A comparative look at divorce, laws and the best interests of the child after parental separation in Brazil and England
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5380/rfdufpr.v66i2.74001Palabras clave:
Divorce. Child Custody Dispute. Child arrangements. Civil law. Common law.Resumen
Assuring the best interests of the child (BIC) in child custody cases after parental separation is a hard task for the legal actors involved. Many factors play a role by modifying and shaping legal decision-making processes. Depending on the dynamic of such factors, the decision-making process can be more or less difficult. This paper presents a narrative review that offers a comparative look at Brazil’s and England’s legal processes and contextual issues involved in child custody cases after parental separation. The paper discusses understandings and guidance regarding the BIC as well as regulations concerning the relationship between children and their parents and divorce. The paper reveals that legal and cultural issues can shape those understandings and guidance, and can lead to significant differences in judicial process concerning child custody in each country. In particular, cultural and legal differences between the English common law and the Brazilian civil law systems (e.g., conceptions towards ‘custody’; parental responsibility; custodial arrangement; and the judicial process in child custody cases) can impact the decision-making process and the child’s best interests.
Citas
ALANEN, L. Explorations in generational analysis. In: ALANEN, L.; MAYALL, B. (ed.). Conceptualizing child-adult relations. London: Routledge Flamer, 2001. p. 11-22.
ANTUNES, A. L. M. P.; MAGALHÃES, A. S.; FÉRES-CARNEIRO, T. Litígios intermináveis: uma perpetuação do vínculo conjugal? Aletheia, [s. l.], v. 31, p. 199-211, jan./abr. 2010. Available from: https://bit.ly/2Pcz1Vw [Accessed: 15 May 2020].
ARIÈS, P. The discovery of childhood. In: JENKS, C. (ed.). The sociology of childhood: Essential readings. Batsford: Academic and Educational Ltd, p. 27-41, 1982.
ARTIS, J. E. Judging the best interests of the child: Judges’ accounts of the tender years doctrine. Law & Society Review, [s. l.], v. 38, n. 4, p. 769-806, 2004. Available from: https://bit.ly/3nbkl5E [Accessed: 13 Apr. 2021].
BARBOSA, L. P. G.; MENDES, J. A. A.; JURAS, M. M. Dinâmicas disfuncionais, disputa de guarda e alegações de alienação parental: uma compreensão sistêmica. Nova Perspectiva Sistêmica, [s. l.], v. 30, n. 69, p. 78-95, 2021.
BOWEN, M. De la familia al individuo: La diferenciación del sí mismo en el sistema familiar. Barcelona: Paidós, 1991.
BRADLEY, K. R. Images of childhood in classical antiquity. In: FASS, P. S. (ed.). The Routledge History of Childhood in the Western World. London and New York: Routledge, 2013. p. 17-38.
BRASIL. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 5 de outubro de 1988. Available from: https://bit.ly/1bJYlGL [Accessed: 13 May 2020].
BRASIL. Lei Nº 10.406, de 10 de janeiro de 2002. Institui o Código Civil. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 11 jan. 2002. Available from: https://bit.ly/1drzx5j [Accessed: 18 Mar. 2020].
BRASIL. Lei nº 13.058, de 22 de dezembro de 2014. Altera os arts. 1.583, 1.584, 1.585 e 1.634 da Lei nº 10.406, de 10 de janeiro de 2002 (Código Civil), para estabelecer o significado da expressão “guarda compartilhada” e dispor sobre sua aplicação. Diário Oficial [da] República Federativa do Brasil, Brasília, DF, 22 dez. 2014. Available from: https://bit.ly/2PgV2m9 [Accessed: 8 Mar. 2020].
CANO, D. S. et al. A. As Transições Familiares do Divórcio ao Recasamento no Contexto Brasileiro. Psicol. Reflex. Crit., Porto Alegre, v. 22, n. 2, p. 214-222, 2009. Available from: https://bit.ly/2QvfgsV [Accessed: 25 June 2020].
COSTA, L. F. et al. As competências da Psicologia Jurídica na avaliação psicossocial de famílias em conflito. Psicologia & Sociedade, Florianópolis, v. 21, n. 2, p. 233-241, maio/ago. 2009. Available from: https://bit.ly/3gvzE85 [Accessed: 18 Mar. 2020].
CRUZ, P. de. Comparative law in a changing world. 3. ed. London: Cavendish, 2007.
CUSTER, L. B. The Origins of the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. Emory L. J., [s. l.], v. 27, n. 1, p. 195-208, 1978. Available from: https://bit.ly/3xlkXdt [Accessed: 15 May 2020].
EMERY, R. E. Renegotiating Family Relationships: Divorce, Child Custody, and Mediation. New York: The Guilford Press, 2012.
FERRARO, J. M. Childhood in medieval and early modern times. In: FASS, P. S. (ed.). The Routledge History of Childhood in the Western World. London and New York: Routledge, 2013. p. 61-77.
GONÇALVES, C. R. Direito civil brasileiro. V. 6 – Direito de família. São Paulo: Editora Saraiva, 2017.
GREENE, S. M. et al. Risk and resilience after divorce. In: WALSH, F. (ed.). Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity. New York: The Guilford Press, 2012. p. 112-127.
GRIFFITH, R. What is Gillick competence? Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, [s. l.], v. 12, n. 1, p. 244-247, 2016. Available from: https://bit.ly/3tNGtFB [Accessed: 14 Apr. 2021].
HAMEISTER, B. da R.; BARBOSA, P. V.; WAGNER, A. Conjugalidade e parentalidade: uma revisão sistemática do efeito spillover. Arquivos Brasileiros de Psicologia, [s. l.], v. 67, n. 2, p. 140-155, 2015. Available from: https://bit.ly/3tLHs9B [Accessed: 5 May 2020].
HASHEMI, L.; HOMAYUNI, H. Emotional Divorce: Child’s Well-Being. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, [s. l.], v. 58, n. 8, p. 631-644, 2017. Available from: https://bit.ly/3vs4zXd [Accessed: 5 May 2020].
HERRING, J. Family Law. 9. ed. London: Pearson, 2019b.
HERRING, J. Family Law. Law Express. 7. ed. London: Pearson, 2019a.
JURAS, M. M.; COSTA, L. F. He was neither a good father nor a good husband: Marital and parental roles in low-income separated families. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, Brasília, v. 32, n. 5, 2017. Available from: https://bit.ly/3tI8zSI [Accessed: 5 May 2020].
KAGANAS, F. Parental involvement: discretionary presumption. Legal Studies. The Journal of the Society of Legal Scholars, [s. l.], v. 38, n. 4, p. 549-570, 2018. Available from: https://bit.ly/3awZoNC [Accessed: 13 Apr. 2021].
LEHR-LEHNARDT, R.; GUNN, T. J. What’s love got to do with it? (Part II): The best interests of the child in international and comparative law. In: JACKSON, T. The Best Love of the Child: Being Loved and Being Taught to Love as the First Human Right. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. p. 277-316.
MACIEL, S. A. B.; MENDES, J. A. A.; BARBOSA, L. P. G. Visão sistêmica sobre os pressupostos de alienação parental na prática clínica individual e familiar. Nova Perspectiva Sistêmica, [s. l.], v. 30, n. 69, p. 61-77, 2021.
MCGILLIVRAY, A. Childhood in the Shadow of Parens Patriae. In: GOELMAN, H.; MARSHALL, S. K.; ROSS, S. (ed.). Multiple Lenses, Multiple Images: Perspectives on the Child across Time, Space, and Disciplines. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2016. p. 38-72.
MCGOLDRICK, M.; PRETO, N. G; CARTER, B. The expanding family life cycle: Individual, family, and social perspectives. London: Pearson, 2014.
MCGOLDRICK, M.; SHIBUSAWA, T. The family life cycle. In: WALSH, F. (ed.). Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity. New York: The Guilford Press, 2012. p. 375-398.
MENDES, J. A. de A. Genealogia, Pressupostos, Legislações e Aplicação da Teoria de Alienação Parental: uma (re)visão crítica. In: SILVA, I. R. da (org.). Debatendo sobre Alienação Parental: Diferentes Perspectivas. Brasília: Conselho Federal de Psicologia, 2019. p. 11-35. Available from: https://bit.ly/3elsXmg [Accessed: 18 Mar. 2020].
MENDES, J. A. de A.; BUCHER-MALUSCHKE, J. S. N. F. Destructive Divorce in the Family Life Cycle and its Implications: Criticisms of Parental Alienation. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, Brasília, v. 33, n. 1, p. 1-8, 2017. Available from: https://bit.ly/3tLsct3 [Accessed: 10 May 2020].
MENDES, J. A. de A.; LORDELLO, S. R.; ORMEROD, T. Uma Proposta de Compreensão Bioecológica do Princípio dos Melhores Interesses da Criança/Adolescente nos Casos de Disputa de Guarda. In: MENDES, J. A. A.; BUCHER-MALUSCHKE, J. S. N. F. (org.). Perspectiva Sistêmica e Práticas em Psicologia: temas e campos de atuação. Curitiba: Editora CRV, 2020. p. 53-58.
MENDES, J. A. de A.; ORMEROD, T. Increasing Uncertainty in Child Custody Cases after Parental Separation: The Role of Context in the Decision-making Process. Family Court Review, [s. l.], preprint.
MENDES, J. A. de A.; ORMEROD, T. The Best Interests of the Child: An Integrative Review of English and Portuguese Literatures. Psicol. estud., Maringá, v. 24, e45021, p. 1-22, 2019. Available from: https://bit.ly/3ndS3rj [Accessed: 18 Mar. 2020].
MEYER, D. R.; CANCIAN, M.; COOK, S. T. The Growth in Shared Custody in the United States: Patterns and Implications. Family Court Review, [s. l.], v. 55, n. 4, p. 500-512, 2017. Available from: https://bit.ly/3gGF3ZM [Accessed: 13 Apr. 2021].
MINUCHIN, P.; COLAPINTO, J.; MINUCHIN, S. Working With Families of the Poor. New York: Guilford Press, 2006.
MOSTEN, F. S.; TRAUM, L. The Family Lawyer’s Role in Preventive Legal and Conflict Wellness. Family Court Review, [s. l.], v. 55, n. 1, p. 26-37, 2017. Available from: https://bit.ly/3xiIgoo [Accessed: 8 May 2020].
MOURITSEN, F. Child culture – play culture. In: MOURITSEN, F.; QVORTRUP, J. (ed.). Childhood and Children’s culture. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2002. p. 14-42.
MUELLER, B. The Fiscal Imperative and the Role of Public Prosecutors in Brazilian Environmental Policy. Law & Policy, [s. l.], v. 32, n. 1, p. 104-126, 2009. Available from: https://bit.ly/3dKscnL [Accessed: 14 Apr. 2021].
NATHAN, B. L. Mixing Oil & Water: Why Child-Custody Evaluations Are Not Meshing with the Best Interests of the Child. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, [s. l.], v. 46, n. 1, p. 865-911, 2015. Available from: https://bit.ly/3xicecd [Accessed: 5 May 2020].
NOROZI, S. A.; MOEN, T. Childhood as a Social Construction. Journal of Educational and Social Research, [s. l.], v. 6, n. 2, p. 75-80, 2016. Available from: https://bit.ly/2QuoGFd [Accessed: 18 Mar. 2020].
POJANOWSKI, Jeffrey A. Reading Statutes in the Common Law Tradition. Virginia Law Review, [s. l.], v. 101, p. 1357-1424, 2015. Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper No. 1438. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2485599 [Accessed: 14 Apr. 2021].
PONCIANO, E. L. T.; FÉRES-CARNEIRO, T. Conjugalidade, parentalidade e separação: repercussões no relacionamento pais e filhos(as). Psicologia em estudo, Maringá, v. 22, n. 2, p. 277-287, 2017. Available from: https://bit.ly/3gCeftN [Accessed: 20 May 2020].
REECE, H. Leaping without Looking. In: LECKEY, R. (ed.). After Legal Equality: Family, Sex, Kinship. Abingdon: Routledge, 2015. p. 115-133.
RÖDER, B. Prehistoric households and Childhood. Growing up in a daily routine. In: CRAWFORD, S.; HADLY, D. M.; SHEPHERD, G. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Childhood. Oxford: Orford University Press, 2018. p. 123-147.
ROSA, V. de C. A base de cálculo da pensão alimentícia segundo a jurisprudência brasileira. Conteúdo Jurídico, Brasília, v. 7, n. 421, p. 58-91, 2015. Available from: https://bit.ly/3xsRUoL [Accessed: 14 Apr. 2021].
ROSMANINHO, T. O conflito entre ex-cônjuges e o divórcio emocional. In: SOTTOMAYOR, M. C.; ALMEIDA, M. T. F. de (ed.). E foram felizes para sempre…? Uma análise crítica do novo regime jurídico do divórcio. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora, 2010. p. 309-311.
SKINNER, C. Child maintenance in the United Kingdom. European Journal of Social Security, [s. l.], v. 14, n. 4, p. 231-251, 2012. Available from: https://bit.ly/3tPTzlK [Accessed: 14 Apr. 2021].
SKINNER, C. Fathers, child maintenance and contact. Nemesis, [s. l.], n. 1, p. 5-13, 2002. Available from: https://bit.ly/3xlTQze [Accessed: 14 Apr. 2021].
SWARTZ, N. P. A judicial appraisal on the best interest of the child standard with regard to custody and access decisions on divorce: a constitutional developmental imprint. Journal of Social Science Research, [s. l.], v. 11, n. 2, p. 2.401-2.414, 2017. Available from: https://bit.ly/3gyfrOI [Accessed: 13 Apr. 2021].
TARTUCE, Fernanda. O novo marco legal da mediação no direito brasileiro. 2016. Available from: https://bit.ly/3sJyoC7 [Accessed: 14 Apr. 2021].
UNITED KINGDOM. Children and Families Act 2014 [online]. London: The Stationery Office, 2014. Available from: https://bit.ly/3dK3KCS [Accessed: 18 Mar. 2020].
UNITED KINGDOM. Department of Health. Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families. London: Stationery Office, 2000. Available from: https://bit.ly/3xqZtwb [Accessed: 23 May 2020].
UNITED KINGDOM. UK Public General Acts. Children Act 1989 [online]. London: The Stationery Office, 1989. Available from: https://bit.ly/3gCfpWb [Accessed: 18 Mar. 2020].
VENTURI, E. Transação de direitos indisponíveis? Revista de Processo, [s. l.], v. 251, p. 391-426, jan. 2016. Available from: https://bit.ly/2RO68Qq [Accessed: 5 May 2020].
WOLFF, L. Childhood and the enlightenment: The complications of innocence. In: FASS, P. S. (ed.). The Routledge History of Childhood in the Western World. London and New York: Routledge, 2013. p. 78-99.
WURTZ, J. Childhood as a philosophical means to a political end: liberalism, stability, and the deficiency model of childhood. 2020. 209 f. Thesis (Doctor in Philosophy) – University of Memphis, Memphis, 2020. Available from: https://bit.ly/3xkvl5c [Accessed: 14 Apr. 2021].
ZWEIGERT, K.; KÖTZ, H. An Introduction to Comparative Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Os autores que publicam na Revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
– os autores mantêm os direitos autorais e transferem à Revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons — Atribuição 3.0 Brasil — CC BY 3.0 BR, que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e da publicação inicial na Revista;
– os autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada na Revista (ex.: publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), com reconhecimento da autoria e da publicação inicial na Revista;
– qualquer pessoa é livre para compartilhar (copiar e redistribuir o trabalho em qualquer suporte ou formato) e para adaptar (remixar, transformar e criar a partir do trabalho) para qualquer fim, mesmo que comercial, devendo todavia, em qualquer caso, dar o crédito apropriado, prover um link para a licença e indicar se mudanças foram feitas no trabalho original, nos termos da Licença Creative Commons — Atribuição 3.0 Brasil — CC BY 3.0 BR e respeitados a Lei nº 9.610, de 19 de fevereiro de 1998, e outros normativos vigentes.
