A genealogy of hostility: parental alienation in England and Wales

ABSTRACT

This article explores the emergence and development of parental alienation (PA) in England and Wales. It considers the background into which PA first appeared in private law proceedings concerning children in England and Wales, and examines how it progressed in the case law through the changing political and discursive context of private family law from 2000 to the end of March 2019. A clear pattern emerged of, initially, parental alienation syndrome and subsequently PA being raised in family proceedings and in political and popular arenas in response to concerns about and measures to address domestic abuse. The case law revealed a high incidence of domestic abuse perpetrated by parents (principally fathers) who were claiming that the resident parents (principally mothers) had alienated the children against them, which raises questions about the purpose of PA. More recently, a PA ‘industry’ appears to have amassed comprising experts, therapists and lawyers, advocating transfers of children’s care from ‘alienating’ mothers to non-resident fathers, as well as PA therapy for children and parents. While PA has had a chequered history and is not without its critics, it has become part of the discursive repertoire of current family law, with increasingly harsh consequences for women and children.     

民法典视野下生计酌减规范的必要性证成

损害赔偿义务的调整存在过失相抵、损益相抵、生计酌减等体系化的规范设置,该等制度相互独立共同实现损害赔偿义务的灵活调整,为权益保护与行为自由的平衡提供了制度的保障。我国民法典制定过程中学界对生计酌减规范的关注不足,忽视了生计酌减的规范作用。实际上生计酌减规范能有效保障加害人的生存发展权,与现代民法的人文关怀精神相符合。无论是完全赔偿主义还是限制赔偿主义均涉及到生计酌减规范的设立问题,我国亦不例外。就生计酌减规范与程序法制的关系而言,强制执行程序只保障了被执行人的生存权而未及于发展权;破产法制虽然能实现债务人生存发展权的保障,但存在诸多限制性规定,强制执行法与破产法制均需要与生计酌减规范形成良好的互动关系,方能实现程序法制与实体规范的互补。因此,我国民法典应当设立生计酌减规范。     

检察环节适用认罪认罚从宽制度的内涵阐释与推进路径

刑事诉讼法中确立认罪认罚从宽制度,具有厘清认罪认罚从宽法律适用关系和丰富刑事诉讼司法模式的制度价值。认罪认罚从宽制度通过参与量刑协商,体现公平正义并提升刑事诉讼效率。"两高三部"制定的《关于适用认罪认罚从宽制度的指导意见》进一步阐明了制度的适用范围、适用条件和理解适用等问题,明确解决了法律适用中的疑难问题。但目前各地检察机关仍面临制度适用不均衡的问题。以认罪认罚从宽制度的适用为切入点,从新时代检察工作创新的理念出发,准确理解检察机关在认罪认罚从宽制度中的主导作用和主导地位,有助于提升新时代检察机关参与社会治理的能力和水平。     

司法广场化与涉检网络舆情应对

司法广场化是一种没有身份和空间间隔、能够自由表达意见和情绪的司法活动。从某种角度来看,网络舆情即是司法广场化趋势在现实中的体现。司法广场化概念的提出,有助于更深刻地揭示网络舆情的成因及影响。应对网络舆情,检察官应恪守客观公正义务,检察机关要坚持以人为本理念,注重人性化执法,注重平等、公开、及时披露信息,并构建应对网络舆情的五大机制。     

论刑事被告人宪法权利的保障——从无罪推定角度所做的分析

无罪推定原则是刑事犯罪嫌疑人、被告人宪法基本权利保障的原则之一。随着我国社会主义民主与法治的发展,从立法与司法的双重视角贯彻和推行无罪推定原则,不仅有利于保障犯罪嫌疑人的人权,而且有利于推动我国的法治进程。我国应在《宪法》中明文规定无罪推定原则,立法保障犯罪嫌疑人的沉默权,进一步明确与施行非法证据排除制度。     

民事证据客观全面收集原则质疑

一些法学著述把客观全面收集作为民事诉讼证据收集的原则或要求之一,这在人民法院主导证据收集的职权主义时期是不容置疑的。但是随着民事诉讼体制和模式的转型,在当今的我国司法实践中,证据收集已转变成当事人主导型。与此相适应,证据收集的原则也应有所调整,即从客观全面收集转换成收集必要证据的原则。否则,将因与时不合而令人生疑。     

论破产程序的转换机制

相较于旧《破产法》,我国新《破产法》明确规定破产和解程序、重整程序及清算程序互为独立。从破产法的研究现状来看,多数学者着眼于单个程序的研究,很少有学者用全局的眼光来研究破产程序,探寻三大破产程序之间的关系及其转换机制。破产法三大程序是统一的整体,有效的程序转换机制能够大大降低破产当事人在程序选择上面临的风险,更好地发挥破产法的功能,更有力地维护破产债权人及债务人的利益。     

合议制度基本功能评析

合议制度在实现诉讼民主化、抑制司法专横、防止司法腐败、促进司法判决的公正合理和公民才智的发展方面发挥着积极作用。与独任制相比,合议制耗费的诉讼资源较多,司法效率较低;合议庭成员的个人责任感容易降低,冒险倾向增强,可能影响审判质量。为克服合议制的负向功能,应逐步降低合议制度的运用范围,并注意挑选高素质、有责任感的合议成员,更重要的是完善相关机制,对不负责任者加以约束。     

英国的司法审查之诉

司法审查虽然只是英国公民权利救济体系中的一部分,但却是日益重要和专门化的司法救济手段。作为普通法国家,英国司法审查之诉在审判组织及管辖、司法审查范围、司法审查理由、当事人、证据、审理程序、救济方式及裁判种类等方面均有着自身的特点,其中不乏值得我们学习和思考的经验。     

‘Language of lies’: Urgent issues and prospects in verbal lie detection research

Since its introduction into the field of deception detection, the verbal channel has become a rapidly growing area of research. The basic assumption is that liars differ from truth tellers in their verbal behaviour, making it possible to classify them by inspecting their verbal accounts. However, as noted in conferences and in private communication between researchers, the field of verbal lie detection faces several challenges that merit focused attention. The first author therefore proposed a workshop with the mission of promoting solutions for urgent issues in the field. Nine researchers and three practitioners with experience in credibility assessments gathered for 3 days of discussion at Bar-Ilan University (Israel) in the first international verbal lie detection workshop. The primary session of the workshop took place the morning of the first day. In this session, each of the participants had up to 10 min to deliver a brief message, using just one slide. Researchers were asked to answer the question: ‘In your view, what is the most urgent, unsolved question/issue in verbal lie detection?’ Similarly, practitioners were asked: ‘As a practitioner, what question/issue do you wish verbal lie detection research would address?’ The issues raised served as the basis for the discussions that were held throughout the workshop. The current paper first presents the urgent, unsolved issues raised by the workshop group members in the main session, followed by a message to researchers in the field, designed to deliver the insights, decisions, and conclusions resulting from the discussions.