RESUMO - Algumas dificuldades podem surgir durante o processo de divórcio, levando a família ao “divórcio destrutivo”. Geography and Statistics (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia Psicologia jurídica. São Estatísticas do Registro Civil. Psicologia & Sociedade; 23(n. spe.), Social brasileiro deveu-se à criação de formas de sociedade civil e de arenas de pactuação das relações passa, assim, a depender do processo de instituciona- .. a forma jurídica geral que garantia um sistema de .. destaque/Pesquisa_Retrato_das_desigualdades .pdf. Within such context, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is an .. Psicologia Jurídica no Processo Civil Brasileiro.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Dutch|
|ePub File Size:||21.62 MB|
|PDF File Size:||19.19 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
Psicologia Juridica No Processo Civil Brasileiro book. Read reviews from world's largest community for readers. 16 abr. Psicologia jurídica no processo civil brasileiro by Denise Maria Perissini da Silva, , Casa do Psicólogo edition, in Portuguese - 1a ed. [caite.info] Chico Bento Npdf - Download as PDF File .pdf) or read online. Psicologia Jurídica No Processo Civil Brasileiro - 3ª Ed. - Denise Maria.
Marah marked it as to-read Oct 10, Vol 2, No 2 Operation of the Hague Convention, held in Second 38, Third 39, Fifth 40 have reinstated that to attend the best interest of child, Article 13, b must remain only as an exception. This campaign consists on the development of material virtual folders, booklets and alike focusing on social network media, and the establishment of multi- leveled cooperative network reaching Brazilian government authorities such as diplomatic and consulate agents , entities of civil society such as community leaders and Non-Governmental Organizations and other international institutions dedicated to the protection of Women The current work intends to analyze the connections between International Child Abduction and Parental Alienation through the perspective of Brazilian enforcement of the Hague Convention. Log In Sign Up. Academy Forum, v. Hardcover , pages.
In fact, upon the enactment of Federal Law Thus, according to Articles 3 and 5 35 of The Hague Convention, any parent whether having full or shared custody or visitation rights who unilaterally relocates or retains children up to 16 year olds to or in Brazil in infringement the law of their habitual residence is committing an act of Parental Alienation, pursuant to Article 2, Sole Paragraph of Federal Law Pursuant to Article 13, b, authorities of the Contracting States might refuse to enforce the return of the abducted or retained child to the State of habitual residence if: Article 13 Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that — 32 DIAS, Maria Berenice coordenadora.
Editora Revista dos Tribunais, , p. Eventual relocation on the domicile of the child or adolescent will not affect the original jurisdiction over claims regarding right to family life, unless such change results from parental agreement or judicial order.
The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.
In fact, regular post-convention works held in The Hague have dealt with the interpretation, meaning and scope of this rule. In the Overall Conclusions of the First Special Commission of October on the Operation of The Hague Convention of 25 October , deputies have concluded that in many reported cases of this international treaty, abducting or retaining parents repeatedly invoke the exception of Article 13, b to keep the child in the State of refuge Avaiable at www.
Available at http: Vol 2, No 2 Operation of the Hague Convention, held in Second 38, Third 39, Fifth 40 have reinstated that to attend the best interest of child, Article 13, b must remain only as an exception.
That is to keep the very meaning of the Convention, which estates that in order to guarantee respect to family and social backgrounds, decisions regarding any custody or visitation rights regarding children and teenagers up to 16 years old should be preferably taken by authorities of the State of their habitual residence.
Contracting States are deeply concerned with allegations of abuse and violent behavior in familiar relationships. For that matter, the Sixth Special Commission has even suggested the installation of specialized works regarding the uniform interpretation of Article 1.
However, there is no logical reason in acknowledging the enforcement of an exceptional clause as a regular rule for international child abduction cases.
Avaiable at: Atlas, It should also be pointed that children cannot be accounted for such crucial decisions when they are so deeply and emotionally immersed in the matter, which makes them even more susceptible to emotional abuse It is important to highlight that, although magistrates are not bound to the opinion of experts, they often rely on their professional experience and technical knowledge one assessing these particular subjects Oxford University Press, , p.
Private International Law: Recueil des Cours, v.
Family Law Quarterly, v. Vol 2, No 2 Brazilian federal judges, upon attesting Parental Alienation behaviors against abducted or retained children in Brazil, might as well enforce available legal tools to protect them, until the issuing of return order.
Characterized typical acts of parental alienation or any conduct that hampers the coexistence of child or adolescent with parent in autonomous lawsuit or incidentally, the judge may enforce, separately or cumulatively, without prejudice of civil or criminal liabilities, and the general procedural instruments to inhibit or mitigate such effects, according to the severity of the case: Sole paragraph.
Characterized abusive change of address, impracticability or obstruction to family life, the court may also reverse the obligation to take or remove the child or adolescent from the residence of each parent throughout alternated periods of time. Forense, Thus, the burden of proof falls over claiming parties. In sum, Brazilian Parental Alienation Act of must serve as an important tool in judicial claims of returning abducted children within the scope of The Hague Convention which shall be brought forward federal magistrates, according to Article , I and III of Federal Constitution.
In order to illustrate that the link between of The Hague Convention on The Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and The Parental Alienation Syndrome Act of is actually based on the best interest of the child, it is now important to look at a few selected cases. Vol 2, No 2 child custody and maintenance obligations are under judicial secrecy.
Therefore, all names, and possible identification items were dully removed to preserve legal secrecy. In June, , the boy L. L, who was 5 years old then, was taken from Quebec by his mother, I. The mother later informed to the former companion that she and their son would not return to Canada. Realizing the illegal relocation of the child from his place of habitual residence which already configures Parental Alienation behavior the Federal Judge granted the request of the Union, issuing the judicial order to return the boy L.
L to Canada, rejecting the arguments of the abducting parent, on the grounds that mere allegations cannot justify the exceptional clause of Article 13, b of The Hague Convention.
The same magistrate also determined the notification of that Sate Courts which have issued orders granting temporary custody rights to the mother. The girl, born in Israel, daughter of Brazilian mother and Israeli father, was brought to Brazil by her mother in December , without permission of the father, who then filed a judicial lawsuit, claiming the return of the child.
Published in March 19, However, given extensive proof regarding moral and physical aggression practiced against the mother in the presence of the child, eviction notices due to lack of rental payment, food deprivation to the child, and violent behavior of the father, the Judge concluded that the exceptional clause of Article 13, b was enforceable, thus refusing to issue the order of the return. In , upon divorce of the couple, a Norwegian court granted joint custody rights to the couple over their oldest child and unilateral custody to the mother over the youngest with visitation rights granted to the father.
The decision also ruled that the mother could spend up to one month per year with her children in Brazil, granted that she would inform the father about the dates of departure and arrival with one month of advance. In July , however, after bringing the children with her to Brazil, the mother reported to the father that they would not return to Norway, thus violating custody rights granted in that country.
The father flew in to Brazil, where the parents discussed the possibility to change family residence to Rio de Janeiro, a trial that only lasted from August through December , period during which they verbally agreed that the father could bring the children back to Norway with him if that attempt failed. In fact, in December , the Norwegian father flew back to his home country bringing the children along, without permission of the mother, who flew back to Norway in May where she requested revision of custody rights over her children to local courts.
However, on October , she brought her children back with her to Brazil with the help of false passports. Vol 2, No 2 Decision: The 17th Federal Civil Court of Rio de Janeiro considered that Norway was the place of habitual residence of these children, pursuant to Article of the Hague Convention.
They only were in Brazil originally because their mother illegally retained them in the country. Therefore, Norwegian authorities has jurisdiction over any parental agreement or claims about changing the habitual residence of these children. Despite the ruling for immediate return of the children to Norway, the mother kept them in the country, by use of judicial methods such as writs of mandamus filed in State Courts of Rio de Janeiro.
These decisions, which clearly overlooked the Article 16 of the Hague Convention55, granted custody rights to the mother to keep their children in Brazil until decision by Federal Court of Justice. The Federal Court of Appeals initially reversed the decision on returning the children by majority of votes, but in the end it revised this ruling to recognize that the father, back in , did not breach custody rights conferred by Norwegian authorities, unlike the mother in , thus deciding that the children should return to Norway.
Notwithstanding, the mother appealed to the ultimate organs of Brazilian Judiciary Power. She also filed for an appeal to the Supreme Court Recurso Extraordinario alleging disrespect of constitutionally granted rights right to family life and best interest of the child.
Nonetheless, both High Court of Justice and Supreme Court rejected to reverse the ruling of return the Children to Norway, which finally took place in the year of In fact, the leading vote on STJ restated that The Hague Convention preconizes the right of children to enjoy life in close and 54 Article 4. The Convention shall apply to any child who was habitually resident in a Contracting State immediately before any breach of custody or access rights.
The Convention shall cease to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years. After receiving notice of a wrongful removal or retention of a child in the sense of Article 3, the judicial or administrative authorities of the Contracting State to which the child has been removed or in which it has been retained shall not decide on the merits of rights of custody until it has been determined that the child is not to be returned under this Convention or unless an application under this Convention is not lodged within a reasonable time following receipt of the notice.
For such matters, the High Court of Justice recognized that it is the best interest of child to enjoy full family life, and thus, to avoid the menace of Parental Alienation, which greatly hinders their right to a normal social, psychological, and emotional development. Thus, Contracting States must ensure that any decision regarding custody or visitation rights such as the change of habitual residence must be taken by the authorities of the Contracting Sate of habitual residence, and for such reason it rejected the appeal of the mother.
Henceforward, it also relied on the expert opinion that the children were not under threat of physical or emotional harm with the possible return to Norway. In fact, both of them enjoyed Brazil, but freely displayed desire to return to their homeland to live with their father.
This survey proved to magistrates that none of the exceptional clauses of Article 13, b happened in the case At the same time, Brazilian Supreme Court rejected the appeal because it concluded that such claim implied in reexamination of factual matters, which pursuant to Brazilian procedural law can only take place in lower stances. In addition, Justice Gilmar Mendes concluded that the ruling of Federal Court of Appeals also respected infra constitutional legislation An application to make arrangements for organising or securing the effective exercise of rights of access may be presented to the Central Authorities of the Contracting States in the same way as an application for the return of a child.
The Central Authorities are bound by the obligations of co-operation which are set forth in Article 7 to promote the peaceful enjoyment of access rights and the fulfilment of any conditions to which the exercise of those rights may be subject. The Central Authorities shall take steps to remove, as far as possible, all obstacles to the exercise of such rights.
The Central Authorities, either directly or through intermediaries, may initiate or assist in the institution of proceedings with a view to organising or protecting these rights and securing respect for the conditions to which the exercise of these rights may be subject. Vol 2, No 2 5. Consequentially, Article 13, b of the Hague Convention requires certain precautions prior to its enforcement.
Hence, authorities of the requested Contracting State can only refuse return of abducted children to the States of habitual residence under strict circumstance, since it represents exceptional clauses that require substantial proof of physical or psychological harm or risk of harm for the children.
Mere allegations shall not be considered, especially if magistrates conclude, especially with the help of experts, that the abductor or retaining parent is actually practicing any form of Parental Alienation.
This fundamental right consists in the right to family life with both parents according to the decisions enacted according the law of the contracting State of habitual residence. Direito internacional privado.
Ante o exposto, nego seguimento ao recurso arts. Oxford University Press, Editora Revista dos Tribunais, LIMA, Georges. Last accessed in September 13th, Patricia marked it as to-read Apr 19, Rafael Ricci added it May 28, Douglas V.
Paulo Almeida marked it as to-read Feb 05, Samuel Franklin marked it as to-read May 28, Saionara Dias marked it as to-read Aug 06, Gabriella Lima marked it as to-read Aug 13, Alessandra Krouwel added it Aug 23, Ana marked it as to-read Sep 02, Kamylla Almeida added it Sep 17, Marah marked it as to-read Oct 10, Guilherme marked it as to-read Dec 08, Catiane De marked it as to-read Jan 07, Romero Pedro marked it as to-read Feb 24, Adriana Heitmann marked it as to-read Mar 01, Anapaula marked it as to-read Mar 10, Nazareth Zuquelo marked it as to-read Mar 16, Ailton Lino marked it as to-read May 24, Daiely Ramos marked it as to-read Aug 10, Luiz marked it as to-read Apr 02, Karen is currently reading it Apr 28, Jaqueline Bezerra marked it as to-read May 09, There are no discussion topics on this book yet.
About Denise Maria Perissini Silva. Denise Maria Perissini Silva. Trivia About Psicologia Juridi No trivia or quizzes yet. Welcome back.