I suggest to start this panel.
Thank you for joining us.
I will say a few words as vice president of the
International Council on Shared Parenting (ICSP).
This council was born in 2014 in Bonn.
It consist of three bodies:
A) A research body. B) Furthermore the professionals in family.
B) And yet we qualified civil society.
We also wanted to, and we propose good parity with
the office of the International Council on Shared Parenting.
We are now in the fourth conference.
So simply and quickly: the first conference, held in 2014, wanted to draw up the state of
affairs with regard to research into Shared Parenting, from an international perspective
The second conference which took place, was in between scientific research and professional practises.
The third conference, held in Boston in 2017, worked on switches between the research and the practice.
And it brought us very, I would say very simply to the
theme of this fourth conference, since we realized that
now we need to work better with justice and with the political world,
to spread the work out what the international board goals.
And possibly make recommendations related to the regional work.
Here. The floor is yours.
Very quickly also to present
the French situation on shared parenting: la résidence alternée.
Since it is this discussion about the French situation and laws in France.
And I want to make a point about the social cost and the individual cost of what the
France calls the right to visit and a weekend once in a fortnight: 'classic'.
This means that children see one of the parents - often the father - two days in a fortnight.
The Economic Social and Environmental Council,
in its last report in 2017, notes that the so-called single parent situation
represents 20% of families in France.
Most are not really single parents.
These are single-parent homes. That is to say that the father is still there.
And there are single-parent families where the father
is absent or died, he is not known.
But most are single-parent homes. This means that the father has rights for
visiting and classic weekend.
19% of children under the age of six live in the single parent home system.
In 84% of cases they live mainly with the mother.
And in most cases when they live with the mother.
there is a weekend right called classic:
two days once in a fortnight with their father.
These living arrangements are still unequal in the territory.
And yesterday we had two presentations that compared court decisions,
showing that the citizens, especially children, are not treated in the same manner
depending on the court of appeal to which the application is made.
thus depending on the region where the father or mother resides.
That is not meant in the French justice system.
We know that this way of living the children,
is quite detrimental to their development and good physical health.
There will be a lot of research this afternoon on these issues there.
I will not detail.
But you already know this afternoon, we will simply update on the latest research.
We also know that the world is changing.
As was said by one of Denmark's players this morning, we live
in a world where parents, young parents, share more
responsibilities in education and care for children.
We live in a world where coparenting is the rule. Where two homes spreads.
But with laws that date from the time
where parental authority and residence depended on a single parent.
And we will see just now with the following
stakeholders that this poses enormous problems in the lives of couples and
in the lives of children who do not go in the direction of appeasement
of the relationships after separation.
With the prospects that we develop, we want to explore the French level.
It is all about how we can encourage regular contact between children
and both parents and diverse relationships as stated by Michael Lamb yesterday morning.
The important thing is the relationships, not diversified, only are diversified on weekends
and on Wednesday when there is no school.
With double domicile the parents would see the whole life of the child during the week.
How to support the desire of a parent to set up two homes living arrangements
if the other parent does not want to?
There are many countries we support where the will of the parent is there.
The view of the French judge Josiane Bigot yesterday afternoon,
was to give children access tot the judges,
presumably to improve the interdisciplinary conciliation as
showed by the Namur judge Marie-France Carlier yesterday.
And then how to help single-parent households with limited resources.
Obviously what we also have to consider is the financial reality.
Both parents, but also women, are known to
have financial difficulties because of the current organization of society now.
I give the first word to Philippe Latombe
What are the challenges currently at the change of law in France.
Then a lawyer Regine Barthelemy representing the National Council of
bars, an organization on the French level.
Then we descend to the local level with Monia Scattereggia.
One who will present the Child Protection in Strasbourg.
What it is in cases of separation.
And then you will have time for questions.
And we conclude 12:30 pm. Make the best of it.
Thank you.
Thank you so much. I am very happy to be there today and
to present the work that I lead since November 2010
in the French parliament.
Then I did, as part of a parliamentary niche,
of my political group the Democratic Movement,
a law proposal on double domicile for children after divorce.
And this bill I thought was very
timid in its legal consequences, since it was a double domicile.
And that was more in the spirit of start instilling the idea
as for children they could be good to have two homes.
The first evolvement on this subject generated a lot of reaction
which was sometimes extremely virulent.
So I thought that this proposal would endorse a kind of social consensus
to be able to create audio for several years.
Eh, I've realized that it was not at all the case and
had started excitement again, coming back on the occasion of this law.
And this is still not extinct since I listened to the news again last night.
It is very cool to resubmit the proposals
in the form of changes in the court law.
And the reactions were exactly the same as last year, the same arguments.
It was not because of a rocket that it would not work.
Even when we do polls, opinion surveys,
the interviewed population is rather favourable to the
shared parenting in the double domicile.
There is some obvious vis-à-vis discomfort
with judicial decisions in terms of family law today.
Why? Because the family model in France, as elsewhere in European countries,
has changed significantly for several years.
It was thought that 'the marriage for all'
was the high point of this development.
And suddenly everything else will be able to arise and
that we would be able to see a modernization of family law.
And because lifestyles have changed attitudes, it was going to happen quietly.
In fact, it could not have a name.
We realize that the whole debate on family rights,
as soon as you touch it, in fact is a pressure cooker.
Just open the lid and then we realize that the pressure is still there.
And we realize that it is not possible to touch the justice bill project.
It is a small landscape where things are touched only on procedural consideration.
And we do not touch really the heart of the matter.
This is what I told in Parliament and to the Justice minister and yesterday:
I think that does not address the modernization of family law in France.
It is running a social risk that is relatively important.
Because today in France family law
is still based on the marriage and the divorce.
The newly composed family does not exist in French family law.
We talk a lot about the status of proud parents, but there is nothing in texts today.
Shared parental authority and double domicile are evolutions that are important.
Why the double domicile, which is a consequence of the shared parental authority,
could not be the case?
It was because of administrative issues on this subject:
Today national education does not include the fact that the child has two residences.
One speaks of the residence of the referent number one and
possibly furthermore the home of referent number two.
For example: the school only registers the address of parent number one.
So the idea was to modernize.
I proposed to this a number of amendments that found a way in law profession.
With amendments we're doing a little bit less because I did not want them to appear in media.
I wanted a substantive discussion on main lines, but yesterday they have requested a debate.
I proposed four amendments.
And you will see that these are donations to the field: they are different.
But watch.
The difficulty is that there are twelve distillation dominoes.
I want to say: there is an amendment,
the idea to appease what was called 'voluntary separation'.
It creates a distance for one parent by setting a delay on the Civil Code.
Today the Civil Code in France said that one of the two parents that wants to move away,
must inform the other parent in due course.
This is a problem in the exercise of parental authority,
I want to clarify in the Civil Code that 'in due course' could be replaced
by a period of at least three months.
Refusal. Saying: leave flexibility in time, makes it possible that the obliged messaging
takes place just before a move away instead of six months or a year earlier.
What if you do not leave time for thoughtfulness.
It is realized in practice.
In a decision that is almost immediate because it is fifteen days before the move away,
there will be insufficient time to go into mediation.
We do not have time for understanding the jurisdiction other than the
judge for family matters will know of the event.
He will end up having to decide several months after the relocation.
And in most cases will be forced.
Just found the remoteness of the child
been reinstated for example in a new school.
And not wanting to change his habits will endorse the decision.
And suddenly we will find ourselves in a parental conflict that is getting worse.
And the fact of putting a deadline has been refused.
#!$%@
Who was refused so that the game can reign in the bench division?
Saying is that we should prioritize the judge so that he
can make time specifically to defuse these conflicts.
And decided to start with.. refusing.
The procedural denials were running high.
That we were drawn in a process of law was not the subject of the amendment in parliament
It was not planned in the original project.
It's not worth it to change the Civil Code like that.
It is in something very procedural.
When it comes to time, it takes at least three months.
This is the procedure.
To say that the judge rules but in summary: this is the procedure.
In fact, there really is a caveat on that part there.
Another amendment is an amendment in principle, which was:
tell the judge everything.
In France the judge may arrange for the child and parents.
So parents can keep a link with
the child so that the child can maintain a connection with the parents.
Here the idea was to tell the judge to ensure that nothing is imposed.
But we said to the judges:
the separation of the child from his two parent must not remain.
The judge must ensure that,
while we have new technologies: even if the father is away,
he can have contact with the child.
There are devices, telephone, computer, allowing even when it is far away
the father is able to maintain a bond with the child,
even at moments when the residence is with the other parent.
It was refused.
This is a position of principle.
We'll have to discuss it later and
the real question is: when do we discuss it.
This is the question I asked the Minister of justice.
Today we can not do without a modernization of the
family law in France.
The double domicile, shared parenting, removal and treatment,
procedural voluntary separation should be treated.
As should be treated the status of proud parents.
Because we have newly composed families, that are required for the child's interest.
The proud parents could possibly have rights and duties
vis-à-vis their gorgeous children.
Today in France there is a vacuum.
A step-parent can hardly perform any act, considered as a trusted third party.
But it's very complicated to involve the third party trust
as part of a parental conflict.
Since the parent could also be challenged by the trusted third party.
Because these two new joint cohabitants or partner ..
This is something that we will have to box. And today this is not the case.
This is what I strive to do for the past 18 months.
I will continue to do so without any difficulty or fear.
Despite the highly virulent lifts, we even had the right to come out the closet yesterday.
To be always in the child's interest.
The idea is not to say that it is for the interest of both parents.
It's always in the child's interest.
And that's why I am silent. I've been working for a year.
That I will continue in the coming years. Thank you.
So that will bring support, not.
And it works?
Yes, it will. Promised. Thank you.
I thank the organizers of this conference inviting me.
I am very happy to share the thoughts around two homes living arrangements and
the modernization of family law.
So I am a lawyer in Montpellier since 1980.
The subject of modernization of family law,
I am very pleased that you use this expression,
is a subject in my practice in my recurring exchanges because
in 45 years we will say the family has changed thoroughly.
We returned still in the era of modernity family law in 1970.
It is not very far since 1970 happened in the
paternal parental authority, must still remember that.
And in 1975 we went to that revolution in divorce.
This means abandoning the only fault divorce in favour of the plurality of procedures.
By doing this in the late 90s it was discovered and it was
the subject of a report of the sociologist Théry which was controlled by
the minister of Justice Elisabeth Guigou and Martine Aubry who was
minister of included solidarity, so a report about the evolution of family law.
And Théry wrote that it was an unfinished mutation.
It could still take this term.
And analysis is: what in this mutation was
unfinished and what were the reforms that could allow to move forward and
already at that time the issue was the status of the step-parent.
Because the proud parents exist but there is no law.
He works every day but has no status.
There was also talk at the time of
issues of parental responsibility and issues of residence.
Why? Joint parental authority. Also to remember that
joint custody was introduced into French law in 1987:
The Malhuret law.
Previously there was custody. Prosecution covered everything.
That is, it was the residence and authority parent
and the other parent has visitation and weekend rights including
a right of supervision. That's all.
Only from 1987 dates the story of joint parental authority exercise: Possible,
but it is not possible.
And the principle will enter into law in 2002.
2002 is the result of a part of the rich report that says
we are to make a fatherless society.
Why?
Because visiting and weekend rights once in two weeks,
half the vacation, exercised or not exercised.
This leads to disinvestment and a fatherless society.
Behind there is the report of Forgery.
Madame Cloud to Forgery and law professor who
did the translation in legislative prospective findings and
proposals of sociologist Thery.
If there is one thing I regret now,
and I listen with great interest Mr. Latombe,
and I welcome the investment and interest in family issues,
what I regret is that today we have proposed laws
concerning family rights without prior preparation.
Suddenly there, for example the last bill, offered us to say why one wanted
a divorce immediately. Luckily is was discarded.
Good.
Clear to trace actually the fault divorce.
Saying: I want, I have grievances etc.
And that's when experience shows that since then one is said at the beginning of
a procedure about how we will say it, wants a divorce to be appeased.
Less than 5% of divorces now is fault divorce.
It is a small note to say that the reform, the law
that is being discussed, has not been prepared by any work
preparatory, no report, no exchange.
As experience shows that there is trade between
economists psychoanalysts psychologists sociologists and lawyers, which is
fundamental to the development of family law.
The reports of which I speak, from Thery or that verse de Forgery
resulted in all the reforms we had in the years 2002-2004.
For example the joint exercise of parental authority as a principle in 2002,
the introduction into the law of the possibility for a judge to set
two homes, including when the parents disagree.
And in 2004 divorce reform that has just allowed to go into a
divorce proceedings, without saying it,
why they want a divorce, simply explaining what are the measures that
I ask for the consequences of interim measures.
The facts is that once you have stand before the judge
that organized the life of the family during the procedure.
Well, if we did not have a prior agreement on the principle of divorce,
we often have that sooner or later.
Because the mass is said in quotation marks, that is the problem of what we leave behind us.
Not all the time, but still.
And we go to the organization of life.
Passing the organization of life, without a fight about
the cause of the divorce. One is yielded
That is, we can easier accept mediation procedures and changes.
We have, in spite of everything, pacified procedures since 2004.
It is very important: the procedure has taken over our minds.
In a sense in the same way as the fact of being able to tell people today
that we receive joint exercise of parental authority: it is the law.
Well it is much more accepting than previously.
And suddenly we had the conflict on the joint exercise of parental authority.
That's not to say that in terms of consequences is not difficult.
Especially at school level, for tax, at the administrative level,
all kinds of ways.
But still, it entered and returned in the minds of those concerned,
that it is not because the separation, that one of the two will be excluded from the
decisions concerning the child.
While I agree that it is the principle there after the fact,
how to do so.
But me in my professional experience, I see that there is nevertheless
some progress in this respect in the way
reports are apprehended after the separation.
So after the official introduction of two homes,
you still have to know that until that, the law of 2002 intervenes.
The jurisprudence of the court of cassation was hostile to the establishment of
two homes.
But two homes exist anyway.
Why? Because there were those who agreed.
And where through a joint petition and the agreement which results in
their contract, we manage to establish for two homes.
Today the judge may decide. It's complicated because he is there.
So what I observed since 2002 is still an evolution.
Now we have more or very few or rarely two judges that
are ideologically hostile to double domicile.
Yes it will take me to stop. Yes OK.
More ideological resistance is established
against double domicile.
And I will conclude with that words.
I think we arrive at a time, or you have to change the terminology.
That is to say, the facts made the coparent anxious and worried and
the other has domicile and access.
In summary and in caricature: there is a tenant and an owner.
And it creates an imbalance.
And I think it would be extremely important and is already in
agreements in certain cases, to arrange two homes
regardless of the time the child passes from one side or the other.
But it is always said in terms of residence.
That's it. We continue this afternoon. Thank you.
We have a few minutes for questions.
But primarily for journalists, since we are on a press briefing.
I represent the agency press Antenna.
I have just a few accuracy issues initially and subsequently the real issues.
When talking about double domicile, this is also known
the same as two homes.
In fact there is a differentiation.
There is a difference because
double domicile is simply the law or is the address of the child.
Today in the case of double domicile, it has a main address.
And a second address yes, but that is not an administrative address.
And that does not exist as two homes.
This is where the child lives.
Which is not necessarily simply administrative.
The bill I introduced in 2007 was the start of two homes,
which was amended in double domicile
and what appeared to actually be the way to get to go.
Two homes means something more.
Knowing that this is not necessarily equal 50-50 two homes.
Thank you, I only propose to ask my two questions after the answers of those who want.
It feels a bit like a crawl in front. Really had nothing at all, so actually before
there was just this story of visiting rights.
And then there is now two homes that now maintains the double domicile.
I really wonder what is in this framework. It holds an obligation by
the parents to live in the same city.
Really a balanced logical perimeter compared to the end story that one
parent lives north of Paris and the other in the south.
For the child to stay in the same environment.
That's my first question.
And given that I work for the agency press Antenna,
I am a little obliged to place things in a more European context.
I was wondering if it's true that this model
of two homes anyway no matter if it is with double domicile or not,
is not much used in the south of Europe, and in most Oriental countries?
I wondered if you had any comparative data?
Is France also a model for other countries in relation to that.
The domicile of children and
proximity of homes is one of the obvious conditions
for the establishment of two homes.
So living in the same street opposite to each other is not necessary.
But in any case, the child has to go to the same school
Should not be in a position to make an hour of transport in the morning
for this to be possible. That actually is a condition.
So then, on the second question you ask ..
Well, I can answer the second question.
Because yesterday we had very precise data from Spain.
It is a country in southern Europe.
We will have this afternoon
also from Spain.
We had this morning info from Portugal, which shows in Spain a development
of two homes arrangements
in young couples families.
This is what I explained earlier.
That info together with the presentation of our colleague José Manuel de Torres Perea yesterday
is interesting whether the law encourages double domicile arrangements
Spain is a bit more complicated than ours
because it can keep national law and regional laws, they
made a very accurate study, region by region.
When the law encourages double domicile arrangements as a first option to consider
parents dare ask these for their children
and certainly for themselves.
And we will show roughly the same thing this afternoon with the change of law
which has taken place in Arizona, just a few years we will have the
evaluation results by William Fabricius for the United States.
Data, if you have data on Greece I take too.
We have unfortunately, we have no data on Greece for now.
But there are colleagues here from Greece and they will be able to talk.
I have to do some organization, because of lunch time.
It's always heavy brought, we're just going to.
So I have to conclude in a minute with Philippe Latombe if he wishes.
One second journalist questions?
No one will conclude just in a minute we'll go for those who wish to photo shoot.
And then you end up here at 13:15. But precise 13:15
so to be able to hold the schedule.
What we gave ourselves, leave it to the people who honoured us by coming.
But the honour to come from far and with a candy timing,
simply imagine very accurate weight, will take a TGV to continue with his action.
I think of Philippe Latombe. In particular that is it.
Yes thanks.
To answer your question, I think that today France is not
not just an example.
And that other European countries are examples for France,
which can then make that France is an example for others.
It's a domino effect, but today the situation is completely
different from what we could live.
In Belgium, where for ten years there has been this evolution. The Nordic countries
in Europe and actually will come down, little by little.
And the way I see it and it is in this sense
I'm trying to run things in France. to be effective incentive and we can take
example we can build on what works in Northern Europe.
And we do not go down. Actually maybe a cultural question which,
little by little, infuses and trendy if we were to go down geographically
to the Mediterranean basin.
It is necessary, the law actually said, that Mr. Gangreat requires that the law
encourages a little more but to make a site.
And lawmakers we must have elements.
And I regret indeed as Mrs. Bartholomew, the bill that was presented to us and
is under discussion for three days only
and a report of important experiential expertise in this field did not precede.
And we were only be stopped on points of procedure.
And that we do not listen enough to the lifts from the field.
That's it. Thank you so much.
Translation: Bert Kerkhof
For more infomation >> ЧЕМ ОПАСНЫ ПИЩЕВЫЕ АРОМАТИЗАТОРЫ? Вредные пищевые добавки! - Duration: 2:27. 
For more infomation >> Jennifer Aniston Had a Ghost That Hated Her Roommate - Duration: 5:12. 
For more infomation >> Leon Bridges: Beyond - Duration: 4:08. 
For more infomation >> Jennifer Aniston Has a 'Golden Girls' Reboot In Mind for 'Friends' - Duration: 2:52. 
For more infomation >> How do frogs see in the dark? | Natural History Museum - Duration: 2:34. 
For more infomation >> Jennifer Aniston Told Dolly Not to Pee On Her Rug - Duration: 1:51. 
For more infomation >> 23歲小夥戀上48歲阿姨，同居3月就要離婚，阿姨直言：受不了！ - Duration: 6:05. 
For more infomation >> Torta della nonna - Duration: 6:46. 
For more infomation >> Dolly Would or Dolly Wouldn't? - A New Dolly Parton Game Show - Duration: 4:23. 
For more infomation >> Nóng: Con Gái Nguyễn Tấn Dũng Rút Sạch Vốn Khỏi VN, Do Lo Sợ Cha Con Bị Tổng Lú Sờ Gáy Sớm. - Duration: 46:09. 
For more infomation >> Chú Voi Con Ở Bản Đôn Remix - Nhạc Thiếu Nhi Vui Nhộn Hay Nhất - Duration: 3:17. 
For more infomation >> Kia Venga 1.4 CVVT 90pk - Duration: 1:10. 
For more infomation >> 最後一個公開上斷頭台的人#Eugène Weidmann#Guillotine - Duration: 4:05. 
For more infomation >> Kia Sportage 1.6 135pk X-ecutive in nette staat met Garantie! - Duration: 1:13. 
For more infomation >> 狂怼章子怡、怒撕黄渤、羞辱黄磊，徐峥你太狂了！ - Duration: 19:17. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz C-Klasse 200 CDI COMBI PRESTIGE - Duration: 1:12. 
For more infomation >> Environmental issus in Peru - Duration: 1:21. 
For more infomation >> La Puissance Des Dates Limites - Duration: 5:52. 
For more infomation >> Nora Vasconellos Rides
For more infomation >> RUANN - I'm just walking without you - Duration: 6:55. 
For more infomation >> BMW Z3 Coupé 2.8 i M-Pakket Autm. - Duration: 1:07. 
For more infomation >> 「サタデープラス」がM-1王者、霜降り明星の1日を密着取材 - Duration: 2:23. 
For more infomation >> Comment écrire un article scientifique en anglais (étant francophone) - Duration: 6:06. 
For more infomation >> Rafael Ilha zoa Marcos Mion durante ao vivo: ''Seu nariz vai ficar maior do que já é'' - Duration: 4:27. 
For more infomation >> Obelink Stabilo / Calypso - Een ruime festivaltent | Obelink Vrijetijdsmarkt - Duration: 2:01. 
For more infomation >> RUANN - There's No Ending - Duration: 4:08. 
For more infomation >> GTA 5 BANKA SOYGUNU !!! - (GTA 5 GERÇEK HAYAT 1.BÖLÜM) - Duration: 18:05. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét