 11 Registered Partnerships for Same-Sex Couples in Switzerland: Constructing a New Model of Family Relationships MICHELLE COTTIER 181 viii Contents 12 Same-Sex Relationships in Italy VALERIA MAZZOTTA 201 13 Cohabitation: The Ideological Debate in Spain TERESA PICONTÓ NOVALES 221 Part IV. A Regulating the Relationships Between Adult Children and Elderly Parents 14 Maintenance of the Aged by their Adult Children: an Adequate Legal Institution? JEAN VAN HOUTTE and JEF BREDA 243 15 Obligations of Grown-Up Children to their Elderly Parents: Bulgarian Legislation and Practice VELINA TODOROVA 257 Part IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Children Have Rights?
    Do Children Have Rights? Five theoretical reflections on children's rights Mhairi Catherine Cowden A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the Australian National University June 2012 Declaration This work is the result of original research carried out by the author. Where joint research was undertaken during the candidature and used in this thesis, it has been acknowledged as such in the body of the text. The applicable research is listed below, alongside the contribution from the author. Chapter Three: the paper 'Capacity' and 'Competence' in the Language of Children's Rights is co-authored with Joanne C Lau (Australian National University). The paper constitutes equal contribution between authors in conceiving the core argument and writing the text. Mhairi Catherine Cowden 29th June 2012 Acknowledgments The idea for this thesis first arose after I was asked several years ago to write a brief article for the UNICEF newsletter entitled, 'What are rights and why children have them'. After doing some preliminary reading I found that surprisingly there was a lack of consensus on either question. It struck me that without such foundational theory that rhetoric to secure and expand children's rights seemed fairly empty. A country built on shaky foundations. Bringing this project to fruition, however, was a lot harder than identifying the problem. I could not have done it without the help of many people. First thanks must go to my principal supervisor, Keith Dowding. Without his help and guidance I would never have read Hohfeld nor got past the first paper of this thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • The Crisis of Child Custody: a History of the Birth of Family Law in England, 11 Colum
    University of Florida Levin College of Law UF Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2002 The rC isis of Child Custody: A History of the Birth of Family Law in England Danaya C. Wright University of Florida Levin College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub Part of the Common Law Commons, Family Law Commons, and the Women Commons Recommended Citation Danaya C. Wright, The Crisis of Child Custody: A History of the Birth of Family Law in England, 11 Colum. J. Gender & L. 175 (2002), available at http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/219 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CRISIS OF CHILD CUSTODY: A HISTORY OF THE BIRTH OF FAMILY LAW IN ENGLAND DANAYA C. WRIGHr Ask-may the victim of a hasty vow Ne'er seek release nor remedy? Ah no! A maiden once enclosed in nuptial ties Must wear herfetters till she sins or dies; And suffer as she may, within these bounds, No curefor sorrows and no balm for wounds. Such finished torture England'scode can boast; A formalframework, which at woman's cost, Flings a disguise o'er ruthless tyranny, And drugs men 's conscience with a special tie. 1 -Harriet Grote (1853) Associate Professor of Law at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Parents Know Best?
    international journal of children’s rights 28 (2020) 613-631 brill.com/chil Do Parents Know Best? John Eekelaar Emeritus Fellow, Pembroke College, Oxford, UK [email protected] Abstract While Article 5 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires states to respect parents’ responsibilities to provide ‘appropriate’ direction and guidance to their children, Article 18 also proclaims that ‘the best interests of the child will be [the parents’] basic concern’. But how can this be done if, as is widely accepted, the “best interests” standard is too indeterminate safely to allow courts to substitute their assess- ment of children’s interests for those of a child’s parents? This reason for privatising such decisions has been reinforced by concerns over the extent of public expenditure on court involvement in and legal aid for such issues, with the possible result of with- drawal of the law from this process. This article argues that there are inherent risks in leaving the arrangements for children of separating parents entirely in the hands of the parents, and considers various ways in which such risks might be reduced. Keywords uncrc Articles 6 and 18 – child arrangements – divorce and separation – best interests of the child – privatisation – de-legalisation 1 Introduction While there is legitimate discussion about what direction and guidance which parents and some others are responsible to provide their children is ‘appro- priate’ and ‘consistent with [their] evolving capacities’ in accordance with Article 5 of the uncrc, Article 18 seems to establish an overall obligation that states shall ‘use their best efforts’ to ensure that, in doing that, ‘the best interests of the child will be [the parents’] basic concern’.
    [Show full text]
  • Looking for Love in the Legal Discourse of Marriage
    Looking for Love in the Legal Discourse of Marriage Looking for Love in the Legal Discourse of Marriage Renata Grossi Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at http://press.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Author: Grossi, Renata, author. Title: Looking for love in the legal discourse of marriage / Renata Grossi. ISBN: 9781925021790 (paperback) 9781925021820 (ebook) Subjects: Marriage. Love. Marriage law. Husband and wife. Same-sex marriage. Dewey Number: 306.872 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design by Nic Welbourn and layout by ANU Press Cover image: Ali and David asleep 12.01am-12.31 from the Journey to Morning Series by Blaide Lallemand and Hilary Cuerden-Clifford. Printed by Griffin Press This edition © 2014 ANU Press Contents Acknowledgements . vii Introduction . 1 Framing the Questions of the Book . 3 The Importance of Law and Emotion Scholarship . 3 The Meaning of Love . 9 Outline of the Book . 15 1. Love and Marriage . 17 Introduction . 17 The Common Law of Marriage . 17 Nineteenth-Century Reform . 21 Twentieth-Century Reform . 23 The Meanings of Marriage: Holy Estate, Oppressive Patriarchy, Equal Love . 26 Consequences of the Love Marriage (The Feminist Critique of Love) . 31 Conclusion . 37 2. The Diminishing Significance of Sexual Intercourse . 39 Introduction . 39 The Old Discourse of Sex and Marriage .
    [Show full text]
  • Fifty Years in Family Law: Essays for Stephen Cretney
    FIFTY YEARS IN FAMILY LAW: ESSAYS FOR STEPHEN CRETNEY FIFTY YEARS IN FAMILY LAW ESSAYS FOR STEPHEN CRETNEY Edited by Rebecca Probert Chris Barton Cambridge – Antwerp – Portland Intersentia Publishing Ltd. Trinity House | Cambridge Business Park | Cowley Road Cambridge | CB4 0WZ | United Kingdom Tel.: +44 1223 393 753 | Email: [email protected] Distribution for the UK: Distribution for the USA and Canada: Hart Publishing Ltd. International Specialized Book Services 16C Worcester Place 920 NE 58th Ave. Suite 300 Oxford OX1 2JW Portland, OR 97213 UK USA Tel.: +44 1865 517 530 Tel.: +1 800 944 6190 (toll free) Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Distribution for Austria: Distribution for other countries: Neuer Wissenschaft licher Verlag Intersentia Publishing nv Argentinierstraße 42/6 Groenstraat 31 1040 Wien 2640 Mortsel Austria Belgium Tel.: +43 1 535 61 03 24 Tel.: +32 3 680 15 50 Email: offi [email protected] Email: [email protected] Fift y Years in Family Law. Essays for Stephen Cretney Rebecca Probert and Chris Barton (eds.) © 2012 Intersentia Cambridge – Antwerp – Portland www.intersentia.com | www.intersentia.co.uk Cover pictures: left : Th e Divinity School, Postcard of “Th e Divinity School” Ref. UK/CP2067 © Th e Bodleian Libraries, Th e University of Oxford middle: Th e Convocation House, Postcard of “Th e Convocation House” Ref. C274 © Th e Bodleian Libraries, Th e University of Oxford right: Magdalen College, Oxford ©Oxford Picture Library/Chris Andrews ISBN 978-1-78068-052-1 NUR 822 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
    [Show full text]
  • Finding Fault? Divorce Law and Practice in England and Wales Full Report
    Finding Fault? Divorce Law and Practice in England and Wales Full report Liz Trinder, Debbie Braybrook, Caroline Bryson, Lester Coleman, Catherine Houlston, and Mark Sefton www.nuffieldfoundation.org About the authors • Liz Trinder is Professor of Socio-legal Studies at the University of Exeter Law School. • Debbie Braybrook is a Senior Research Officer at One Plus One. • Caroline Bryson is a partner at Bryson Purdon Social Research. • Lester Coleman is Head of Research at One Plus One. • Catherine Houlston is a Senior Research Officer at One Plus One. • Mark Sefton is an independent researcher. About this report This report presents the findings from the Nuffield-funded project to explore how the current law regarding divorce and civil partnership dissolution in England and Wales operates in practice and to inform debate about whether and how the law might be reformed. The report is available to download from www.nuffieldfoundation.org/finding-fault About the Nuffield Foundation The Nuffield Foundation funds research, analysis, and student programmes that advance educational opportunity and social well-being across the United Kingdom. We want to improve people’s lives, and their ability to participate in society, by understanding the social and economic factors that affect their chances in life. The research we fund aims to improve the design and operation of social policy, particularly in Education, Welfare, and Justice. Our student programmes - Nuffield Research Placements and Q-Step - provide opportunities for individual students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to develop their skills and confidence in quantitative and scientific methods. We are an independent charitable trust established in 1943 by William Morris, Lord Nuffield, the founder of Morris Motors.
    [Show full text]
  • RCSL Newsletter 2019
    RCSL NEWSLETTER RCSL NEWSLETTER INTERNATIONAL SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION RESEARCH COMMITTEE ON SOCIOLOGY OF LAW http://rcsl.iscte.pt/ President: Ulrike Schultz Secretary: Lucero Ibarra Rojas FernUniversität in Hagen, Germany No 2 CIDE, Mexico Email : [email protected] Email : [email protected] 2019 this Newsletter, Pierre´s and Kiko´s in Spanish and English. (continued on page 2) PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS Dear friends and colleagues, ARTICLES & REPORTS RCSL 2019 Report, Tanya Monforte ..............................................2 RCSL 2019 Openning Statement, Ulrike Schultz ..............3 The most important socio-legal event for us in the th RCSL 2019 Plenary Presentation, Pierre Guibentif past few months was our conference for the 30 (English version) ...............................................................4 anniversary of the International Institute for the RCSL 2019 Plenary Presentation (Spanish version) Pierre Sociology of Law in Onati. It has been a great Guibentif...................................................……...................5 success with about 270 participants, 68 sessions and RCSL 2019 Plenary Presentation, Francisco Javier four plenaries, and according to the very positive Caballero Harriet (Spanish version)...................................7 feedback I have received, it has achieved well our aim RCSL 2019 Plenary Presentation, Francisco Javier of linking the generations in dialogue hoping to work Caballero Harriet (English translation)...............................9 for global justice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Power of Feminist Judgments? Feminist Legal Studies, 20 (2)
    Kent Academic Repository Full text document (pdf) Citation for published version Hunter, Rosemary (2012) The Power of Feminist Judgments? Feminist Legal Studies, 20 (2). pp. 135-148. ISSN 0966-3622. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-012-9202-0 Link to record in KAR http://kar.kent.ac.uk/35675/ Document Version Author's Accepted Manuscript Copyright & reuse Content in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated all content is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder. Versions of research The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record. Enquiries For any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact: [email protected] If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html Published in Feminist Legal Studies Vol 20, No 2 (2012) 1 DOI 0.1007/s10691-012-9202-0 ________________________________________________________________________ The Power of Feminist Judgments? Rosemary Hunter Abstract Recent years have seen the advent of two feminist judgment-writing projects, the Women’s Court of Canada (WCC), and the Feminist Judgments Project (FJP) in England. This article analyses these projects in light of Carol Smart’s feminist critique of law and legal reform and her proposed feminist strategies in Feminism and the Power of Law (1989).
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Implementation of the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 by Judge Leonard P
    Improving Implementation of the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 By Judge Leonard P. Edwards1 Introduction The Adoption Assistance and Child a child from a parent's or guardian's Welfare Act of 1980' ("Act") significantly custody. changed child welfare law in the United This monitoring is a significant re- States. Of particular importance, the sponsibility for judges. Juvenile court Act created responsibilities for juvenile judges are already the gatekeepers for court judges, making them an integral the nation's child welfare system. State part of the operation of the law. Al- law requires them to decide the pr-opri- though the Act has been in effect for ety of social service agency removal of well over a decade, it is still misunder- a child from parental custody. The fed- stood and often ignored. eral statute and state implementing stat- This article examines the implemen- utesqave designated juvenile court tation of the Act and the reasons why it judges as the monitors of social service is not working as well as it might. It of- delivery to these same parents. fers technical assistance to judges, court Through child welfare court hearings, administrators, social service agencies, the juvenile court must determine attorneys and other interested persons whether the social service agency has regarding the Act's implementation. It made "reasonable efforts" to prevent focuses upon the judicial oversight of foster care placement or to rehabilitate abused and neglected children when and safely reunite families of children they are removed from parental cus- already in pla~ement.~ tody. The premises of this paper are that In these court proceedings, the stakes many social service agencies do not ef- are high by both human and fiscal mea- fectively deliver preventive and reuni- sures.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Minnesota's Child Support Guidelines on Prior and Subsequent Children
    Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality Volume 17 Issue 1 Article 3 June 1999 Inequitable Distribution: The Effect of Minnesota's Child Support Guidelines on Prior and Subsequent Children Misti N. Nelc Follow this and additional works at: https://lawandinequality.org/ Recommended Citation Misti N. Nelc, Inequitable Distribution: The Effect of Minnesota's Child Support Guidelines on Prior and Subsequent Children, 17(1) LAW & INEQ. 97 (1999). Available at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/lawineq/vol17/iss1/3 Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality is published by the University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. INEQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION: THE EFFECT OF MINNESOTA'S CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES ON PRIOR AND SUBSEQUENT CHILDREN Misti N. Nelc* Introduction Today in the United States, a substantial percentage of di- vorced individuals remarry and have children in second and third marriages.' The creation of these "multiple families" has various repercussions, such as the increased rate of poverty existing in 3 single-parent households 2 and the increased poverty of children and women. 4 * J.D. expected 1999, University of Minnesota; B.A. 1996, St. Olaf College. I would like to thank Pablo Petrozzi for his insightful comments and Dan Hintz for his editorial assistance. I also would like to thank Professor Jean Gerval for helping me choose this topic. 1. See Marianne Takas, State Guideline Options for Addressing Subsequent Families in Child Support Guidelines, FAIR$HARE, June 1993, at 15 ("An estimated 75 percent of divorced persons remarry, and many go on to have additional chil- dren.") [hereinafter Takas, State Guideline Options]; see also U.S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, U.S.
    [Show full text]