JournalTOCs

International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family
Journal Prestige (SJR): 0.223

Citation Impact (citeScore): 1
Number of Followers: 20

Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
ISSN (Print) 1360-9939 - ISSN (Online) 1464-3707
Published by Oxford University Press

[412 journals]

Surrogacy in China: A Dilemma Between Public Policy and the Best Interests
of Children
- Authors: Xiao Y; Li J, Zhu L.
  Pages: 1 - 19
  Abstract: AbstractDriven by high demands from society, the surrogacy industry has flourished in recent years in China with an estimate of 10,000 resulting children born every year. The legislature has deliberately chosen to refrain from prescribing rules on how surrogacy should be managed and governed in China. Through adjudicating surrogacy-related disputes, Chinese courts have played a crucial role in establishing the framework under which surrogacy operates. Applying Article 3 of the 2001 Measure expansively in conjunction with some general principles such as public order and morals, the court has laid down a de facto general ban on surrogacy of any form. The assignment of legal parentage has been influenced by this public policy consideration and Chinese courts ruled out the enforceability of parentage transfer agreements between the parties. With the surrogate carrier being designated as the natural mother and intending mother as the social parent, this arrangement creates further uncertainties and confusion over legal parentage and custody, which is not in the best interest of the resulting child.
  PubDate: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 00:00:00 GMT
  DOI: 10.1093/lawfam/ebz018
  Issue No: Vol. 34, No. 1 (2020)
Protecting Identity In Collaborative Assisted Reproduction: The Right To
Know One’s Gestational Surrogate
- Authors: Mulligan A.
  Pages: 20 - 42
  Abstract: AbstractGestational surrogacy presents a unique form of parenthood: that which is biological but not genetic. This new form of parenthood demands a re-examination of the rights and duties that arise from the parent–child relationship. This article is concerned with the surrogate-born person’s right to know his or her gestational surrogate, an aspect of the right to identity. The springboard for this analysis is draft legislation in Ireland that proposes the creation of a legal right to trace one’s gestational surrogate. The purpose of this article is to interrogate the normative underpinnings of the legal right to know one’s gestational surrogate, exploring whether instrumental or deontological/rights-based justifications provide a better theoretical basis for the creation of a legal right. The article begins by exploring the link between the gestational relationship and identity formation, drawing on current scholarship on the metaphysics and physiology of pregnancy. It goes on to consider instrumental justifications for the creation of a legal right to know one’s surrogate, but argues that deontological or rights-based justifications provide the more compelling basis for creation of the legal right. The article concludes that this applies to all legal regimes that would seek to establish a legal right to know one’s surrogate, and is especially apt in the case of the draft Irish legislation, due to the requirement of mandatory disclosure.
  PubDate: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 00:00:00 GMT
  DOI: 10.1093/lawfam/ebz017
  Issue No: Vol. 34, No. 1 (2020)
Shared Care and Child Maintenance Policies in Nordic Countries
- Authors: Hakovirta M; Eydal G.
  Pages: 43 - 59
  Abstract: AbstractThe Nordic welfare model is referred to as the dual earner/dual carer model, where the explicit policy goal is to promote the equal sharing of the responsibility of care for children and paid work among men and women. However, how does the dual earner/dual carer model apply to parents who do not live together but who share care, ie, both parents spending substantial time caring for and living with their child' In this article, we compare child maintenance policies in the five Nordic countries – Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden – as a means of interrogating how dual earner/carer ideals and realities play out for parents who share care but do not live together. The article makes a unique contribution to the knowledge of how the ideology and practice of shared care is implemented across Nordic countries. Based on vignette data collected in 2017, we show that despite an emphasis on the dual earner/dual carer model, in most cases, Finland and Iceland still refer to a male breadwinner model in their maintenance policies and do not recognise shared care arrangements as matters needing particular policy consideration. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, on the other hand, recognise shared care in their laws and substantially reduce child maintenance payments in cases of shared care.
  PubDate: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 00:00:00 GMT
  DOI: 10.1093/lawfam/ebz016
  Issue No: Vol. 34, No. 1 (2020)
Cross-Border Removal and Retention of a Child – Croatian Practice
and European Expectation
- Authors: Župan M; Drventić M, Kruger T.
  Pages: 60 - 83
  Abstract: AbstractThis research relates to the collection, processing, and analysis of incoming child abduction proceedings of the four biggest municipal courts (of Zagreb, Osijek, Split, and Rijeka) in Croatia. The research focused on proceedings initiated between 1 July 2013 and 1 July 2017. The collected decisions (all unpublished) were critically evaluated with the help of a number of variables. The results are comparable to other national and international studies. The most interesting studies relate to the duration of certain procedures, voluntary return of the child and achievement of an amicable agreement, the hearing of children, the different causes of abduction, the decisions in return proceedings, and the relevance of the social welfare report to a return decision. This research allows us to evaluate the Croatian practices against the requirements of European and international legal frameworks. The results have already led to law reform in Croatia.
  PubDate: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 00:00:00 GMT
  DOI: 10.1093/lawfam/ebz019
  Issue No: Vol. 34, No. 1 (2020)
Pluralist Marriage Laws in a Former Colonial System: Cultural Authenticity
or Hybridisation'
- Authors: Bonthuys E.
  Pages: 84 - 104
  Abstract: AbstractLegal pluralism in former colonial territories, like South Africa, often involve the simultaneous existence of multiple marriage forms, distinguishing marital forms associated with former colonial systems from indigenous forms of marriage. These pluralist systems are not value-neutral but continue to favour marriages associated with colonial rules and processes. In addition, they create complicated distinctions between different forms of marriage which are thought to reflect the distinctive cultural or religious identities of those who marry according to these systems. This article argues for an alternative approach: the explicit recognition and encouragement of legal hybridisation as a strategy for disrupting colonial identities and hierarchies which recognises and values the historical and contemporary processes of hybridisation in the law and social practices. It uses the metaphors of the language politics around Afrikaans to describe a rigid form of pluralism based on claims of authentic identity on the one hand, and of isishweshwe, a colourful cotton fabric, which represents the resilience, vitality, and creative exchange which characterises hybridity and which promises to address gender and racial inequality inherent in the current model.
  PubDate: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 00:00:00 GMT
  DOI: 10.1093/lawfam/ebz015
  Issue No: Vol. 34, No. 1 (2020)