离婚后子女的监护

离婚自由是对夫妻个人权利的保障,但离婚对子女利益的影响,应得到更多的关注。其中对子女利益影响最大者,是离婚后父母对子女的监护问题,它涉及到子女的人身和财产权益,因此,世界各国离婚法对此问题都很重视。本文结合我国的实际,从有利于子女利益出发,探讨如何完善离婚后子女的监护制度。     

离婚损害赔偿制度刍议

离婚损害赔偿制度在婚姻法中的确立,标志着我国损害赔偿制度的进一步完善。离婚损害赔偿对导致离婚的过错方,令其承担一定的财产责任,以示法律对其过错的惩戒。对离婚中的无过失方,离婚损害赔偿则是对其损失的补偿,对其精神的抚慰。     

试论离婚损害赔偿制度

离婚损害赔偿制度的建立,对保护离婚当事人的合法权益,制裁婚姻家庭违法行为,维护社会主义的婚姻家庭制度意义重大。离婚损害赔偿必须具备违法行为、损害事实、因果关系和主观过错四个构成要件。该制度既适用于协议离婚,也适用于诉讼离婚。其赔偿权利主体只能是无过错的配偶,而赔偿义务主体只能是有过错的配偶。第三者虽不是离婚损害赔偿的义务主体,但应当成为另案的民事赔偿义务主体。     

德国婚后扶养制度研究

根据德国2008年修订后的有关法律，离婚配偶可以因为照顾共同子女、年老、疾病、失业、收入差距、接受教育等原因请求扶养费，也可以基于公平原则请求扶养。公平原则不仅本身可以作为扶养费请求权的基础，同时也是确定扶养费具体数额的标准。扶养费必须满足权利人全部的生活需要，同时兼顾婚姻中的生活状况。提供扶养费的前提是保证义务人自身的供养，以免其本身成为扶养请求权的权利人，同时还要扣除权利人本身的收入。如果扶养义务人同时向多人承担扶养义务，应该按照法律规定的顺位，优先满足未成年子女的扶养费。为了实现个案中的公平原则，德国2008年立法改革对于扶养请求权设定了限制，包括时间上的限制和数额上的限制。此外，为了达到公平的目的，法律规定了8种重大不公的情况，在这些情况下，扶养义务人可以免除其扶养责任。     

试论我国离婚经济补偿制度的存废

我国2001年修正后的《婚姻法》增设了离婚经济补偿制度,集中规定在第40条,学界对此大加肯认,有学者建议应该修改完善。经过分析与考证后发现,其实不然,应该删除第40条的规定,将离婚经济补偿制度的价值和功能交由完善后的我国夫妻共同财产制予以彰显和实现。     

PARENT EDUCATION AFTER SEPARATION/DIVORCE

As part of a Canadian best practices evaluation of parent education for divorcing parents, this study assessed program effects on postseparation parenting. Statistically significant changes from pretest to 4 to 6 month follow-up were evident on all scales related to conflict between former partners, whereas changes related to positive and cooperative parenting were less conclusive. All parents experienced a reduction in conflict that places children in the middle of the conflict by the follow-up stage. Low-moderate-conflict parents experienced more increases in adaptive parenting.     

Discrepancy between Mother and Child Perceptions of Their Relationship: I. Consequences for Adolescents Considered within the Context of Parental Divorce

Previous research has shown that parent-adolescent conflict is associated with adolescent adjustment. One possible source of conflict between parents and adolescents is the discrepant ways in which they perceive their relationship, which may contribute to adolescent adjustment difficulties. The present study examined the association between mother-adolescent discrepant views in their relationship and adolescent adjustment difficulties concurrently and longitudinally. In addition, the role of a family stressor, in this case parental divorce, in enhancing the discrepant views and moderating the relationship between discrepancy in perceptions and adolescent adjustment was examined. Results indicated that discrepancies in mother perception and adolescent perception of their relationship were associated with mother report of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems concurrently and longitudinally. Furthermore, discrepancies were significantly higher in divorced families than intact families, but divorce did not moderate the relationship between discrepancies and adolescent adjustment. Clinical implications and directions for future research are discussed.     

Sex, Property Rights, and Divorce

This paper examines how differences in sex drives between husbands and wives affect bargaining strengths during marriage and particularly at times when divorce might occur. The basic argument follows from the fact that sex drives vary over an individual's life cycle, and are systematically different for men and women. The spouse having the lowest sex drive at any time in the marriage has a property right over whether or not sexual intercourse will occur, with a consequent increase in bargaining power at the margin. The paper derives a number of testable implications from its model, and, using several data sources, shows empirically how this difference affects marriage, adultery and divorce.     

对我国新婚姻法限制男方离婚诉权之质疑--建议删除婚姻法第34条

在妇女怀孕期间、分娩后一年内和中止妊娠后六个月内限制男方离婚诉权不利于对女方、男方、子女权益和社会整体利益的保护 ,也违背了婚姻法自身体系的一致性 ,其实施效果也极差。它是计划经济体制下漠视诉权、固守传统婚恋观念、厌讼观念的产物。婚姻法第 34条应废除。     

COMMENTARY ON TIPPINS AND WITTMANN'S "EMPIRICAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEMS WITH CUSTODY RECOMMENDATIONS:

Although in substantial agreement with Tippins and Wittmann's analysis, their call for a moratorium on the practice of custody evaluators making recommendations to the court does not solve the many problems that they have raised, and may have unintended consequences which place families at even greater risk. This commentary reflects our agreement with some of the authors' major points of contention, focuses on several points of disagreement, and suggests alternative remedies for the shortcomings and ethical problems described in child custody evaluations.