OPINION ARTICLES
FAIR Joint custody
SAENZ IÑIGUEZ.PTE EUSKADI FEDERATION OF MOTHERS AND PARENTS SEPARATED 02/13/1911 - 3:35 -
Basque Parliament last week hosted a discussion on joint custody as the preferred model, a proposal that was approved by an absolute majority vote against PSE and EB / IU, in defense of his vote, argued two reasons that this paper seeks to refute. First reason: Joint custody is the best formula for the separation, but as the law provides for divorce is not necessary to amend this law, but enhance mediation and PEFS. Well, the law provides for joint custody only if mutually agreed and in exceptional circumstances in contentious cases. This has given rise to only 9% of cases, although it has increased very substantially the number of men who request it. Among other reasons, the following:
1. If the woman does not want joint custody of a veto and give it custody without any reasoning in the decision in 59% of cases. 2. Some women also use blackmail to the possibility of a complaint of abuse or that they will not let parents see their children to accept these conditions that they want to impose. 3. In the event of litigation petition, the judge must have a mandatory with a favorable report of the prosecutor, which means that in most cases not be granted. 4. The award of the use of the house is attached to the award of sole custody, with the added obligation of non-custodial parent to continue paying 50% of the mortgage. A major reason in time of crisis and the cost of housing to use all weapons to get sole custody.
These reasons and the lowering of age who are divorced (less than 45 years) has made the contentiousness of the divorce is fired from 35% to 41%, and the number of children suffering from alienation syndrome or parental interference (20,000 annually) and over 50,000 are inserted into contentious situations of separation, being used as currency. Proof of this exponential increase in use of the minor is the increasing number of PEFS (places for visits with children in high conflict situations). 57 in 2005, have spent more than 200 in 2011.
On the other hand, the law does not contemplate the possibility that the judge can refer the parties to family mediation, much less as in France or in Aragon, which is mandatory to refer the parties to know what which is the Family Mediation and services. And even that might interrupt the process if they request mediation. Should therefore be amended the law to introduce family mediation intrajudicial.
Family Meeting Points have nothing to do with joint custody, but on the contrary, they are places for visits of children in situations of violence inserts or high family conflict. PEFS raise bet is to go for the contentiousness and ignore the really important thing is to prevent and act upon divorce possible that the child is related to both parents on equal terms.
result, only changing the law of divorce and custody contemplating the preferred model can change the situation, as has happened in neighboring countries such as France.
second reason to refute: Joint custody is preferred as a standard and imposing force everyone to have custody and does not take into account the welfare of the child. First, what is being a tax at 86% of the cases is the single parent custody to the mother, without an obvious reason, just consider it the mother, because of her sex that can best care for the child. And this is hurting tremendously to the minor that the norm is losing one of the parents and extended family, usually the father. Is facilitating handling and even abuse in the terms already mentioned before.
And secondly, when a couple divorced, not separated from their children. Retain the right and obligation to care for, educate and interact with their sons and daughters. The figure reflects these rights and obligations in the best interests of the child custody is the preferred modeling. But the preferred joint custody is not imposed, but is awarded at the request of one or both spouses and where the best interest of the minor, the judge must assess and determine criteria that led to this award. And if not the most appropriate, awarded the sole custody. What this system does prevent is that one of the parties go their award, imposing a de facto sole custody to one parent and having children end up losing the relationship with one parent, usually the father.
Therefore, the formula custody as preferred model is not imposed on anyone, but always awarded taking into account the interests of the child and not the interests of parents. Although there is no panacea, promotes parental responsibility, equality of men and women and especially preserving the interests of the disadvantaged in divorce, who are our sons and daughters.
0 comments:
Post a Comment