首页> 外文OA文献 >The use of shared residence arrangements in English and Swedish family law: in the child's best interests or a covert resurrection of traditional patriarchal structures?
【2h】

The use of shared residence arrangements in English and Swedish family law: in the child's best interests or a covert resurrection of traditional patriarchal structures?

机译:在英国和瑞典家庭法中使用共同居住安排:儿童的最佳利益还是传统宗法结构的隐蔽复活?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Shared residence was previously viewed with suspicion by the judiciary, but following D v D [2001] a line of cases has developed, where this order is said to benefit children, firstly, by helping them feel cherished, and, secondly, by improving parental cooperation and thus protect children from the harmful effects of exposure to their conflicts. This thesis reviews available research to conclude that shared residence is so unlikely to achieve either objective where it is ordered against a parent’s wishes, that the order should be restricted to families where both parents agree. Autopoietic theory is combined with feminist critique to explain the selfreferential nature of law, its tendency to prioritise children’s abstract need for fathers and its inability to fully understand parents’ complex disputes. The thesis compares the preconditions for, and use of, shared residence in England and in Sweden, concluding that despite better preconditions, Swedish court-imposed shared residence arrangements are unlikely to last, and can harm children by increasing their exposure to conflict. There is also, in contested cases, a worrying focus on equal rights for parents, with children who have grown up in these arrangements complaining of feeling objectified. This, combined with a growing emphasis in English case law on sending symbolic messages about status, is a strong argument against a shared residence presumption. It seems naïve to assume that new, collaborative co-parenting patterns can develop after separation merely because law coerces the adults into a particular kind of formal arrangement. The suspicion is therefore raised that law’s agenda is in fact something very different: to mask familial and societal change by making post-separation families conform to a binuclear pattern which resembles the nuclear ideal not only in membership but also in its hierarchical structure.
机译:司法部门先前曾怀疑共有住所,但在D v D [2001]之后,出现了一系列案件,据称该命令使儿童受益,首先是通过帮助他们感到珍惜,其次是通过改善父母关系。合作,从而保护儿童免受暴露于冲突中的有害影响。本文对现有研究进行了总结,得出结论认为,如果按照父母的意愿下令共同居住,则不可能实现任何一个目标,因此该命令应限于父母双方均同意的家庭。自我解释理论与女权主义批评相结合,解释了法律的自我指称性质,其优先考虑孩子对父亲的抽象需求的倾向以及无法充分理解父母的复杂纠纷。本文比较了在英格兰和瑞典共同居住的先决条件和使用条件,得出结论:尽管有更好的先决条件,瑞典法院施加的共同居住安排还是不太可能持久,并可能通过增加儿童的冲突风险来伤害儿童。在有争议的情况下,人们也非常关注父母的平等权利,在这种安排下长大的孩子抱怨感到客观。再加上英国判例法对发送有关身份的象征性信息的日益重视,强烈反对共同居住的推定。仅仅因为法律将成年人强迫成一种特殊的形式安排,就可以断言在分离后可以发展出新的,合作的父母共同养育模式似乎是天真的。因此,人们怀疑法律的议程实际上是完全不同的:通过使分离后的家庭符合双核模式来掩盖家族和社会的变化,这种模式不仅在成员资格上而且在其等级结构上都类似于核理想。

著录项

  • 作者

    Newnham Annika Brandberg;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2011
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 {"code":"en","name":"English","id":9}
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号