Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GRIA,volume 24))

  • 874 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter describes and analyses the perpetual pendular movement of family law between status and contract from a global perspective. It focuses on substantive and procedural family law with regard to parents and children and with regard to life partners. The conclusions of the analysis are quite ambivalent. Firstly, whereas family law is clearly moving towards contract with regard to old family formations, the contrary is true for new family formations. Surrogacy and same-sex partnerships for example crystallise as new statuses. Secondly, the movement towards contract is rarely considered to be contractualisation pur sang, with civil effect. Pacts, agreements, arbitration awards and other instruments alike with regard to domestic relations are indeed not considered to be as binding upon the parties or the courts as contracts in general. Thirdly, the movement towards status does not necessarily bear witness to family law exceptionalism vis-à-vis private law. States indeed increasingly intervene in private law relations in general. In sum, the high permeability of the demarcations between the state, the family and the market impedes a categorical approach—which may be a desirable outcome all in all.

This report was also published in Swennen, Contractualisation of Family Law – Global Perspectives, Springer, 2015, pp. 1–59.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Argentina Graciela Medina Universidad de Buenos Aires | Ursula C. Basset Pontificia Universidad Católica Belgium Yves-Henri Leleu Université de Liège & Nicole Gallus Université Libre de Bruxelles Brazil Luiz Edson Fachin Federal University of Parana Burundi Gervais Gatunange Université du Burundi Cameroon Yannick Serge Nkoulou Université de Ngaoundéré Canada (Québec) Christine Morin Université Laval Canada (Common Law) Robert Leckey McGill University Croatia Branka Rešetar University of Osijek & Ivana Milas Klarić University of Zagreb Denmark Ingrid Lund-Andersen University of Copenhagen England & Wales Jens M. Scherpe, Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge & Brian Sloan Robinson College, Cambridge Finland Sanna Koulu University of Helsinki France Hugues Fulchiron Université Jean Moulin Lyon III Germany Anne Röthel Bucerius Law School Hamburg Greece Dimitra Papadopoulou-Klamari University of Athens Ireland Maebh Harding University of Warwick & Louise Crowley University College Cork Italy Maria Rosaria Marella University of Perugia Malaysia Sridevi Thambapillay University of Malaya Poland Tomasz Sokołowski Adam Mickiewicz University of Poznań Puerto Rico Pedro F. Silva-Ruiz Portugal Rita Lobo Xavier Catholic University of Portugal Romania Marieta Avram & Cristina Nicolescu Universitatea din Bucureşti Scotland Jane Mair University of Glasgow Spain Carlos Martínez de Aguirre Aldaz Universidad de Zaragoza Taiwan Chung-Yang Chen Soochow University Taipei The Netherlands Katharina Boele-Woelki University of Utrecht & Merel Jonker University of Utrecht Turkey Kadir Berk Kapancı Istanbul Bilgi University USA Adrienne Hunter Jules & Fernanda G. Nicola American University Washington College of Law.

    Not all reports are included in this edited volume. The reports that were not included are available online on the congress website: http://www.iacl2014congress.com/.

  2. 2.

    For example Denmark; Poland; Québec.

  3. 3.

    For example Burundi; Cameroon; Scotland; Taiwan.

  4. 4.

    Italy.

  5. 5.

    USA.

  6. 6.

    For example Belgium; Canada (Common Law); Croatia; Finland; Germany; Greece; Netherlands; Puerto Rico; Romania; Scotland.

  7. 7.

    See Burden v United Kingdom, (App. 13378/05), 28 April 2008 [GC], ECHR 2008-III.

  8. 8.

    For example Canada (Common Law); Scotland.

  9. 9.

    Denmark; Poland.

  10. 10.

    Burundi; Greece; Turkey.

  11. 11.

    Germany: art. 6(1) Basic Law; Ireland; Portugal.

  12. 12.

    For example Croatia; Greece.

  13. 13.

    Portugal; Malaysia.

  14. 14.

    Burundi: art. 30 Constitution; Germany, art. 6(2) Basic Law; Ireland, art. 42 Constitution; Malaysia, art. 12(5) Constitution; Poland, art. 48 and 53.3 Constitution; Romania, art. 48 Constitution.

  15. 15.

    Romania.

  16. 16.

    Brazil: art. 226 Constitution; Cameroon: Preamble to the 1996 Constitution; France: Preamble to the 1946 Constitution; Spain: art. 39 Constitution.

  17. 17.

    Croatia; Germany: art. 6(1) Basic Law; Greece: art. 21 Constitution; Ireland: art. 41 Constitution; Poland.

  18. 18.

    Finland: art. 19 Constitution; Poland: art. 71 Constitution; Portugal; Turkey: art. 41 Constitution.

  19. 19.

    Belgium; Denmark; Finland.

  20. 20.

    Canada (Common Law); Denmark.

  21. 21.

    For example Québec.

  22. 22.

    Belgium; Croatia; France; Germany; Poland; Portugal; ROC (Taiwan); Romania; Spain; Turkey.

  23. 23.

    Brazil; Ireland; Malaysia; USA.

  24. 24.

    Argentina; Canada (Common Law); Denmark; Finland; Greece.

  25. 25.

    Cameroon.

  26. 26.

    Netherlands.

  27. 27.

    Belgium; Brazil; Cameroon (except vis-à-vis the Constitution); Croatia; France; Germany; Greece; Netherlands; Poland; Portugal; ROC (Taiwan); Spain; Turkey.

  28. 28.

    Burundi; Denmark; England & Wales; Ireland; Malaysia; Romania; Scotland.

  29. 29.

    Canada (Common Law); England & Wales; Finland.

  30. 30.

    For example Argentina; USA.

  31. 31.

    For example Greece; Puerto Rico; Romania.

  32. 32.

    For example Brazil; Ireland.

  33. 33.

    USA.

  34. 34.

    Denmark; Poland.

  35. 35.

    Poland.

  36. 36.

    Belgium: art. 22bis Constitution; Croatia; Denmark; Finland: art. 19 Constitution; Greece: art. 21 Constitution; Ireland: Thirty-First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012; Poland: art. 72 Constitution; Romania: art. 49 Constitution; Scotland; Spain: art. 39 Constitution.

  37. 37.

    Belgium; France.

  38. 38.

    Germany: BVerfG 103, 89.

  39. 39.

    Croatia; Greece; Ireland; Taiwan; USA.

  40. 40.

    Finland; Québec; Romania.

  41. 41.

    Finland; Netherlands; Québec.

  42. 42.

    Portugal.

  43. 43.

    Belgium; Scotland; USA.

  44. 44.

    Canada (Common Law); England & Wales; Spain.

  45. 45.

    Canada (Common Law).

  46. 46.

    Cameroon; Malaysia.

  47. 47.

    For example Greece; Taiwan.

  48. 48.

    Belgium; Canada (Common Law); Croatia; Denmark; England & Wales; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Ireland; Netherlands; Portugal; Puerto Rico; Québec; Romania; Spain; Taiwan; Turkey.

  49. 49.

    Belgium; Netherlands.

  50. 50.

    Germany: ‘Treu und Glauben’; Québec.

  51. 51.

    Portugal; Puerto Rico.

  52. 52.

    Portugal; Turkey.

  53. 53.

    Canada (Common Law); Croatia; Portugal.

  54. 54.

    Finland: ‘welfarist contract law’ or ‘social civil law’; Portugal; Romania: ‘ordre public économique’.

  55. 55.

    Germany; Greece.

  56. 56.

    For example: Belgium; Cameroon; Finland.

  57. 57.

    Brazil; Croatia; France; Malaysia; Netherlands; Poland; Portugal.

  58. 58.

    Comp. Greece; Turkey.

  59. 59.

    England & Wales; Italy; Romania; Scotland.

  60. 60.

    Belgium.

  61. 61.

    Canada (Common Law); Belgium; Romania; Scotland.

  62. 62.

    Greece.

  63. 63.

    For example Belgium: art. 1388 and 1478 CC; Cameroon: art. 1388 CC; France: art. 1388 CC; Portugal: art. 1618, 2° and 1699 CC; Puerto Rico: art. 1268 CCPR and Albanese D’Imperio v Secretary of the Treasury, 223 F 2d 413 (1955) (single joint tax return); Québec: art. 391 Civil Code; Romania: art. 332 para 2 CC.

  64. 64.

    Canada (Common Law); Spain; Scotland. To a lesser extent: Malaysia; Netherlands.

  65. 65.

    England & Wales; Finland; Germany; Greece; Romania; Scotland: Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, retrieved at http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/42.html on 24 October 2014; Taiwan.

  66. 66.

    Germany.

  67. 67.

    Belgium; England & Wales: Merritt v Meritt [1970] EWCA Civ 6, retrieved at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/ on 21 June 2014, as distinguished from Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 and also see Greece.

  68. 68.

    France; Greece.

  69. 69.

    Brazil.

  70. 70.

    France; Spain. Comp. Puerto Rico.

  71. 71.

    Belgium; Canada (Common Law); England & Wales; France; Ireland; Poland; Romania; Scotland; Spain; Turkey.

  72. 72.

    Denmark.

  73. 73.

    Taiwan.

  74. 74.

    Belgium: Supreme Court 9 November 2012, www.cass.be; Canada (Common Law); Croatia; Denmark; England & Wales; Portugal; Scotland.

  75. 75.

    For example Romania: art. 332 para 2 CC; Spain: art. 66 CC. Comp. Puerto Rico: 31 L.P.R.A. § 3552 (Westlaw).

  76. 76.

    For example Croatia; Finland; Scotland.

  77. 77.

    For example Romania.

  78. 78.

    For example Malaysia.

  79. 79.

    For example Québec, art. 522 et seq. CC.

  80. 80.

    For example Belgium; Burundi.

  81. 81.

    Portugal.

  82. 82.

    Romania.

  83. 83.

    Brazil; Cameroon; Canada (Common Law); Croatia; France; Germany; Greece; Ireland; Malaysia; Netherlands; Québec; Romania; Taiwan.

  84. 84.

    France.

  85. 85.

    Germany; Romania; Spain.

  86. 86.

    Québec; France.

  87. 87.

    Scotland.

  88. 88.

    Scotland; France.

  89. 89.

    Belgium: art. 27 and 56 Act on Medically Assisted Reproduction 2007.

  90. 90.

    Belgium; Finland; Netherlands.

  91. 91.

    Belgium; Brazil; Burundi; Cameroon; Canada (Common Law); Finland; England & Wales; Germany; Greece; Poland; Scotland; Turkey; USA.

  92. 92.

    Canada (Common Law); England & Wales; Greece; USA.

  93. 93.

    Canada (Common Law); England & Wales; Netherlands; Scotland; USA.

  94. 94.

    Belgium; Germany. See however the Ireland report: the issue will be resolved in the best interest of the child.

  95. 95.

    See Labassée v France, (App. 65941/11), 26 June 2014 [5th section], ECHR; Menneson v France, (App. 65192/11), 26 June 2014 [5th section], ECHR. Also see Argentina.

  96. 96.

    See the overview in S.H. and others v Austria, (App. 57813/00), 3 November 2011 [GQ], ECHR 1879, § 35.

  97. 97.

    USA.

  98. 98.

    Term used in the USA report.

  99. 99.

    For example Belgium; Brazil; Burundi; England & Wales; Finland; Germany; Ireland; Poland; Scotland; Turkey; USA.

  100. 100.

    For example Belgium.

  101. 101.

    For example Denmark; England & Wales; Finland; Poland; Spain.

  102. 102.

    Canada (Common Law); Greece; Netherlands.

  103. 103.

    Netherlands; Québec; Spain.

  104. 104.

    England & Wales; Scotland.

  105. 105.

    Belgium; Denmark.

  106. 106.

    England & Wales; Scotland.

  107. 107.

    Canada (Common Law); Netherlands.

  108. 108.

    Croatia; Portugal; Spain; USA.

  109. 109.

    Belgium.

  110. 110.

    Finland; Portugal.

  111. 111.

    France.

  112. 112.

    Brazil.

  113. 113.

    For example Canada (Common Law).

  114. 114.

    Comp. Belgium; Burundi.

  115. 115.

    Scotland.

  116. 116.

    Denmark; England & Wales; Greece; Québec; Finland; Romania; Spain; USA. A reform is also underway in Argentina.

  117. 117.

    Canada (Common Law); Ireland.

  118. 118.

    Denmark.

  119. 119.

    Finland.

  120. 120.

    Canada (Common Law) (British Columbia and Ontario); USA.

  121. 121.

    For example Burundi, England & Wales; Ireland.

  122. 122.

    See sections 2, 15(1), 16a and 34(3) Paternity Act 700/1975, retrieved at www.finlex.fi on 16 October 2014.

  123. 123.

    France; Luxembourg. Proposals are also made in Belgium and in Brazil.

  124. 124.

    Croatia; England & Wales; Germany; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Spain.

  125. 125.

    Belgium; Brazil; Cameroon; Canada (Common Law); England & Wales; Finland; Germany; Greece; Italy; Portugal; Québec; Romania; Scotland; Spain; Turkey; USA.

  126. 126.

    USA.

  127. 127.

    For example by same-sex parents: X. and others v Austria, (App. 19010/07), 19 February 2013 [GQ], ECHR 148, § 100.

  128. 128.

    Cameroon.

  129. 129.

    USA.

  130. 130.

    Customary contractual adoption forms of aboriginal peoples.

  131. 131.

    Malaysia.

  132. 132.

    England & Wales; Finland. This is the default system in Poland.

  133. 133.

    Canada (Common Law).

  134. 134.

    USA.

  135. 135.

    Ireland.

  136. 136.

    Belgium; Cameroon; England & Wales; France; Germany; Greece; Romania; Spain.

  137. 137.

    For example Belgium; Brazil; Croatia; France; Germany; Ireland; Netherlands; Portugal; Romania; Spain.

  138. 138.

    Germany; Poland.

  139. 139.

    Belgium; Brazil; Canada (Common Law); Croatia; France; Germany; Greece; Turkey; USA.

  140. 140.

    Ireland: art. 41 Constitution.

  141. 141.

    England & Wales; Ireland.

  142. 142.

    Denmark; England & Wales; Finland; France; Germany; Ireland; Netherlands; Scotland.

  143. 143.

    Zaunegger v Germany, (App. 22028/04), 3 December 2009 [5th section], ECHR, § 63.

  144. 144.

    For example Scotland.

  145. 145.

    Finland; France; Netherlands.

  146. 146.

    England & Wales; France; Netherlands; Scotland (father or second female parent, not stepparent).

  147. 147.

    Finland.

  148. 148.

    Canada (Common Law); England & Wales; Scotland.

  149. 149.

    USA [Contracting Assisted Reproduction Parentage].

  150. 150.

    For example Ahrens v Germany (App. 45071/09), 22 March 2012, ECHR.

  151. 151.

    For example Hoge Raad 30 November 2007, ECLI:NL:HR:2007:BB9094, retrieved at www.rechtspraak.nl on 18 June 2014.

  152. 152.

    Canada (Common Law).

  153. 153.

    Belgium; Brazil; France; Netherlands; Greece; Puerto Rico; Québec; Taiwan; Turkey.

  154. 154.

    England & Wales.

  155. 155.

    Cameroon.

  156. 156.

    For example Argentina; Belgium; Cameroon; Germany; Greece; Ireland; Netherlands; Poland; Portugal; Québec; Turkey.

  157. 157.

    Romania: art. 31 (2) Act n° 272/2004 of 21 June 2004.

  158. 158.

    Belgium; Canada (Common Law); Denmark.

  159. 159.

    Canada (Common Law): Doe v Alberta, 2007 ABCA 50 [http://canlii.ca/t/1qhjr] (with regard to maintenance).

  160. 160.

    For example Croatia; Poland.

  161. 161.

    For example Denmark; Finland; Greece; Malaysia; Portugal; Romania.

  162. 162.

    In most cases when parents want to divorce by mutual consent (for example Argentina; France; Greece; Romania; Spain), but in the Netherlands in all cases of parental separation or divorce.

  163. 163.

    Netherlands.

  164. 164.

    England & Wales; USA.

  165. 165.

    Canada (Common Law).

  166. 166.

    Cameroon; France; Portugal; Romania.

  167. 167.

    For example Belgium; England & Wales: s. 2(9) Children [England, Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland] Act 1989; Finland; Greece; Poland; Romania; Taiwan.

  168. 168.

    For example Argentina; Québec.

  169. 169.

    For example Denmark.

  170. 170.

    France: art. 377 CC.

  171. 171.

    See for example Hokkanen v Finland, (App. 19823/92), 23 September 1994 [Chamber], 19 EHRR 139, § 64.

  172. 172.

    France; Spain.

  173. 173.

    For example Burundi.

  174. 174.

    France.

  175. 175.

    France; Spain.

  176. 176.

    Canada (Common Law).

  177. 177.

    France.

  178. 178.

    Croatia; Finland; Germany; Greece; Ireland; Netherlands; Poland; Portugal; Scotland; Turkey; USA.

  179. 179.

    Germany; Netherlands: Hoge Raad 20 May 1938, NJ 1939, 94; Poland.

  180. 180.

    Turkey.

  181. 181.

    Scotland: s. 1(5) Children Act 1989 and England & Wales.

  182. 182.

    Canada (Common Law); England & Wales: AI v MT [2013] EWHC 100 (Fam); France; Germany: Bundesgerichtshof 11 May 2005, FamRZ 2005, 1741; Greece; Ireland; Spain. See also for Canada (Common Law) Doe v Alberta, 2007 ABCA 50 [http://canlii.ca/t/1qhjr], § 26 (with regard to maintenance).

  183. 183.

    Scotland.

  184. 184.

    England & Wales.

  185. 185.

    England & Wales; France.

  186. 186.

    Denmark; Ireland: s. 17(2) Guardianship of Infants Act 1964; Romania; Scotland; Turkey.

  187. 187.

    For example Scotland.

  188. 188.

    Belgium; Puerto Rico; Turkey.

  189. 189.

    Cameroon; France.

  190. 190.

    Netherlands.

  191. 191.

    Canada (Common Law); England & Wales; Ireland; Netherlands; Poland.

  192. 192.

    Argentina; Germany; Malaysia; USA.

  193. 193.

    Romania.

  194. 194.

    England & Wales.

  195. 195.

    For example in Burundi; Cameroon; Malaysia; Poland; Romania; Taiwan.

  196. 196.

    Belgium.

  197. 197.

    France.

  198. 198.

    USA.

  199. 199.

    Belgium; France.

  200. 200.

    Belgium; Brazil; Canada (Common Law); England & Wales; France; Scotland; The Netherlands; USA (partim).

  201. 201.

    England & Wales.

  202. 202.

    Finland; Germany; Ireland; The Netherlands; Scotland; USA. A similar reform is underway in Croatia. Also see Canada (Common Law).

  203. 203.

    Finland; Ireland; The Netherlands.

  204. 204.

    Denmark.

  205. 205.

    USA.

  206. 206.

    England & Wales.

  207. 207.

    Ferguson and others v United Kingdom (2011), pending.

  208. 208.

    Belgium; Canada (Common Law); France.

  209. 209.

    France.

  210. 210.

    France.

  211. 211.

    For example Turkey.

  212. 212.

    For example in Italy; Romania.

  213. 213.

    Belgium; England & Wales; Finland; France; Portugal; Québec; Scotland; USA.

  214. 214.

    USA.

  215. 215.

    See however Italy.

  216. 216.

    Marvin v Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, retrieved at http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C3/18C3d660.htm on 24 April 2014. Also see Cameroon; Denmark; England & Wales; France; Italy; Québec.

  217. 217.

    For example Greece.

  218. 218.

    Belgium; France; Italy; Portugal; Puerto Rico; The Netherlands; USA.

  219. 219.

    Canada (Common Law).

  220. 220.

    Germany: BGH 9 July 2008, XII ZR 179/05, BGHZ 177, 193.

  221. 221.

    Canada (Common Law): Kerr v Baranow 2011 SCC 10, retrieved at http://scc-csc.lexum.com/ on 24 April 2014.

  222. 222.

    Summary of Kerr v Baranow 2011 SCC 10, retrieved at http://scc-csc.lexum.com/ on 24 April 2014.

  223. 223.

    Brazil; Finland: Act 26/2011 on the Dissolution of the Household of Cohabiting Partners, retrieved at www.finlex.fi on 16 October 2014, particularly section 3; Portugal; Scotland; USA.

  224. 224.

    Ireland.

  225. 225.

    Finland; Ireland.

  226. 226.

    USA.

  227. 227.

    See on the difference Puerto Rico.

  228. 228.

    For example in Finland.

  229. 229.

    For example in Croatia.

  230. 230.

    For example Denmark.

  231. 231.

    See for example Argentina; Burundi; Canada (Common Law); Croatia; Québec; Ireland; Malaysia; Poland; Romania; Taiwan; Turkey; USA.

  232. 232.

    For example Croatia; Québec.

  233. 233.

    Abolished in The Netherlands in 2014.

  234. 234.

    For example Brazil; Canada (Common Law); Croatia; Denmark; Greece; Portugal; Scotland; Spain.

  235. 235.

    Denmark; Scotland.

  236. 236.

    Germany; Portugal.

  237. 237.

    For example France; Portugal.

  238. 238.

    For example Belgium; Brazil; Cameroon; Germany; Spain.

  239. 239.

    Scotland.

  240. 240.

    France.

  241. 241.

    Belgium; Canada (Common Law); USA.

  242. 242.

    USA.

  243. 243.

    Cameroon; Romania: art. 267 and 268 Civil Code; Scotland: s. 1 (1) Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Scotland) Act 1984; Spain: art. 42-43 Civil Code.

  244. 244.

    Belgium; Brazil; Greece; Poland; Portugal; The Netherlands; Turkey.

  245. 245.

    Comp. Germany: Oberlandesgericht Hamm 13 January 2011, case N° I-18 U 88/10, NJW-RR 2011, 1197, retrieved at http://www.justiz.nrw.de/Bibliothek/nrwe2/index.php on 2 May 2014. Not so in Cameroon.

  246. 246.

    Cameroon.

  247. 247.

    England & Wales; Finland; Germany; Greece; Romania.

  248. 248.

    Terminology in Romania.

  249. 249.

    Belgium; Greece; Finland.

  250. 250.

    France; England & Wales; Germany: Bundesgerichtshof 22 March 2004, case N° 1 BvR 2248/01, retrieved at https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen.html on 2 May 2014; Romania.

  251. 251.

    Argentina: art. 531 Civil Code; Portugal: art. 2233° Civil Code.

  252. 252.

    Canada (Common Law); Germany; Scotland; USA.

  253. 253.

    Canada (Common Law). This will also be the case in Argentina after a 2014 reform.

  254. 254.

    Germany; Ireland.

  255. 255.

    Belgium; Cameroon; Croatia; Poland; Québec; Romania; Spain; The Netherlands.

  256. 256.

    For the USA for example in Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:294.

  257. 257.

    Belgium; France.

  258. 258.

    For example Belgium; Croatia; France; Germany; Portugal; Québec; Spain; Turkey.

  259. 259.

    For example Romania: art. 308 Civil Code.

  260. 260.

    For example Germany: Bundesgerichtshof 21 February 2011, XII ZR 34/99, retrieved at http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/DE/Entscheidungen/EntscheidungenBGH/entscheidungenBGH_node.html on 2 May 2014.

  261. 261.

    England & Wales: Morgan v Morgan [1959] P 92.

  262. 262.

    Argentina; Germany; Ireland; Romania: art. 309 Civil Code; Spain; USA.

  263. 263.

    Cameroon.

  264. 264.

    Belgium.

  265. 265.

    Portugal.

  266. 266.

    Spain.

  267. 267.

    Belgium; Canada (Common Law); Croatia; Finland; Greece; Ireland; Portugal; Scotland; Spain; The Netherlands; Turkey; USA.

  268. 268.

    Poland.

  269. 269.

    Croatia; Greece; Romania; Spain; Turkey.

  270. 270.

    USA.

  271. 271.

    Argentina; Canada (Common Law); USA.

  272. 272.

    Greece; Romania; USA.

  273. 273.

    The term refers to “Good Boy Bad Boy”, a 1985 video work by the American artist Bruce Nauman. The term “bad boy clauses” is used by the American reporters.

  274. 274.

    For example for Spain: Tribunal Supremo 30 July 1999, ROJ STS 5489/1999 retrieved at http://www.poderjudicial.es/search/indexAN.jsp on 2 May 2014.

  275. 275.

    Spain; Comp. Greece; Portugal.

  276. 276.

    France; Québec.

  277. 277.

    Belgium; Canada (Common Law); Denmark; Finland; France; Germany; Ireland; Poland; Québec; Scotland; The Netherlands: article 1:84 (3) Civil Code; Turkey; USA.

  278. 278.

    Croatia.

  279. 279.

    Ireland; USA.

  280. 280.

    For example USA.

  281. 281.

    See extensively Taiwan.

  282. 282.

    Italy.

  283. 283.

    For example Greece; The Netherlands.

  284. 284.

    Italy.

  285. 285.

    Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Ireland; Québec; Romania: art. 390 Civil Code; Spain; Taiwan.

  286. 286.

    For example Finland: § 64 Marriage Act; Romania: art. 328 Civil Code.

  287. 287.

    Belgium; France; Germany: Bundesgerichtshof 9 July 2008, XII ZR 179/05, BGHZ 177, 193, § 27; Portugal.

  288. 288.

    Also see Cameroon; Finland; Malaysia; Portugal; Turkey.

  289. 289.

    For example Belgium: art. 301, § 3, para 2 and § 5 Civil Code; Germany.

  290. 290.

    Belgium; Canada (Common Law); Croatia; England & Wales; Finland; Germany; Greece; Ireland; Malaysia; Portugal; The Netherlands; Scotland; USA.

  291. 291.

    For example Puerto Rico; Taiwan.

  292. 292.

    For example Belgium; Canada (Common Law); Québec; Scotland; USA.

  293. 293.

    Belgium; Croatia; Denmark; Finland; Spain; The Netherlands. This will also be the case in Argentina after a 2014 reform.

  294. 294.

    It is for example in Belgium; Croatia; Greece; Malaysia; Puerto Rico; Romania; Taiwan.

  295. 295.

    Brazil; Denmark; Romania; Taiwan; The Netherlands.

  296. 296.

    Denmark; Romania. Comp. Québec and The Netherlands with regard to the registered partnership.

  297. 297.

    Belgium; The Netherlands.

  298. 298.

    Spain.

  299. 299.

    Brazil; Burundi; Canada (Common Law); Cameroon; Denmark; England & Wales; Finland; France; Germany: Bundesgerichtshof 9 June 1986, BGHZ 97, 304; Greece; Ireland; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Scotland; Spain; Taiwan; The Netherlands; USA.

  300. 300.

    Romania.

  301. 301.

    Germany; Greece; Romania.

  302. 302.

    USA.

  303. 303.

    Şerife Yiğit v Turkey, (App. 3976/05), 2 November 2010 [GQ], ECHR and also see Refah partisi and others v Turkey, (App. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98), 13 February 2003 [GQ], ECHR.

  304. 304.

    Argentina: Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación 5 February 1998, S.526.XXVI, retrieved at http://www.csjn.gov.ar/ on 22 October 2014.

  305. 305.

    This is not the case for example in Finland; Germany: Bundesgerichtshof 19 December 1989, NJW 1990, 703.

  306. 306.

    Portugal.

  307. 307.

    Belgium.

  308. 308.

    For example Argentina: art. 230 Civil Code.

  309. 309.

    France.

  310. 310.

    Germany.

  311. 311.

    Belgium; Croatia; Finland; France; Poland; Romania; USA.

  312. 312.

    Italy.

  313. 313.

    Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Ireland; Québec; Romania: art. 390 Civil Code; Spain; Taiwan.

  314. 314.

    Germany; The Netherlands: art. 1:155 Civil Code.

  315. 315.

    Germany.

  316. 316.

    France: art. 266 Civil Code; Taiwan: art. 1056 Civil Code.

  317. 317.

    Canada (Common Law); Finland; France; Poland; Portugal. More reluctantly: Denmark.

  318. 318.

    England & Wales; Ireland; Scotland.

  319. 319.

    Belgium.

  320. 320.

    Scotland; USA.

  321. 321.

    Germany: “Kernbereich”.

  322. 322.

    England & Wales.

  323. 323.

    For example England & Wales; Germany; USA.

  324. 324.

    Canada (Common Law); Malaysia; Scotland; Spain: art. 90 Civil Code; USA.

  325. 325.

    For example Belgium; Canada (Common Law); France; Québec: art. 423 Civil Code.

  326. 326.

    In general: USA.

  327. 327.

    For example Malaysia: s. 80 Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976; Québec; Romania; The Netherlands.

  328. 328.

    Germany; Spain.

  329. 329.

    USA.

  330. 330.

    For example Germany; England & Wales; Spain.

  331. 331.

    Cameroon.

  332. 332.

    Comp. USA.

  333. 333.

    See more generally Greece; Turkey.

  334. 334.

    For example England & Wales; remarkably also not in The Netherlands, which nevertheless “considers itself as a leading country with regard to mediation”.

  335. 335.

    For example Belgium; France; Portugal; Romania.

  336. 336.

    Also see for France: art. 373-2-11° Civil Code.

  337. 337.

    Canada (Common Law).

  338. 338.

    Belgium; Finland.

  339. 339.

    Canada (Common Law).

  340. 340.

    Belgium; Germany; Québec; The Netherlands; USA.

  341. 341.

    Portugal.

  342. 342.

    Brazil; Croatia; Denmark; Ireland.

  343. 343.

    Canada (Common Law); USA.

  344. 344.

    For example Argentina; Denmark; Puerto Rico; Québec: if there are minor children involved. Comp. Finland.

  345. 345.

    For example Belgium; England & Wales; France; Germany; Poland; The Netherlands.

  346. 346.

    For example Brazil; Canada (Common Law); Denmark; The Netherlands.

  347. 347.

    Canada (Common Law); Ireland.

  348. 348.

    For example Belgium; Canada (Common Law); Denmark; Québec.

  349. 349.

    Finland.

  350. 350.

    For example Denmark; Ireland; Portugal.

  351. 351.

    Burundi; France; Greece; Malaysia; Poland.

  352. 352.

    For example Cameroon; Canada (Common Law); Belgium; Finland; Germany; Québec.

  353. 353.

    Belgium; Finland; Germany; Taiwan.

  354. 354.

    France: art. 252 and 373-2-10 Civil Code; Poland.

  355. 355.

    USA.

  356. 356.

    The Netherlands: art. 7:900-906 Civil Code.

  357. 357.

    Brazil: art. 852 Civil Code; Greece; Romania: art. 542 Code of Civil Procedure; Québec: art. 2639 Civil Code.

  358. 358.

    Canada (Common Law).

  359. 359.

    Croatia; Finland; France; Portugal; Taiwan.

  360. 360.

    See also Greece.

  361. 361.

    England & Wales; Finland; Germany; Scotland; The Netherlands.

  362. 362.

    Turkey.

  363. 363.

    Denmark; Finland.

  364. 364.

    Canada (Common Law); England & Wales; Québec.

  365. 365.

    Portugal: art. 1774 Civil Code.

  366. 366.

    Belgium.

  367. 367.

    Belgium; England & Wales; France; Ireland; Poland; Portugal: art. 1774 Civil Code and art. 147°-D Act 314/78 of 27 October 1978, retrieved at http://www.pgdlisboa.pt/ on 9 June 2014; Puerto Rico; Turkey. Comp. Germany.

  368. 368.

    Canada (Common Law); Belgium; Germany.

  369. 369.

    For example in Germany.

  370. 370.

    Comp. Germany.

  371. 371.

    Greece; Ireland; Romania. Comp. Germany.

  372. 372.

    France.

  373. 373.

    Croatia; Ireland; Québec.

  374. 374.

    Argentina; Canada (Common Law); England & Wales; Germany; Poland; Romania; Québec.

  375. 375.

    Croatia; France: art. 255, 2° (with regard to divorce) and 370-2-10 (with regard to parental responsibilities) Civil Code; Puerto Rico; Taiwan.

  376. 376.

    Argentina; Cameroon; Canada (Common Law); France: on an experimental basis Act n° 2011-1862, retrieved at http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ on 9 June 2014; Malaysia; Taiwan; USA.

  377. 377.

    Argentina; Canada (Common Law); Taiwan; Turkey; USA.

  378. 378.

    Canada (Common Law); Germany; Greece; Ireland; Portugal.

  379. 379.

    Belgium; Croatia.

  380. 380.

    Canada (Common Law); Denmark; Finland; England & Wales; Germany; Ireland; Portugal; Romania; Scotland; Taiwan.

  381. 381.

    For example England & Wales insofar children are concerned.

  382. 382.

    Denmark; Finland.

  383. 383.

    For example Cameroon; Belgium; Brazil; England & Wales; France; Greece; Ireland; Poland; Portugal; Puerto Rico; Québec; The Netherlands; Turkey. In Malaysia, this is dependent on what the court may have determined.

  384. 384.

    For example Germany: § 156(2) Act on Family Proceedings (FamFG), retrieved at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ on 11 June 2014.

  385. 385.

    Belgium; Brazil; Canada (Common Law); Croatia; Finland; Portugal; Romania; Turkey; USA. This is not necessarily so in Poland.

  386. 386.

    For example in the context of a marital breakdown dispute in The State (Bouzagou) v Station Sergeant, Fitzgibbon Street Garda Station [1985] IR 426 Barrington J noted that in the absence of an agreement between the husband and wife, the task of reconciling the rights of the individual members of the family was a matter for the courts to determine.

  387. 387.

    Cameroon; Belgium; Denmark; France: Decree n° 2010-1395 of 12 November 2010, retrieved at http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ on 9 June 2014; Romania; Turkey.

  388. 388.

    For example Belgium; Germany.

  389. 389.

    Romania. Comp. Turkey.

  390. 390.

    Québec.

  391. 391.

    Scotland.

  392. 392.

    Brazil; Canada (Common Law); England & Wales.

  393. 393.

    Belgium; The Netherlands.

  394. 394.

    Belgium; The Netherlands.

  395. 395.

    Finland; Puerto Rico; Scotland; Spain; Turkey; USA.

  396. 396.

    France: art. 268 Civil Code.

  397. 397.

    France.

  398. 398.

    Finland.

  399. 399.

    France: art. 232 Civil Code; Portugal. On gender inequalities see Italy; Taiwan.

  400. 400.

    Canada (Common Law).

  401. 401.

    For example England & Wales; Finland; Scotland.

  402. 402.

    For example Finland; France; Greece; Portugal.

  403. 403.

    France; Poland.

  404. 404.

    Croatia; France; Québec.

  405. 405.

    Belgium; England & Wales; France: art. 232 and 373-2-7 Civil Code; Germany; Ireland; Portugal; Romania; The Netherlands: only marginal scrutiny; Taiwan.

  406. 406.

    France.

  407. 407.

    Turkey.

  408. 408.

    Canada (Common Law).

  409. 409.

    Canada (Common Law).

  410. 410.

    Croatia; Malaysia: s. 80 Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, retrieved at http://www.agc.gov.my/ on 11 June 2014: approval subject to conditions is possible.

  411. 411.

    For example Poland.

  412. 412.

    Canada (Common Law): Rick v Brandsema 2009 SCC 10, retrieved at http://scc-csc.lexum.com/ on 11 June 2014.

  413. 413.

    Belgium; France; Germany; Scotland; The Netherlands.

  414. 414.

    Belgium: Cass. 9 November 2012 (2 judgments), Justel N-20121109-7 and N-20121109-9, retrieved at http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be/ on 11 June 2014.

  415. 415.

    England & Wales; Germany; The Netherlands: art. 1:158 Civil Code. Also see Taiwan: art. 1030-1 Civil Code.

  416. 416.

    Canada (Common Law); Québec and Miglin v Miglin 2003 SCC 24, retrieved at http://scc-csc.lexum.com/ on 11 June 2014.

  417. 417.

    Canada (Common Law): LMP v LS 2011 SCC 64, retrieved at http://scc-csc.lexum.com/ on 19 June 2014.

  418. 418.

    England & Wales: Radmacher v Granatino, UKSC 2009/0031, retrieved at http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/ on 19 June 2014.

  419. 419.

    Canada (Common Law).

  420. 420.

    Belgium: Cass. 16 March 2000, Justel N-20000616-10, retrieved at http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be/ on 11 June 2014; France: Cass. 6 May 1987, N° 87-10107, retrieved at http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ on 11 June 2014.

  421. 421.

    Belgium: Cass. 9 November 2012 (2 judgments), Justel N-20121109-7 and N-20121109-9, retrieved at http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be/ on 11 June 2014; Brazil; Canada (Common Law): s. 93(3)(b) Family Law Act SBC 2011, retrieved at http://www.bclaws.ca/ on 11 June 2014 and Miglin v Miglin 2003 SCC 24, retrieved at http://scc-csc.lexum.com/ on 11 June 2014; Greece; Italy; Québec; Spain; Taiwan; The Netherlands; Turkey.

  422. 422.

    Finland; Germany; Scotland: Gillon v Gillon (No 3) 1995 SLT 678 at 681 C-E.

  423. 423.

    Germany.

  424. 424.

    Scotland.

  425. 425.

    Canada (Common Law): s. 56(4)(a) Family Law Act RSO 1990, c F3, retrieved at http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ on 11 June 2014 and s. 93(3)(a) Family Law Act SBC 2011, retrieved at http://www.bclaws.ca/ on 11 June 2014; England & Wales; Ireland; Scotland.

  426. 426.

    Québec: Pelech v Pelech [1987] 1 SCR801, retrieved at http://scc-csc.lexum.com/ on 11 June 2014 and Hartshorne v Hartshorne, 2004 SCC 22, retrieved at http://scc-csc.lexum.com/ on 2 May 2014; Scotland: Gillon v Gillon (No 3) 1995 SLT 678 at 681 C-E.

  427. 427.

    Romania.

  428. 428.

    See in general USA.

  429. 429.

    Canada (Common Law): s. 33(4)(b) Family Law Act RSO 1990, c F3, retrieved at http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ on 11 June 2014; Finland; Germany; Ireland; Québec; Spain; Turkey.

  430. 430.

    Canada (Common Law): s. 93(5) Family Law Act SBC 2011, retrieved at http://www.bclaws.ca/ on 11 June 2014 and Miglin v Miglin 2003 SCC 24, retrieved at http://scc-csc.lexum.com/ on 11 June 2014; Denmark: § 52 Marriage Act; Romania.

  431. 431.

    Cameroon; Germany: § 313 BGB; Ireland; Romania; Spain; Taiwan; USA.

  432. 432.

    Belgium; Canada (Common Law): LMP v LS 2011 SCC 64, retrieved at http://scc-csc.lexum.com/ on 11 June 2014; England & Wales; Malaysia: s. 84 Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, retrieved at http://www.agc.gov.my/ on 11 June 2014.

  433. 433.

    Canada (Common Law); Croatia; Ireland; Malaysia; Portugal; Puerto Rico; USA.

  434. 434.

    For example in England & Wales: reference to the “Barder criteria” as developed on the basis of Barder v Barder (Caluori intervening) [1988] AC 20; Finland.

  435. 435.

    Miglin v Miglin 2003 SCC 24, par 89, retrieved at http://scc-csc.lexum.com/ on 11 June 2014; Québec.

  436. 436.

    USA.

  437. 437.

    Canada (Common Law); Québec: Miglin v Miglin 2003 SCC 24, retrieved at http://scc-csc.lexum.com/ on 11 June 2014; Denmark; Finland; Netherlands: art. 1:401(5) Civil Code.

  438. 438.

    Belgium; Scotland: s. 16(1)(a) Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, retrieved at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ on 11 June 2014; The Netherlands: art. 1:158 Civil Code.

  439. 439.

    Malaysia: s. 84 and s. 97 Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, retrieved at http://www.agc.gov.my/ on 11 June 2014; Portugal. Partly the case in The Netherlands.

  440. 440.

    USA.

  441. 441.

    England & Wales.

  442. 442.

    Canada (Common Law).

  443. 443.

    Belgium; Denmark; France: art. 373-2-13; Germany; Ireland; Malaysia: s. 97 Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, retrieved at http://www.agc.gov.my/ on 11 June 2014; Portugal; Taiwan.

  444. 444.

    Finland; Québec; Romania; The Netherlands; USA.

  445. 445.

    Finland; France; Ireland; Portugal.

  446. 446.

    USA.

  447. 447.

    Finland.

  448. 448.

    For example in Belgium: art. 387bis Civil Code; Germany.

  449. 449.

    Scotland.

  450. 450.

    Finland; Germany; Greece; Ireland; Malaysia; Poland; Portugal; Scotland.

  451. 451.

    Belgium.

  452. 452.

    For example Croatia; Netherlands.

  453. 453.

    For example Scotland.

  454. 454.

    USA.

  455. 455.

    For example Germany; Spain.

  456. 456.

    Spain.

  457. 457.

    For example Germany.

  458. 458.

    Also see Italy.

  459. 459.

    Marvin v Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, retrieved at http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C3/18C3d660.htm on 24 April 2014.

  460. 460.

    Borelli v Brusseau 12 Cal.App.4th 647 (1993), retrieved at http://scholar.google.com/ on 21 June 2014.

  461. 461.

    Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571.

  462. 462.

    Merritt v Meritt [1970] EWCA Civ 6, retrieved at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/ on 21 June 2014.

  463. 463.

    Hyman v Hyman [1929] AC 601.

  464. 464.

    Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, retrieved at http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/42.html on 24 October 2014.

  465. 465.

    Germany.

References

  • Boele-Woelki, K. (2007), Curry-Sumner, I., Jansen, M. & Schrama W., Huwelijk of geregistreerd partnerschap. Deventer: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinig, M.F. (2000). From Contract to Covenant. Beyond the Law and Economics of the Family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbonnier, J. (2013). Flexible Droit. Pour une sociologie du droit sans rigueur. Paris: LGDJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkings, R. (2006), The God Delusion. Bantam Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glendon, M.-A. (2006), Family Law in a Time of Turbulence. In IV International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halley, J. (2011a), What is Family Law?: A Genealogy – Part I, 23 Yale J. Law, p.1-109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halley, J. (2011b), What is Family Law?: A Genealogy – Part II, 23 Yale J. Law, p.189-293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halley, J. & Rittich, K. (2010), Critical Directions in Family Law: Genealogies and Contemporary Studies of Family Law Exceptionalism’, 58 Am.J.Comp.Law 2010, p. 753-776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maine, H. (1861), Ancient law: its connection with the early history of society, and its relation to modern ideas. Re-edition London: Dent, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marella, M.-R. (2006). The Non-Subversive Function of European Private Law: The Case of Harmonisation of Family Law, 12 European Law Journal No 1, 78-105.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClain, L. (2006), Family Constitutions and the (New) Constitution of the Family’, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 833

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicola, F. (2010), Family Law Exceptionalism in Comparative Law, 58 Am.J.Comp.Law 2010, 777.. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1754626.

  • Skinner, C. & Davidson, J. (2009), Recent trends in child maintenance schemes in 14 countries, Intl. J. Law, Policy, Fam. 23, p. 25-52

    Google Scholar 

  • Swennen, F. (2013), Contractualisation of Family Law in Continental Europe, Familie & Recht 2013, July-September, DOI: 10.5553/FenR/.000008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirth, M.L. (2011), Semiotics of Parenthood in Legal Perspective: Using Semiotics to Deconstruct Legal Determinations of Who Holds Parenthood Obligations and Privileges. In J.M. Broekman & F.J. Mootz, The Semiotics of Law in Legal Education (p. 157-182). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frederik Swennen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Swennen, F. (2017). Private Ordering in Family Law: A Global Perspective. In: Schauer, M., Verschraegen, B. (eds) General Reports of the XIXth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law Rapports Généraux du XIXème Congrès de l'Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law(), vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1066-2_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1066-2_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-024-1064-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-024-1066-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics