A new separation of parents sets out the rights of children living with two parents. Lack the means of implementation.
For the first time we read loud and clear in pdl66A just fired the room:
"Art 155. - (Measures in regard to children) - Even in case of separation of parents youngest son has the right to maintain a balanced and continuous with each of them to receive care, education and instruction on both and keep meaningful relationships with ancestors and relatives of each parental branch. "
In today's practice legal separation, the decision to entrust exclusively to one parent the exercise of power 'parenting, has in fact supported a widespread habit among some foster parents who, with the separation from their children's lives exclude non-custodial parent (the father except for a 3% in exceptional circumstances). Conversely, non-custodial parents has led some to consider acquitted their responsibility ' parenting, fully delegating the task of every parent with custody of care unless contribute to the needs' of children being exclusively economic, degrading all forms of participation over time.
In the absence of other universally recognized ethics, law and especially its practical application, become a deep-rooted educational means to influence the behavior of society '.
is repeated with increasing frequency the alarm about the serious damage of life for children growing up "in the absence of the father " and one wonders for how to involve fathers more in their ultimate educational contributions to society 'of tomorrow, children. It therefore appears with all its gravity 'of a law that the damage is not, but rather promotes the expulsion of his father by his sons.
The current law provides for three forms of custody: exclusive, joint and alternating.
In fact, by custom, law and 'was geared to favor sole custody to the mother in order to summarily resolve the management problems of children in case of disagreement between the parents.
joint custody, in fact, does not specify 'exercise of parental authority, is never applied when parents are no agreements to share the tasks of raising children.
This allowed, in many cases, the arrogant abuse of the custodial parent did not recognize the right of children to live equally with the other parent. In other cases, has allowed another to feel entitled to ignore the right of children to enjoy the direct care and education of non-custodial parent. Law which was not enshrined in law until the adoption of the new text to the licensed rooms.
The first paragraph of the new law provides therefore a fundamental right of children.
However, the new law, remains incomplete in the implementation, as delegates to the national definition of each mode 'implementation of the right guaranteed by law. In particular, does not pose sufficient remedies to counter the will 'of a parent abusing the other relations with their children.
We are also 'convinced of the need' to eliminate any disparity 'Trai legal treatment of parents, to avoid a legal conflict trigger to obtain benefits or to punish the other parent.
This document is intended to address all the senators, illustrating the shortcomings of the law in order to present the reasons for their involvement in improving a piece of legislation that if passed in the INCREASE current 'unrest' just in cases for which the new law was conceived. Who wants to continue abusing 'feeding the conflict, there are no constraints that can impose sanctions and respect for the rights enshrined in the first paragraph of the new law.
What's missing from the new law to be enforceable?
Gia 'with the current law and' may prefer the system of custody joint, which keeps the exercise of power 'and then the parental right of children to have relationships with both parents, even in the regime of separation.
If not, and 'the absence of rules to govern every possible disagreement between the parents, that the basis of separation, indicating a severe difficulty' to communicate and solve problems related to the offspring. Each case of divergence in the decisions that parents must take the agreement is therefore likely to paralyze the decision making process of parents, unless the natural inclination of one to prevail over the other.
For these reasons, and 'practice, however, prefer a system of sole custody, which is proposed by the same lawyers even in cases of separation by mutual consent, non-confrontational in the form and also in substance, in which both parents jointly decide to separate without conflict and maintaining a common educational vision and communication on the offspring. Or parents who retain parental separation and excellent communication skills' to find their own solutions to any differences, they have opted for sole custody.
This preference of the system has triggered a unique anomaly, for which almost all 'of previous separations and' custody in form, but a good portion of them exactly like the model of 'joint custody in substance. The rarity 'of foster care has effectively ruled the joint difficult to accept the premises of his separation agreement, in which hardly a parent who is eligible to be the exclusive custodian accepts the system of joint custody.
In recent years, however, are increasing cases of judicial separation in which the court also imposed joint custody against the will 'of a parent, when you realize that forcing the sharing of parenting problems may 'not be an insurmountable goal for parents. The first paragraph of the new art. 155 enshrines the rights of children to maintain the prevailing relationships with both parents and the second paragraph, provides primary custody to both parents, thus constituting a fundamental legal address to make this consistent preference:
"To realize the objective indicated by the first paragraph, the judge who pronounces the separation of the spouses adopt measures relating to offspring exclusively from the point of its moral and material interests.
Currency primarily the possibility that minor children remain assigned to both parents, or determines to which of these children are entrusted, "
We can therefore expect that all current cases of sole custody, which in fact are managed by their parents in full sharing of responsibility 'parenting will also be defined formally "joint custody" in legal judgments separation and the decrees of the shareholders approve the separation agreement. This preference would be nominal, without changing the substance.
This is not the reform that was expected to heal the conflicts handled in the last 30 years by judges and lawyers have always thrown the figure of one of the parents outside the family, regardless of any resulting economic hardship situations brought about by actions not balanced, in fact depriving the children of the input of both parents.
missing are specific criteria that a judge must follow in determining custody to one parent.
There are rules to ensure fair sharing of responsibility 'parenting, even in cases of clear disagreement and conflict' legal status, regulate the exercise of power 'with a clear rule and not subject to differing legal interpretations, which the current law and' subject. The rule that suggests the possibility 'to exclude a parent based on uncompromising behavior, prevaricanti and the systematic denigration of one parent, rather than amplifies the conflict and encourages' parents to encourage constructive dialogue for the good of the child.
'Art 155-bis. - (Entrusted to a single parent with shared custody opposition) - The court may order custody children with one parent with a reasoned decision if it considers that the award is contrary to another of the child. Each of the parents may, at any time request sole custody when the conditions listed in the first paragraph. The court, if granting the application, has sole custody to the parent time, whereby, as far as possible, the rights of the child under the first paragraph of Article 155. If the request is manifestly unreasonable, the court may consider the behavior of the parent time for determining the measures to be taken in the interests of children, remains the application Article 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The original listed the reasons for the injury but it 's been changed. Why? Prejudice means harmful to the baby. That is, if one parent is also considered less capable of the other, must Remaining parent if it is not 'bad for the baby. Contrary to the interests of the child, the vision is well established in case law means that "when parents are in disagreement should be entrusted exclusively to the mother in the child." In fact, "the interest of the child" has exactly this legal interpretation. Each Exclusionary conduct a parent who sue to override the other parent will have 'always motivation for the good of the child. Any differences of opinion will 'always be considered, if exposed in court, a source of conflict, enough to entrust to a single parent for the good of the child.
The most 'common reasons for NOT APPLICABLE' of custody to both parents and 'always been the existence of conflict', meaning it in the event of disagreement on matters before the courts relating to children, such as time and attendance choices of education.
If the law does not state the criteria for the award shared opposition, leaving the court the full freedom 'to justify its decision came after hearing the parties, there is no guarantee good and positive that a parent is not excluded for reasons that would never be considered to remove the power shall 'normally living with a parent in the family. Numerous legal cases testify to the ease 'with which a parent is appropriate and' was ruled out with weak motivation. Furthermore, it is requested that the judge's decision is based on thorough investigations that take away a lot of time for non-critical situations, which would be better handled by a capable mediator to the conflict, a psychologist, able to understand what the real motivation and ability 'of the parents.
Here is the gap in the law, instrumental in the presence of conflict does not require parents to a parental training program to teach parents how to communicate, focusing on practical solutions relating to children , defining a plan to share parenting tasks which still ensures a fair and called to the children if both parents. To encourage the mediation must remove the odd conditions among the responsibilities' of the two parents, ensuring the fair sharing as the norm. If the rule is fairness 'in the event of conflict, can lead parents to prefer a draft prepared by them, with all freedom' and under the guidance of an expert in conflict mediation, which can also provide psychological support. By focusing the discussion on setting the future of their children, eligible parents can not overshadow, the conflict dissolves postponing the reasons for revenge. From a feeling guilt, you move to a PLANNING 'creative about the future of their children.
The current text does not provides certain rules governing the decisions of the court, which in the short time available and without knowing the real situation of the children, "determines the time and manner 'of their presence at each parent, rules are laid down' the extent and the way which each must contribute to the maintenance, care, education and upbringing of children. "
You must then complete the implementation of the law by means of sharing 'foster care, introducing clear and precise rules for standards:
Project and reducing parental conflict
lending standards in a single parent -
When and how 'of stay at each parent - Destination the former family home
- Maintaining direct
- Penalties exclusionary behavior and / or alienating
-
0 comments:
Post a Comment