The recent passage of the law of joint custody by Les Corts Valencianes has raised heated debates and interpretations, which some cases have led to personal attacks, some of them unacceptable violence. Events which have filled us with sadness and we condemn in the strongest terms. For these reasons it seems extremely interesting to reproduce this article Mónica Oltra published in the pages of The World. A reflection to explain the motives and values \u200b\u200bthat have made that commitment by supporting the law. And to bring the debate on the runways of respect that should never have crossed.
LOVE SHARED Mónica Oltra
has been approved in the Valencian parliament popularly known as the law of custody. Approval This law has provoked a heated debate between supporters and non supporters. It is understandable that the overheated debate on this issue because we are legislating on crosscutting issues that affect or may affect us all in greater or lesser extent in a moment of our lives.
Compromís their contribution to the bill has improved. However we regret that our amendments were rejected on the visibility of homo families that the law does not provide and the rejection of mediation as a tool of the court to force an agreement between the parties before determining the measures in court. Nor do we share that with a simple complaint of domestic violence or domestic coexistence is assigned directly the parent complainant, again confusing the areas of criminal law and civil law and a ground breaking our rule of law: the presumption of innocence. Despite these shortcomings of the law, and defended the vote and we think it is an improvement in family law and in advancing equality between women and men.
Opponents of this law, which these days have given us their views, which we appreciate because only from the discrepancy forms a plural society and free-hold that this rule causes serious injury to children who suffer displacement, dispersion, displacement, depression, instability, etc. problems and to respect the rules, lack of social integration and academic failure. Argues that children become children suitcase should move house and after a divorce need stability. Therefore, they say, the interests of the child recommended that joint custody is adopted only if agreed between the parties and otherwise not be adopted by a judge, as now configured in the Civil Code, the that the judicial determination of custody in case of disagreement by the parents is only possible if the prosecutor's report is favorable, the latter question quite questionable from the standpoint of the necessary judicial independence. But one thing. Arguments to use contrary to this law have the backbone to the best interests of the child. This concept is incorporated in the legal from the Convention on the Rights of the Child, has often been the excuse to move public opinion and values \u200b\u200bof ideology, which had little or nothing to do with child welfare. The opponents of divorce, which still are, one of the argument was the suffering of children. The opponents to same-sex couples could marry and share the parentage of their children, underpinned doctrinally with the child's best interests. O plots pressuring mothers with few resources to provide for adoption their children, restoring his wrongdoing while reassuring their conscience with the argument that was best for the child.
Divorce causes pain in children and in adults who suffer. So there is no perfect law to legislate on these situations. In any case, there is the lesser evil. But let us see Why suffer at least one child whose parents have separated when the judge determines custody to one parent, that when determining custody for both? Does the fact that his father and mother, or their mothers or parents are unable to agree, just a sole custody? Dejan "to discuss why? No. They discussed, but the child is deprived of sharing daily life with one of them, with the feeling of loss that this entails. Of course I agree that the ideal is that parents agree. It would be stupid to say otherwise. But when there is agreement even need to judge. It is in the position of disagreement when the law should provide answers.
Arguments about the "child suitcase" wielding opponents of this law seem even more dangerous. Saying that children need stability and trust that stability to the physical space and not the affection, I think, at the very opposite of emotional intelligence. There is housing which stabilizes a child, but the affects of their environment. Furthermore, this argument would even eliminate visits the parent without custody. Or is it that when the girl leaves the weekend with dad does not carry luggage? Or when you go half on vacation does not change residence? Do not have to practice two physical locations of reference? Does not that destabilizes? What scientific studies attest that it is more damaging joint custody by a judge determined that the sole custody decided by the judge?
This law does not impose joint custody. The judge will decide in each case. However, establishing joint custody as the preferred general criterion. From there each case must be studied and reflected, taking into account the interests of children and do justice in individual cases.
addition to this law is advanced in responsibility between men and women in the private sphere, that feminist women claiming we long ago. Are reason enough in my opinion for our yes to this law.
0 comments:
Post a Comment