Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examples of Application

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Relational Autonomy and Family Law

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Law ((BRIEFSLAW))

  • 1169 Accesses

Abstract

Traditionally in English law pre-marriage contracts have not been enforceable (Morley 2006). However, a sharp turn in approach occurred following the decision of the Supreme Court in Radmacher v Granatino (2010), with the majority concluding

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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.

    UN Convention on the Rights of Children, in article 3, states that the child’s welfare should be the primary consideration. This appears to place slightly less weight on children’s interests than s 1 of the Children Act 1989.

References

  • Baker L, Emery R (1993) When every relationship is above average: perceptions and expectations of divorce at time of marriage. Law Hum Behav 17: 439–578

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd S (2010) Autonomy for mothers? Relational theory and parenting apart. Feminist Legal Stud 18:137–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridgeman J (1998) Because we care? The medical treatment of children. In: Sheldon S, Thomson M (eds) Feminist perspectives on health care. Cavendish, London p, pp 97–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridgeman J (2007) Parents, young children and healthcare law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burke A (2007) Domestic violence as a crime of pattern and intent. George Wash Law Rev 75:552–593

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton M (2010) R v Dhaliwal commentary. In: Hunter R, McGlynn C, Rackley E (eds) Feminist judgments. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Care Quality Commission (2012) Our market report. Care Quality Commission, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Case M (2001) How high the apple pie? A few troubling questions about where, why, and how the burden of care for children should be shifted. Chicago-Kent Law Review 78:1753–1786

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement G (1996) Care, autonomy and justice: feminism and the ethic of care. Westview, Boulder CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn T (2005) Children and the feminist ethic of care. Childhood 12:71–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coggon J (2007) Varied and principled understandings of autonomy in English law: justifiable inconsistency or blinkered moralism? Health Care Anal 15:235–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cretney S (2003) Private ordering and divorce—how far can we go. Family Law 33:399–405

    Google Scholar 

  • Deacon A (2007) Civic labour or doulia? Care, reciprocity and welfare. Soc Policy Soc 6:481–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deech R (1977) The principles of maintenance. Family Law 7:229–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Constitutional Affairs (2007) Mental Capacity Act:  Code of Practice. The Stationery Office, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Diduck A (2011) What is family law for? Curr Leg Probl 64:287–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton MA (2003) Understanding women’s response to domestic violence. Hofstra Law Rev 21:1191–1212

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton MA, Goodman L (2006) Development and validation of a coercive control measure for intimate partner violence. US Department of Justice, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Eekelaar J (2002) Beyond the welfare principle. Child and Family Law Quarterly 14:237–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Eekelaar J (2007) Family law and personal life. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ellman I (2011) United States. In: Scherpe J (ed) Marital agreements and private autonomy in comparative perspective. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Feder Kittay E (2007) Searching for an overlapping consensus: a secular care ethics feminist responds to religious feminists. Univ St Thomas Law J 4:468–488 

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman M (2004) The autonomy muth. A theory of dependency. The New Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster C (2009) Choosing life, choosing death: the tyranny of autonomy. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazer E, Lacey N (1993) The politics of community: a feminist critique of the liberal communitarian debate. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman M (1997) The moral status of children. Martinus Nijhoff, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbar R (2011) Family involvement, independence, and patient autonomy in practice. Med Law Rev 19:192–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale B (2011) Equality and autonomy in family law. J Soc Welf Family Law 33:3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Held V (2006) The ethics of care. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring J (1997) Children’s abortion rights. Medical Law Review 5:257–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herring J (1999a) The welfare principle and the rights of parents. In: Bainham A, Lindley B, Richards M (eds) What is a parent?. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring J (1999b) The Human Rights Act and the welfare principle—conflicting or complimentary? Child Family Law Q 11:223–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring J (2004) Children’s rights for grown-ups. In: Fredman S, Spencer S (eds) Age as an equality issue. Hart publishing, Oxford, pp 145–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring J (2005) Farewell welfare? J Soc Welf Family Law 27:159–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herring J (2008) The place of carers. In: Freeman M (ed) Law and bioethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring J (2011) The meaning of domestic violence: Yemshaw v London

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring J (2012) Vulnerability, children and the law. In: Freeman M (ed) Law and childhood studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring J (2013) Family law, 5th edn. Pearson, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • Hester M, Pearson C, Harwin N (2007) Making an impact—children and domestic violence: a reader. Jessica Kingsley, York

    Google Scholar 

  • Itzen C, Taket A, Barter-Godfrey S (2010) Domestic and sexual violence and abuse. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson N, Gottman J (2007) When men batter women: new insights into ending abusive relationships. Simon & Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • James A, James A, McNamee S (2003) Constructing children’s welfare in family proceedings. Family Law 33:889–893

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson M (2005) Apples and oranges in child custody disputes: intimate terrorism vs. situational couple violence. J Child Custody 2:43–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kachroo G (2007) Mapping alimony: from status to contract and beyond. Pierce Law Rev 5:163–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly F (2005) Conceptualising the child through an ethic of care: lessons for family law. Intern J Law Context 1:375–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khodyakov D (2007) Trust as a process: a three dimensional approach. Sociology 41:116–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laufer-Ukeles P (2008) Selective recognition of gender difference in the law: revaluing the caretaker role. Harv J Law Gend 31:1–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie C (2009) Personal identity, narrative integration and embodiment. In: Campbell S, Meynell L, Sherwin S (eds) Embodiment and agency. Pennsylvania University Press, University Park PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie C, Rogers W (2013) Autonomy, vulnerability and capacity: a philosophical appraisal of the Mental Capacity Act. Intern J Law Context 9:37–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madden Dempsey M (2006) What counts as domestic violence. William and Mary J Women Law 13:301–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Madden Dempsey M (2007) Towards a feminist state. Mod Law Rev 70:908–935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madden Dempsey M (2009) Prosecuting domestic violence. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Manthorpe J, Rapaport J, Stanley N (2007) Who decides now? Protecting and empowering vulnerable adults. Br J Soc Work 37:557–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morley J (2006) Enforceable prenuptial agreements: their time has come. Family Law 36:772

    Google Scholar 

  • Mnookin F (1975) Child-custody adjudication: judicial functions in the face of indeterminacy. Law and Contemporary Problems 39:259–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutcherson K (2005) Whose body is it anyway? An updated model of healthcare decision-making rights for adolescents. Cornell J Law Public Policy 14:251–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Nedelsky J (2012) Law’s relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • NSPCC (2005) Teen abuse survey of Great Britain. NSPCC, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Office Home (2011) Homicides, firearm offences and intimate violence 2009/10. Home Office, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe, Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (2002) Domestic Violence. Council of Europe, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachmilovitz O (2007) Bringing down the bedroom walls: emphasizing substance over form in personalized abuse. William and Mary J Women Law 14:495–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades H (2010) Revising Australia’s parenting laws: a plea for a relational approach to children’s best interests. Child Fam Law Q 23:172–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanger C (2006) A case for civil marriage. Cardozo Law Rev 27:1311–1323

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz V (2000) Life’s work. Columbia Law Rev 100:1881–1921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sevenhuijsen S (1998) Citizenship and the ethics of care: feminist considerations about justice. Morality and Politics, Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakespeare T (2000) Help. Venture, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Silbaugh K (1996) Turning labor into love: housework and the law. Northwest Univ Law Rev 91:27–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer J (1992) The privatization of family law. Wis Law Rev 5:1443–1567

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart C (2003) Children and the transformation of family law. In: Dewar J, Parker S (eds) Family law processes, practices, pressures. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 238–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart C, Neale B (1998) Family fragments. Policy Press, Bristol

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith C (2000) Philosophical models of marriage and their influence on property division methods at divorce. J Contemp Leg Issues 214

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark E (2007) Coercive control. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Suk J (2009) At home in the law: How the domestic violence revolution is transforming privacy. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Tietjens Meyers D (2004) Narrative and moral life. In: Calhoun C (ed) Setting the moral compass. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuerkheimer D (2004) Recognizing and remedying the harm of battering. J Crim Law Criminol 959–1034

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushnet M (1984) A critique of rights. Tex Law Rev 1363, 1364–1395

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade J (2012) The perils of prenuptial financial agreements in Australia: Effectiveness and professional negligence. Law papers. Paper 425

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallbank J (2010) ‘(En)Gendering the fusion of rights and responsibilities in the law of contact. In: Wallbank J, Choudhry S, Herring, J (eds), Rights, gender and family law. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter JK, Ross LF (2013) Relational autonomy as the key to effective behavioral change. Philos Psychiatry Psychol 20:169–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wightman J (2000) Intimate relationships, relational contract theory, and the reach of contract. Fem Leg Stud 8: 93–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams J (1998) Towards a reconstructive feminism: reconstructing the relationship of market work and family work. North Ill Univ Law Rev 19:119–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams J (2000) Unbending gender. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

Cases

  • Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan M (1999) Alone Together: Law and the Meaning of Marriage. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

Legislation

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Exeter College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Jonathan Herring

Authors
  1. Jonathan Herring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Herring .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Herring, J. (2014). Examples of Application. In: Relational Autonomy and Family Law. SpringerBriefs in Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04987-8_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation